I've just come back from the Jeremy Corbyn meeting in Cambridge. There were more people locked out from the 1400 capacity Great St Mary's Church than at the entire EU roadshow in Peterborough last Wednesday.
Corbyn spoke easily and comfortably, without note. He refers to himself in the third person throughout, which sounds odd. But the mood was that he could have said anything, and he'd have had to wait for the applause to die down.
He said that EM was much too simialar to the Tories. 'We won't make that mistake in 2020. We'll offer a new, socialist approach.'
He did mention UKIP and the Green voters, as potential supporters for 'our new socialist Labour party'.
Packed public meetings are indicative of absolutely nothing as far as the general political scene is concerned. Labour polled 8.5 million votes under Michael Foot for example. That's a lot of people but it's also a landslide defeat.
LG 1983.. Your posts do suggest that you favour Russia at almost all levels..In my history Russia has always been a major threat to our way of life... I see nothing at present to make me change that thought process.
I suppose we just have a different perception of threat. I happen to believe that a threat like Russia is quite obvious and quantifiable. If our way of life is going to be destroyed, I suspect it is because we will give it away willingly, rather than have it taken away by the Russkyes. The danger is a stab in the back, not in the front.
Your first interesting post of the night.
Let me just say that I am not anti-Russian: I have great admiration for the Russian people, who have not been well served by any person or organisation that has ruled them. I particularly admire Russian engineering; during the Cold War they achieved some miracles within a rather unhelpful political and fiscal situation. It's a shame their computer developments never really matched the west, and that story might be used as an example of the benefits of capitalism over communism.
That said, I disagree vehemently with what you wrote. If you were Georgian or Ukrainian you might have a somewhat different view.
Thanks - I'll take the compliment and discard the backhanded bit!
Of course I'd have a different view if I were a different nationality. If I were a South Osettian I might not have a very nice view of Georgia, and if I were from the Donbass, I probably wouldn't have a very nice view of Ukraine. @richardDodd was I believe discussing a threat to the UK's way of life.
Since World War I (as an arbitrary point), I believe our physical health and mental prowess have declined, our culture has been weakened, our military has been decimated, our economy eviscerated, our sovereignty eroded, our liberties removed, and rational thought is on the verge of extinction. None of that has been done by the Russians. By and large we've embraced every step on our road to ruin.
..... Just five decades ago we were spending around 10% of our GDP on the military. Do you wish to go back to those sort of levels? If not, what levels?
....
It does sound a little like you don't like the modern world, and want to get off the ride. No wonder you like Putin.
We seem to have spent 2.1% in 2014 compared to 2.4% in 2010. You may think this is bad, especially as the USA spent 3.5% in 2014. However the USA spent 4.7% in 2010. A bigger fall.
@Morris_Dancer There probably is a third way. Germany arguably has more ability to absorb and welcome more immigration than we do. They also have low birth rate, too which means that welcoming many refugees make sense for them. But much of the commentary, appears to be that the GBP's entire analysis of the situation, and opposed to simply what is in our immediate interests - is right.
As I said earlier over the last 20 years the changes in the UK and German populations have been as follows: UK +7 million, Germany -0.5 million. We've clearly been far more generous in accepting newcomers than they have, even allowing for differences in the birth rate.
This came up on Pienaar's Politics* today. Zoe Williams challenged Kendall about this and suggested that her camp were gaming the system. Burnham then came on said that he was the only one who could beat Corbyn. It's quite funny to think that Burnham's best tactic is to say 'you need to vote for me because if I get knocked out all my supporters are going to vote for Corbyn anyway'. If Labour end up with him as leader it will be almost as funny as if they get Corbyn. If Burnham wins he will lead Labour at the next election.
* By the way, what an introverted collective Labour w**k that program is.
Please do remember and repeat after me ... The weird with the beard is the commie in the Lobby; Burnham will earn 'em for the crew that is blue.
I'm actually a marketing manager but my undergraduate degree was in Modern History, Economic History and Politics.
"Marketing manager laments decline of civilization" is an Onion article waiting to be written.
Anyway, I'd suggest it's down to the erosion of traditional hierarchies, better communications and the march of free market capitalism. Some good elements, some bad elements. Better availability of food, more low-quality cheap junk food. Better job opportunities and support structures, but people move away from local communities, family and traditional support structures etc.
Not convinced it has made people any happier, even if the quality of life has vastly improved for the average person.
This came up on Pienaar's Politics* today. Zoe Williams challenged Kendall about this and suggested that her camp were gaming the system. Burnham then came on said that he was the only one who could beat Corbyn. It's quite funny to think that Burnham's best tactic is to say 'you need to vote for me because if I get knocked out all my supporters are going to vote for Corbyn anyway'. If Labour end up with him as leader it will be almost as funny as if they get Corbyn. If Burnham wins he will lead Labour at the next election.
* By the way, what an introverted collective Labour w**k that program is.
Please do remember and repeat after me ... The weird with the beard is the commie in the Lobby; Burnham will earn 'em for the crew that is blue.
Yet, Burnham or Corbyn are the only 2 candidates who seem to have generated any actual enthusiasm. Kendall at least offers something radically different, Cooper offers nothing except a desire to scrape home on preferences on the basis of being more rightwing than Corbyn, more leftwing than Kendall and more intelligent than Burnham
'Foreign aid to pay for Syrian refugees here' -- well done Osborne and Cameron.
Yes, for ONCE (is this a first) I totally agree with you, Osborne, and Cameron.
My disagreement with the govt is that this was not done sooner. That the aid budget (not all of it but progressively more) is not more definitely targeted to match our foreign policy.
And as for Osborne - I am sure his TV appearances are themselves carefully targeted at making Ed Balls choke on his cornflakes. For myself, I feel quite sad for Osborne, flatlining his way through the job of deputy prime minister.
@Morris_Dancer There probably is a third way. Germany arguably has more ability to absorb and welcome more immigration than we do. They also have low birth rate, too which means that welcoming many refugees make sense for them. But much of the commentary, appears to be that the GBP's entire analysis of the situation, and opposed to simply what is in our immediate interests - is right.
As I said earlier over the last 20 years the changes in the UK and German populations have been as follows: UK +7 million, Germany -0.5 million. We've clearly been far more generous in accepting newcomers than they have, even allowing for differences in the birth rate.
Germany accepted more than 65,000 refugees in 2014 - more than any other developed nation - and received more refugees in 2013 and 2014 than any other country in the EU.
I've just come back from the Jeremy Corbyn meeting in Cambridge. There were more people locked out from the 1400 capacity Great St Mary's Church than at the entire EU roadshow in Peterborough last Wednesday.
Corbyn spoke easily and comfortably, without note. He refers to himself in the third person throughout, which sounds odd. But the mood was that he could have said anything, and he'd have had to wait for the applause to die down.
He said that EM was much too simialar to the Tories. 'We won't make that mistake in 2020. We'll offer a new, socialist approach.'
He did mention UKIP and the Green voters, as potential supporters for 'our new socialist Labour party'.
@Morris_Dancer There probably is a third way. Germany arguably has more ability to absorb and welcome more immigration than we do. They also have low birth rate, too which means that welcoming many refugees make sense for them. But much of the commentary, appears to be that the GBP's entire analysis of the situation, and opposed to simply what is in our immediate interests - is right.
As I said earlier over the last 20 years the changes in the UK and German populations have been as follows: UK +7 million, Germany -0.5 million. We've clearly been far more generous in accepting newcomers than they have, even allowing for differences in the birth rate.
Germany accepted more than 65,000 refugees in 2014 - more than any other developed nation - and received more refugees in 2013 and 2014 than any other country in the EU.
Those population figures are correct, check them out if you like.
I was referring to the situation over the last 20 years. The British people have already maxed out on migration whereas Germany most certainly haven't. As usual we don't get the credit for quietly and studiously taking in millions of migrants over 20 years without making a song and dance about it, whereas Germany want the whole world to know how lovely and warm-hearted they are for taking hundreds of thousands in one year.
I'm actually a marketing manager but my undergraduate degree was in Modern History, Economic History and Politics.
"Marketing manager laments decline of civilization" is an Onion article waiting to be written.
Anyway, I'd suggest it's down to the erosion of traditional hierarchies, better communications and the march of free market capitalism. Some good elements, some bad elements. Better availability of food, more low-quality cheap junk food. Better job opportunities and support structures, but people move away from local communities, family and traditional support structures etc.
Not convinced it has made people any happier, even if the quality of life has vastly improved for the average person.
Marketing in its broadest sense has created the problem, so perhaps it can solve it.
Merkel's idotic decision and the consequences for free movement within the EU must be one of the biggest gifts to the Leave campain
But leave where to? In the EU we are not in Schengen. Norway are not in the EU but are in Schengen. Who is the better off?
An option is not in the EU, not in Schengen, but allowing free movement of EU citizens as we do now provided they pass border control checks.
And what in return? What about our citizens who want to work or live in the EU? What about our citizens currently living in the EU? Why should the EU operate Schengen and free movement of labour and allow us to pick and chose as part of any new deal? The EEA requires free movement of workers and it requires membership of Schengen. Why should Norway vote for us to join the EEA but not abide by the same rules they do?
Why should all the EU countries plus Norway (and Iceland+Switzerland (see below, they are in Schengen) vote to agree to let us not only leave but then agree better terms compared to when we were in and better than they have? http://www.schengenvisainfo.com/schengen-visa-countries-list/ An independent Scotland - if ever to arrive - would have to join Schengen as pert of joining the EU. Its an interesting question as to what would happen to Ireland's opt out if we just walked out of our membership of the world.
@Morris_Dancer There probably is a third way. Germany arguably has more ability to absorb and welcome more immigration than we do. They also have low birth rate, too which means that welcoming many refugees make sense for them. But much of the commentary, appears to be that the GBP's entire analysis of the situation, and opposed to simply what is in our immediate interests - is right.
As I said earlier over the last 20 years the changes in the UK and German populations have been as follows: UK +7 million, Germany -0.5 million. We've clearly been far more generous in accepting newcomers than they have, even allowing for differences in the birth rate.
Germany accepted more than 65,000 refugees in 2014 - more than any other developed nation - and received more refugees in 2013 and 2014 than any other country in the EU.
Just to clarify you're talking about 2013 and 2014. I was talking about the last 20 years. The population figures speak for themselves. We've closed the gap with Germany since 1995 from 24 million to 16 million. I doubt even Germany will allow 8 million people into the country over the next 20 years.
I've just come back from the Jeremy Corbyn meeting in Cambridge. There were more people locked out from the 1400 capacity Great St Mary's Church than at the entire EU roadshow in Peterborough last Wednesday.
Corbyn spoke easily and comfortably, without note. He refers to himself in the third person throughout, which sounds odd. But the mood was that he could have said anything, and he'd have had to wait for the applause to die down.
He said that EM was much too simialar to the Tories. 'We won't make that mistake in 2020. We'll offer a new, socialist approach.'
He did mention UKIP and the Green voters, as potential supporters for 'our new socialist Labour party'.
Looking forward to him trotting (!) out the "new socialist Labour party" line away from closed fanclub meetings, on College Green, for example or Marr, or...or...
Could be worse - English Socialism. IngSoc of course. I am sure there will be a great scramble to become members of the Inner Party in new Socialist Labour.
Could we opt out of paying for politicians? That would be a popular policy.
Applying the opt-out logic, why should people without kids have to pay for schools. Once you start the opt-out idea it's the start of the slippery slope.
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Could we opt out of paying for politicians? That would be a popular policy.
Applying the opt-out logic, why should people without kids have to pay for schools. Once you start the opt-out idea it's the start of the slippery slope.
Presumably people will be able to opt out of the BBC too. That will go down well...
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Can I opt out of paying for the NHS? I've been very dissatisfied with them recently and would prefer to go all private.
Could we opt out of paying for politicians? That would be a popular policy.
Applying the opt-out logic, why should people without kids have to pay for schools. Once you start the opt-out idea it's the start of the slippery slope.
In army terms its absurd -would these people be handed to the enemy in the event of an invasion? But in other ways I quite like the idea of more hypothecated taxes.
Could we opt out of paying for politicians? That would be a popular policy.
Applying the opt-out logic, why should people without kids have to pay for schools. Once you start the opt-out idea it's the start of the slippery slope.
Indeed, a genuinely worrying development, which I was wary of enough when its been tried in local government.
I can now report on my shopping expedition - I am the proud owner of 2 pairs of Haggar khaki slacks, list price $65 a pair. Total cost for 2 pairs plus tax - $43.
Also had lunch with my wife - salmon cakes, biscuits and corn bread. Yum. - yay Cracker Barrel.
I've just come back from the Jeremy Corbyn meeting in Cambridge. There were more people locked out from the 1400 capacity Great St Mary's Church than at the entire EU roadshow in Peterborough last Wednesday.
Corbyn spoke easily and comfortably, without note. He refers to himself in the third person throughout, which sounds odd. But the mood was that he could have said anything, and he'd have had to wait for the applause to die down.
He said that EM was much too simialar to the Tories. 'We won't make that mistake in 2020. We'll offer a new, socialist approach.'
He did mention UKIP and the Green voters, as potential supporters for 'our new socialist Labour party'.
As opposed to Scargill's Socialist Labour Party?
UKIP will not support Corbyn, ever, or any socialist policies that make the country weaker with self hatred. There may be a few of the weaker Kippers that will be attracted to C, should he win the leadership. They will soon learn how mistaken they are.
Could we opt out of paying for politicians? That would be a popular policy.
Applying the opt-out logic, why should people without kids have to pay for schools. Once you start the opt-out idea it's the start of the slippery slope.
Presumably people will be able to opt out of the BBC too. That will go down well...
Hadn't thought of that one - that's a really good idea!
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Can I opt out of paying for the NHS? I've been very dissatisfied with them recently and would prefer to go all private.
OK if you can pay for it. What about those with jobs who own their own homes opting out of paying for welfare or those who live in secure gated communities from paying for the police, those who can easily afford to access culture and gyms from paying for public museums and libraries and leisure centres etc
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Until that person gets fed up and stops paying too. We elect a government for a reason, otherwise perhaps we could start opting out of obeying laws we don't like too
@Morris_Dancer There probably is a third way. Germany arguably has more ability to absorb and welcome more immigration than we do. They also have low birth rate, too which means that welcoming many refugees make sense for them. But much of the commentary, appears to be that the GBP's entire analysis of the situation, and opposed to simply what is in our immediate interests - is right.
As I said earlier over the last 20 years the changes in the UK and German populations have been as follows: UK +7 million, Germany -0.5 million. We've clearly been far more generous in accepting newcomers than they have, even allowing for differences in the birth rate.
Germany accepted more than 65,000 refugees in 2014 - more than any other developed nation - and received more refugees in 2013 and 2014 than any other country in the EU.
Those population figures are correct, check them out if you like.
I was referring to the situation over the last 20 years. The British people have already maxed out on migration whereas Germany most certainly haven't. As usual we don't get the credit for quietly and studiously taking in millions of migrants over 20 years without making a song and dance about it, whereas Germany want the whole world to know how lovely and warm-hearted they are for taking hundreds of thousands in one year.
I don't doubt that Britain's population has grown, while Germany's hasn't. I'm trying to find something which gives information on immigration to the UK in the last twenty years. I don't know whether you're referring to economic migrants as well as asylum seekers, refugees etc but here: http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migration-uk-asylum http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Briefing - Migration to the UK - Asylum_0.pdf gives some detail on how much asylum seekers make up net migration since 1991. Since 2002, that proportion has gradually decreased - with asylum seekers making up between 4% - 11% of net migration (2004-2012). Although in 2013, there was a 4% increase in the proportion of asylum seekers that comprised net migration (from 2010). In the 1990s, asylum seekers made up between 25% to 54% of net migration, by contrast. It looks like particularly in recent years, while applications for asylum in the UK have declined, applications for asylum in Germany have soared.
And as for Germany, they are probably quite public about it because they want to prove they are a tolerant country, especially given the image many have had of the country due to WW2.
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
He did say this 16 years ago to be fair, and was being selectively quoted as is now par for the course. So not news, as is clear by it being in the Sun.
I also don't see why Labour, at this moment in time at least would be well shot of Tom Watson. It's precisely because of his experience in the political dark arts that they need him while Corbyn is at the helm.
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
He did say this 16 years ago to be fair, and was being selectively quoted as is now par for the course. So not news, as is clear by it being in the Sun.
So if elected leader he will presumably still support this policy? The quotes were not selective they were extensive. They reflect his policy. They certainly reflect his thick stupid mindset.
I also don't see why Labour, at this moment in time at least would be well shot of Tom Watson. It's precisely because of his experience in the political dark arts that they need him while Corbyn is at the helm.
Remind me how successful Watson's nonce hunting went?
Arguably he also played a huge part in Ed Balls losing his seat due to redirecting valuable resources to Sheffield Hallam.
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Until that person gets fed up and stops paying too. We elect a government for a reason, otherwise perhaps we could start opting out of obeying laws we don't like too
Obama already does that on immigration, amongst others, and also single handedly changed legislation on Obamacare over 40 times.
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Can I opt out of paying for the NHS? I've been very dissatisfied with them recently and would prefer to go all private.
You see the genius of this? Get everyone looking forward to filling in their tax return.
So a comment out of context from a couple of decades ago is now official policy going forwards. Ok. The press really have left the reservation on JC.
In their and our defence, a big pitch of his and his supporters is that he is without spin and is utterly, utterly consistent, to the point that he has, legend goes, maintained his positions on practically all policy areas across three decades in parliament. Another reason he is more vulnerable to accusations of u-turning or not u-turning, because he is making a virtue of his lack of flexibility, and he cannot do that and expect people to somehow discern which of his pronouncements from the past he does disavow or just no longer believes.
It's the same reason those who claim the moral high ground are likely to be condemned more for not living up to it than those who did not claim it in the first place.
On this idea, I'd like to know his views on it now to see if they are changed, so it can certainly be overdone, but the fact of his statement is relevant, if not as important as the media will claim, but that is always the case and not a JC thing.
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Until that person gets fed up and stops paying too. We elect a government for a reason, otherwise perhaps we could start opting out of obeying laws we don't like too
Obama already does that on immigration, amongst others, and also single handedly changed legislation on Obamacare over 40 times.
It's not a good idea.
There is a difference though between allowing children of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship, and to steal, assault and take whatever substances we want with impunity
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Until that person gets fed up and stops paying too. We elect a government for a reason, otherwise perhaps we could start opting out of obeying laws we don't like too
Obama already does that on immigration, amongst others, and also single handedly changed legislation on Obamacare over 40 times.
It's not a good idea.
There is a difference though between allowing children of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship, and to steal, assault and take whatever substances we want with impunity
I also don't see why Labour, at this moment in time at least would be well shot of Tom Watson. It's precisely because of his experience in the political dark arts that they need him while Corbyn is at the helm.
Remind me how successful Watson's nonce hunting went?
Arguably he also played a huge part in Ed Balls losing his seat due to redirecting valuable resources to Sheffield Hallam.
Watson was part of the set of Brownite acolytes who successfully deposed of Tony Blair.
I also don't see why Labour, at this moment in time at least would be well shot of Tom Watson. It's precisely because of his experience in the political dark arts that they need him while Corbyn is at the helm.
Remind me how successful Watson's nonce hunting went?
Arguably he also played a huge part in Ed Balls losing his seat due to redirecting valuable resources to Sheffield Hallam.
Watson was part of the set of Brownite acolytes who successfully deposed of Tony Blair.
Is he not the fat guy in a dark suit and Hank Marvin glasses who conducted that mind numblingly incompetent questioning of Rupert Murdoch?
I've met the other Tom Watson and I know it's not him.
@flightpath01 'And what in return? ' They get access to sell their products in the second largest market in Europe.
Europe itself is a bigger market. Quite a bit bigger in fact.
I'm quite happy being in the EEA, if by some clever device we can still avoid being in Schengen - and this still encourages us as the biggest source of EU inward investment. Of course in every other respect it will make very little difference to any movement of labour between countries or our agreement to EU standards. We may as well be still in.
I also don't see why Labour, at this moment in time at least would be well shot of Tom Watson. It's precisely because of his experience in the political dark arts that they need him while Corbyn is at the helm.
Remind me how successful Watson's nonce hunting went?
Arguably he also played a huge part in Ed Balls losing his seat due to redirecting valuable resources to Sheffield Hallam.
Watson was part of the set of Brownite acolytes who successfully deposed of Tony Blair.
Is he not the fat guy in a dark suit and Hank Marvin glasses who conducted that mind numblingly incompetent questioning of Rupert Murdoch?
I've met the other Tom Watson and I know it's not him.
I can only briefly remember Watson questioning of Murdoch in 2011, but from what I remember it wasn't incompetent. In fact, that period Watson was praised to the high heavens in many quarters. It's probably the reason why he's doing so well in the deputy leadership contest.
I also don't see why Labour, at this moment in time at least would be well shot of Tom Watson. It's precisely because of his experience in the political dark arts that they need him while Corbyn is at the helm.
Remind me how successful Watson's nonce hunting went?
Arguably he also played a huge part in Ed Balls losing his seat due to redirecting valuable resources to Sheffield Hallam.
Watson only appears to be the clever Machiavellian because he only deals with the easily malleable Labour Party.
Everything has happened before, sadly people think history stopped and we are somehow different. Future generations will regard us as one of the most unutterably stupid generations in the history of mankind.
If everything has happened before, then people thinking history has stopped must have happened before, so those in the future thinking we were unutterably stupid for that reason would be being failed by their poor historical knowledge.
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Can I opt out of paying for the NHS? I've been very dissatisfied with them recently and would prefer to go all private.
Anyone who has private healthcare should certainly be able to opt out of paying for the NHS.
and as I have a house, I won't be needing to tick the box to contribute towards social housing either.
People say all sorts of things to opinion polls. The polls that matter are the ones at the ballot box.
The very different attitudes to the EU as a result of circumstance shows the greater wisdom of the British over the Germans that I am talking about. The British can assess the European Union on a sensible pragmatic basis, where the Germans leap at the thing irrationally as a way to apologise to the rest of Europe for their history. Now that the Nazis are beginning to fall out of living memory, Euroscepticism is beginning to creep in, but it will need Merkel's generation of politicians to be replaced before it starts making major headway.
On what do you base the argument that German Euroscepticism is creeping in? The only Eurosceptic party at all (if you don't count the Communist Linke) is the AfD, which failed to win any seats and is now falling apart.
One of the difficulties of British Eurosceptics is that they mistakenly imagine there must be lots of allies out there - other countries will help block a federalist Commission President, Greece and/or Germany will want to quit the Euro, etc. In general Continental voters look on the EU with intermittent irritation but very much a permanent part of the furniture.
I also don't see why Labour, at this moment in time at least would be well shot of Tom Watson. It's precisely because of his experience in the political dark arts that they need him while Corbyn is at the helm.
Remind me how successful Watson's nonce hunting went?
Arguably he also played a huge part in Ed Balls losing his seat due to redirecting valuable resources to Sheffield Hallam.
Watson was part of the set of Brownite acolytes who successfully deposed of Tony Blair.
Pedantry alert.
It would be "disposed of Tony Blair" or plain old "deposed Tony Blair".
Personally I'm not sure why internal plotting should be regarded as a key skill-set in a position where basic political competence and ability to win elections would be a major asset. Failing that, an internal healer-of-wounds, some kind of unity figure, would fit the bill. A prolific organiser could come in handy. A dark arter, I'm really less convinced.
(Incidentally, the bit in Blair's autobiography where he talks about Watson's role in the coup is pretty damning - he was upset that, unlike Sion Simon, Watson was experienced enough that he "should have known better" and taken more care in the way he went about things. A minister calling for the PM to resign in a letter made the party look very publicly divided. To be honest this didn't require any strategic genius on Watson's part, so I wouldn't chalk Tony Blair's scalp up as a Watsonian success. Blair was pretty clearly on the cusp of going anyway: what the Brownites wanted at the time was a clear time-frame for the succession, a commitment that Blair was unwilling to give because he didn't want to become a lame duck. He felt that with a date set, he might well be forced out in advance anyway.)
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Until that person gets fed up and stops paying too. We elect a government for a reason, otherwise perhaps we could start opting out of obeying laws we don't like too
Obama already does that on immigration, amongst others, and also single handedly changed legislation on Obamacare over 40 times.
It's not a good idea.
There is a difference though between allowing children of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship, and to steal, assault and take whatever substances we want with impunity
We have that problem too - anchor babies.
Though at least the baby itself is not responsible for its actions
I also don't see why Labour, at this moment in time at least would be well shot of Tom Watson. It's precisely because of his experience in the political dark arts that they need him while Corbyn is at the helm.
Remind me how successful Watson's nonce hunting went?
Arguably he also played a huge part in Ed Balls losing his seat due to redirecting valuable resources to Sheffield Hallam.
Watson was part of the set of Brownite acolytes who successfully deposed of Tony Blair.
Is he not the fat guy in a dark suit and Hank Marvin glasses who conducted that mind numblingly incompetent questioning of Rupert Murdoch?
I've met the other Tom Watson and I know it's not him.
I can only briefly remember Watson questioning of Murdoch in 2011, but from what I remember it wasn't incompetent. In fact, that period Watson was praised to the high heavens in many quarters. It's probably the reason why he's doing so well in the deputy leadership contest.
I still have the video somewhere. You should watch a congressional hearing or two. Compared to them the whole process was frankly feeble. Watson clearly doesn't understand the point of a cross or a redirect.
I like the way that another nonsense headline from the JC media train is seen as worthy discussion amongst the PB dullerati. Its just another candidate for the 'Speak 'Corbyn' phenomenon which you really should read if you haven't yet. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CN0LSNHWoAELEnX.jpg
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Until that person gets fed up and stops paying too. We elect a government for a reason, otherwise perhaps we could start opting out of obeying laws we don't like too
Obama already does that on immigration, amongst others, and also single handedly changed legislation on Obamacare over 40 times.
It's not a good idea.
There is a difference though between allowing children of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship, and to steal, assault and take whatever substances we want with impunity
We have that problem too - anchor babies.
Though at least the baby itself is not responsible for its actions
We don't know that. I believe that babies are telepathic before birth and can coerce the mother to submit to its will. The mother is defenseless to resist.
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Until that person gets fed up and stops paying too. We elect a government for a reason, otherwise perhaps we could start opting out of obeying laws we don't like too
Obama already does that on immigration, amongst others, and also single handedly changed legislation on Obamacare over 40 times.
It's not a good idea.
There is a difference though between allowing children of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship, and to steal, assault and take whatever substances we want with impunity
We have that problem too - anchor babies.
Though at least the baby itself is not responsible for its actions
We don't know that. I believe that babies are telepathic before birth and can coerce the mother to submit to its will. The mother is defenseless to resist.
Isn't that the plot of The Midwich Cuckoos? There's your confirmation right there.
I also don't see why Labour, at this moment in time at least would be well shot of Tom Watson. It's precisely because of his experience in the political dark arts that they need him while Corbyn is at the helm.
Remind me how successful Watson's nonce hunting went?
Arguably he also played a huge part in Ed Balls losing his seat due to redirecting valuable resources to Sheffield Hallam.
Watson was part of the set of Brownite acolytes who successfully deposed of Tony Blair.
Pedantry alert.
It would be "disposed of Tony Blair" or plain old "deposed Tony Blair".
Personally I'm not sure why internal plotting should be regarded as a key skill-set in a position where basic political competence and ability to win elections would be a major asset. Failing that, an internal healer-of-wounds, some kind of unity figure, would fit the bill. A dark arter, I'm really less convinced.
....
Point out my misuse of an 'e' rather than an 'i' is probably the biggest pedantry alert I've seen on PB
Usually, I would consider basic political competence and ability to win elections as the main major asset Labour should be looking for in a deputy leader. However, at this moment in time Labour look to be set on electing Jeremy Corbyn as their leader. In this case, Peter Mandelson and Alistair Campbell could return to the scene, and Labour would still be unelectable because of the kind of person who is set to be their leader. As a result of that, the next best thing is for Labour to elect a deputy leader who can stop the party being held hostage to the whims of Corbyn and Corbynites, and become some hard-left platform. In this case, out of all of the deputy leader candidates, Tom Watson is best placed to do this. Labour were united under Ed Miliband; unity did very little for the party. In fact, under a disaster of a leader I'd wager that unity is pretty much pointless.
I know that by 2005/6 it was obvious Blair was going - he said in 2004 that he wouldn't serve another full-term. I don't think Watson is some kind of genius. But I do think that he knows the structures of the Labour party inside out, and his past regarding Blair proves that he'll be reluctant to assist in an agenda he doesn't agree with. In this case, the agenda would be the Corbynisation of the Labour party. This is important, as Corbyn himself has never really held senior positions in the party, so will most likely be relying not only on his supporters, but his deputy leader to change the structure of the Labour party to strengthen his position. Many of Corbyn's supporters - have hardly held senior positions, too.
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Until that person gets fed up and stops paying too. We elect a government for a reason, otherwise perhaps we could start opting out of obeying laws we don't like too
Obama already does that on immigration, amongst others, and also single handedly changed legislation on Obamacare over 40 times.
It's not a good idea.
There is a difference though between allowing children of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship, and to steal, assault and take whatever substances we want with impunity
We have that problem too - anchor babies.
Though at least the baby itself is not responsible for its actions
We don't know that. I believe that babies are telepathic before birth and can coerce the mother to submit to its will. The mother is defenseless to resist.
Isn't that the plot of The Midwich Cuckoos? There's your confirmation right there.
Wow - we must be telepathetic!!! I am just about to start reading Village of the Damned and Day of the Triffids on my Kindle!
'I'm quite happy being in the EEA, if by some clever device we can still avoid being in Schengen - and this still encourages us as the biggest source of EU inward investment. Of course in every other respect it will make very little difference to any movement of labour between countries or our agreement to EU standards. We may as well be still in.'
Don't see why we should be in EEA or anything else.
Canada seems to manage extremely well without being absorbed into the USA.
I like the way that another nonsense headline from the JC media train is seen as worthy discussion amongst the PB dullerati.
Um, what isn't seen as worthy discussion on here?
JWisemann's political opinions?
I wouldn't want to start that sort of precedent the next time I feel like droning on about my own personal political manifesto. I shall not be stopped!
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Until that person gets fed up and stops paying too. We elect a government for a reason, otherwise perhaps we could start opting out of obeying laws we don't like too
Obama already does that on immigration, amongst others, and also single handedly changed legislation on Obamacare over 40 times.
It's not a good idea.
There is a difference though between allowing children of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship, and to steal, assault and take whatever substances we want with impunity
We have that problem too - anchor babies.
Though at least the baby itself is not responsible for its actions
We don't know that. I believe that babies are telepathic before birth and can coerce the mother to submit to its will. The mother is defenseless to resist.
'I'm quite happy being in the EEA, if by some clever device we can still avoid being in Schengen - and this still encourages us as the biggest source of EU inward investment. Of course in every other respect it will make very little difference to any movement of labour between countries or our agreement to EU standards. We may as well be still in.'
Don't see why we should be in EEA or anything else.
Canada seems to manage extremely well without being absorbed into the USA.
I think NAFTA, with its ISDA provisions, is more denuding of sovereignty than EFTA/EEA. I don't think a provincial government in any EEA country has been forced to roll back decisions by a democratically elected local government, for example. (This happened in Quebec where an ISDA court ruled that Quebec's banning of genetically modified foods was to the disadvantage of American company Monsanto.)
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Until that person gets fed up and stops paying too. We elect a government for a reason, otherwise perhaps we could start opting out of obeying laws we don't like too
Obama already does that on immigration, amongst others, and also single handedly changed legislation on Obamacare over 40 times.
It's not a good idea.
There is a difference though between allowing children of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship, and to steal, assault and take whatever substances we want with impunity
We have that problem too - anchor babies.
Though at least the baby itself is not responsible for its actions
We don't know that. I believe that babies are telepathic before birth and can coerce the mother to submit to its will. The mother is defenseless to resist.
People say all sorts of things to opinion polls. The polls that matter are the ones at the ballot box.
The very different attitudes to the EU as a result of circumstance shows the greater wisdom of the British over the Germans that I am talking about. The British can assess the European Union on a sensible pragmatic basis, where the Germans leap at the thing irrationally as a way to apologise to the rest of Europe for their history. Now that the Nazis are beginning to fall out of living memory, Euroscepticism is beginning to creep in, but it will need Merkel's generation of politicians to be replaced before it starts making major headway.
On what do you base the argument that German Euroscepticism is creeping in? The only Eurosceptic party at all (if you don't count the Communist Linke) is the AfD, which failed to win any seats and is now falling apart.
One of the difficulties of British Eurosceptics is that they mistakenly imagine there must be lots of allies out there - other countries will help block a federalist Commission President, Greece and/or Germany will want to quit the Euro, etc. In general Continental voters look on the EU with intermittent irritation but very much a permanent part of the furniture.
The euro.
The euro, the euro, the euro.
*debate ends*
Wait: isn't German unemployment at a 25 year low? (About the only place in the world where that's true.)
On the subject of Tom Watson, I will reproduce most of the email I got sent from his campaign before the leadership election.
Dear Burning-- [MBE's note: Yes, not Dear Mr Ears, but Dear Burning. Do you know me Mr Watson? On first name terms are we? I find this sort of pseudo-ingratiating informality really infuriating, but he was not the only candidate guilty of this offence, of course.]
At the same time as electing a new leader, the Labour party is choosing a new deputy leader. Previously this was done by Harriet Harman and before that John Prescott. Along with four other candidates, I've put myself forward this time for the job.
It’s not easy to encapsulate a 40-year political life [MBE's note: the man is 48. I will let the good denizens of PB perform the necessary feats of mental arithmetic] in a booklet, but here is my attempt. If you could please take just a few minutes to have a quick look before casting your vote, I’d be really grateful.
Your ballot paper should arrive shortly and you've got till 10 September to send it back. If it doesn't arrive, or you can't find it when you come to vote, please email me on tom@tom-watson.com and I'll let you know who to contact.
I slightly surprised myself by standing for this post; and I've been absolutely astonished by the outpouring of support I've had in response. [MBE's note: Oh yes, Mr Watson, bet you were really surprised when one day you woke up and you discovered you accidentally signed up to be Deputy Leader of the Labour Party. I mean what kind of wally does that, eh? Must have been quite a shock for you! Nobody would have put you down as an ambitious political careerist before, least of all the PR advisers Gordon & Badley Communications who you laid out thousands of pounds on during your "makeover" period. Though presumably the fact you paid them so much money surprised you too. At least it was taxpayers' money, eh?] ...
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Until that person gets fed up and stops paying too. We elect a government for a reason, otherwise perhaps we could start opting out of obeying laws we don't like too
Obama already does that on immigration, amongst others, and also single handedly changed legislation on Obamacare over 40 times.
It's not a good idea.
There is a difference though between allowing children of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship, and to steal, assault and take whatever substances we want with impunity
We have that problem too - anchor babies.
Though at least the baby itself is not responsible for its actions
We don't know that. I believe that babies are telepathic before birth and can coerce the mother to submit to its will. The mother is defenseless to resist.
I've been supported by 67 MPs, almost half of Britain’s Labour MEPs and 174 Constituency Labour Parties – the most of any deputy leadership candidate. And most gratifying of all is the messages of support I've received from new registered supporters like Claire Parry and others like actor Ricky Tomlinson. [MBE's note. RICKY TOMLINSON. There must be a lot of long-standing Labour people for whom that would be a real kick in the teeth, not least of Luciana Berger... the man has been campaigning AGAINST Labour for decades. Still, at least it's a 'sleb endorsement, got to make the most of those.]
If I'm honest, I think a lot of this support comes not because people think I'm the slickest politician on offer, but actually because they think I'm the least like a politician. I've decided to take this as a compliment, though it’s probably a bit misleading: I've been a Government Minister in several departments under two Prime Ministers, Deputy Chair of the Labour Party under Ed Miliband, an MP for 14 years, before that I worked for a trade union, and so on. I can hardly claim to be an outsider. But the most high-profile things I've done have probably been outside the “normal” range of what UK politicians do.
I took on Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation over the phone hacking scandal, with a fair degree of success against pretty terrifying odds. And I fought to uncover child-abuse cover-ups at the heart of the British establishment. Again, people said I was a conspiracy theorist, but, again, there did turn out to be a very serious, and sickening, conspiracy. [MBE's note: That's his bold. He clearly views Murdoch and the paedo-thing as his main selling point, probably what he is best known for after all. Oh and yes, "terrifying". You're so brave Mr Watson. Save me, Tom. Save us all!]
What I want to do this time is help our new Leader get into Downing Street so that Labour can make Britain a better place. My project is as simple – and difficult - as that. Again, I'm told everywhere that it can’t be done; again, I say that it can.
My ideas about how are in the short booklet here. Please do try and spare just a few minutes to have a look, and if you think I can help make the difference, then I ask for your support. If I'm not your first choice, please make me your second preference.
Most importantly, though, whoever you choose, please do cast your vote in this election. Democracy’s too great a privilege to waste.
You need to send your ballot paper back by 10 September.
If you have any problems with or questions about the process, or anything else, please email me on tom@tom-watson.com and I’ll do my best to help.
With very best wishes,
Yours sincerely
Tom [MBE's note, he I didn't cut out the "Watson". See note by "Dear Burning".]
So yes, in case anybody didn't notice, I thought Tom Watson's message to supporters was really quite annoying. I actually quite liked what some of the other candidates had to say, even if I didn't agree with them over everything.
People say all sorts of things to opinion polls. The polls that matter are the ones at the ballot box.
The very different attitudes to the EU as a result of circumstance shows the greater wisdom of the British over the Germans that I am talking about. The British can assess the European Union on a sensible pragmatic basis, where the Germans leap at the thing irrationally as a way to apologise to the rest of Europe for their history. Now that the Nazis are beginning to fall out of living memory, Euroscepticism is beginning to creep in, but it will need Merkel's generation of politicians to be replaced before it starts making major headway.
On what do you base the argument that German Euroscepticism is creeping in? The only Eurosceptic party at all (if you don't count the Communist Linke) is the AfD, which failed to win any seats and is now falling apart.
One of the difficulties of British Eurosceptics is that they mistakenly imagine there must be lots of allies out there - other countries will help block a federalist Commission President, Greece and/or Germany will want to quit the Euro, etc. In general Continental voters look on the EU with intermittent irritation but very much a permanent part of the furniture.
The euro.
The euro, the euro, the euro.
*debate ends*
Indeed, plus Marine Le Pen leads in France, in Scandinavia eurosceptic parties have been sweeping the board, in Hungary Viktor Orban is taking a tougher line, outside of the Benelux nations reservations about the EU are growing, and Sweden, Denmark and much of Eastern Europe share reservations about the EU that are are similar to our own, they also being non-Eurozone areas. Anyway, will leave it there
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Until that person gets fed up and stops paying too. We elect a government for a reason, otherwise perhaps we could start opting out of obeying laws we don't like too
Obama already does that on immigration, amongst others, and also single handedly changed legislation on Obamacare over 40 times.
It's not a good idea.
There is a difference though between allowing children of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship, and to steal, assault and take whatever substances we want with impunity
We have that problem too - anchor babies.
Though at least the baby itself is not responsible for its actions
We don't know that. I believe that babies are telepathic before birth and can coerce the mother to submit to its will. The mother is defenseless to resist.
Unemployment is not a problem across the non-euro West (e.g. the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, Denmark). It IS a problem in much of the eurozone. e.g. in Spain where it is still an eye-watering 22%.
Relatedly, I have just this evening returned from Iceland (where I stayed en route home from Greenland). Remember non-euro Iceland was a Great Recession basket case, along with eurozone Ireland?
Iceland's unemployment rate now? 4.6%
Ireland's? 9.7%
After a decade and a half, the evidence is now in: the euro slows growth, creates unemployment, hampers national governments, hinders fiscal flexibility, and does not assist trade as promised. It's a great big heap of Hfffpppttmeh. Yet most Europeans still swear by it. Such is the wisdom of the continental crowd.
Fixed exchange rate systems are hard. And they are especially hard if you base your economic model consists of high levels of employment protection, offset by near constant devaluations. That was the situation in "Club Med": Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy.
When they entered the Euro, they didn't realise that it wouldn't work for their economic models. They either needed to change to a flexible labour system, or they needed to leave the Euro.
(The funny bit about Germany, of course, is that it used to have inflexible labour markets. Then - post reunification - the Haartz reforms freed up the German labour market, and gave it a huge advantage in Euroland. But that's another story.)
I would point out, by the way, that Europe had structurally higher unemployment than China, the UK, the US etc., in 1999 - so you need to compare unemployment (or even better, employment) rates compare to the average for the 1990s, otherwise you are not going to be able to strip out what is the result of inflexible labour markets generally, and what is the Euro specifically.
'I think NAFTA, with its ISDA provisions, is more denuding of sovereignty than EFTA/EEA. I don't think a provincial government in any EEA country has been forced to roll back decisions by a democratically elected local government, for example. (This happened in Quebec where an ISDA court ruled that Quebec's banning of genetically modified foods was to the disadvantage of American company Monsanto.)'
Nothing is perfect.
But you come up with one example of a democratically elected government having to roll back a decision versus the UK democratically elected government having around 60% of its legislation imposed on it by the EU that nobody elected..
This doesn't work because money is fungible and they'd just spend more of somebody else's money on paying for the army. But as a gimmick it could help make people less reluctant to pay their taxes. You should be able to check a box for things like "I don't want my money to go to benefits for immigrants" as well.
Until that person gets fed up and stops paying too. We elect a government for a reason, otherwise perhaps we could start opting out of obeying laws we don't like too
Obama already does that on immigration, amongst others, and also single handedly changed legislation on Obamacare over 40 times.
It's not a good idea.
There is a difference though between allowing children of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship, and to steal, assault and take whatever substances we want with impunity
We have that problem too - anchor babies.
Though at least the baby itself is not responsible for its actions
We don't know that. I believe that babies are telepathic before birth and can coerce the mother to submit to its will. The mother is defenseless to resist.
I think a hint it is time for bed, night!
Bed? It's barely 7!
Past midnight UK time and work tomorrow
Tomorrow is Labor Day here Sleep well.
I will be doing no labour tomorrow, that's for sure!
I also don't see why Labour, at this moment in time at least would be well shot of Tom Watson. It's precisely because of his experience in the political dark arts that they need him while Corbyn is at the helm.
Remind me how successful Watson's nonce hunting went?
Arguably he also played a huge part in Ed Balls losing his seat due to redirecting valuable resources to Sheffield Hallam.
Watson was part of the set of Brownite acolytes who successfully deposed of Tony Blair.
Pedantry alert.
It would be "disposed of Tony Blair" or plain old "deposed Tony Blair".
Personally I'm not sure why internal plotting should be regarded as a key skill-set in a position where basic political competence and ability to win elections would be a major asset. Failing that, an internal healer-of-wounds, some kind of unity figure, would fit the bill. A prolific organiser could come in handy. A dark arter, I'm really less convinced.
Pedantry alert: shouldn't that be "dark artist"? :-)
I don't understand how it's humane and dignified to open the Austrian border for a couple of days and then abruptly shut it again. It seems like a recipe for huge disappointment among the refugees who weren't fast enough to get through in time.
For the longest time I was not happy with the EU but felt we'd probably be worse off outside, so that was that, but eventually I just got so godsdamned sick of their crap. I still don't know we'd be better off, but I know we'd probably feel worse if we stayed in regardless.
Comments
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/eastern-border_swiss-border-guards-brace-for-migrant-influx/41645426
Half want the border closed.
The weird with the beard is the commie in the Lobby; Burnham will earn 'em for the crew that is blue.
Anyway, I'd suggest it's down to the erosion of traditional hierarchies, better communications and the march of free market capitalism. Some good elements, some bad elements. Better availability of food, more low-quality cheap junk food. Better job opportunities and support structures, but people move away from local communities, family and traditional support structures etc.
Not convinced it has made people any happier, even if the quality of life has vastly improved for the average person.
http://www.sunnation.co.uk/taxpayers-should-be-able-to-opt-out-of-funding-army-corbyn-says/
And as for Osborne - I am sure his TV appearances are themselves carefully targeted at making Ed Balls choke on his cornflakes. For myself, I feel quite sad for Osborne, flatlining his way through the job of deputy prime minister.
According to this:http://www.nupoliticalreview.com/?p=3227
Germany accepted more than 65,000 refugees in 2014 - more than any other developed nation - and received more refugees in 2013 and 2014 than any other country in the EU.
I was referring to the situation over the last 20 years. The British people have already maxed out on migration whereas Germany most certainly haven't. As usual we don't get the credit for quietly and studiously taking in millions of migrants over 20 years without making a song and dance about it, whereas Germany want the whole world to know how lovely and warm-hearted they are for taking hundreds of thousands in one year.
Why should all the EU countries plus Norway (and Iceland+Switzerland (see below, they are in Schengen) vote to agree to let us not only leave but then agree better terms compared to when we were in and better than they have?
http://www.schengenvisainfo.com/schengen-visa-countries-list/
An independent Scotland - if ever to arrive - would have to join Schengen as pert of joining the EU. Its an interesting question as to what would happen to Ireland's opt out if we just walked out of our membership of the world.
That would be a popular policy.
If Corbyn wins the LL, won’t this make things a little awkward for him and his new deputy?
Presumably people will be able to opt out of the BBC too. That will go down well...
I can now report on my shopping expedition - I am the proud owner of 2 pairs of Haggar khaki slacks, list price $65 a pair. Total cost for 2 pairs plus tax - $43.
Also had lunch with my wife - salmon cakes, biscuits and corn bread. Yum. - yay Cracker Barrel.
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/migobs/Briefing - Migration to the UK - Asylum_0.pdf gives some detail on how much asylum seekers make up net migration since 1991. Since 2002, that proportion has gradually decreased - with asylum seekers making up between 4% - 11% of net migration (2004-2012). Although in 2013, there was a 4% increase in the proportion of asylum seekers that comprised net migration (from 2010). In the 1990s, asylum seekers made up between 25% to 54% of net migration, by contrast. It looks like particularly in recent years, while applications for asylum in the UK have declined, applications for asylum in Germany have soared.
And as for Germany, they are probably quite public about it because they want to prove they are a tolerant country, especially given the image many have had of the country due to WW2.
'And what in return? '
They get access to sell their products in the second largest market in Europe.
Arguably he also played a huge part in Ed Balls losing his seat due to redirecting valuable resources to Sheffield Hallam.
It's not a good idea.
It's the same reason those who claim the moral high ground are likely to be condemned more for not living up to it than those who did not claim it in the first place.
On this idea, I'd like to know his views on it now to see if they are changed, so it can certainly be overdone, but the fact of his statement is relevant, if not as important as the media will claim, but that is always the case and not a JC thing.
I've met the other Tom Watson and I know it's not him.
I'm quite happy being in the EEA, if by some clever device we can still avoid being in Schengen - and this still encourages us as the biggest source of EU inward investment. Of course in every other respect it will make very little difference to any movement of labour between countries or our agreement to EU standards. We may as well be still in.
and as I have a house, I won't be needing to tick the box to contribute towards social housing either.
One of the difficulties of British Eurosceptics is that they mistakenly imagine there must be lots of allies out there - other countries will help block a federalist Commission President, Greece and/or Germany will want to quit the Euro, etc. In general Continental voters look on the EU with intermittent irritation but very much a permanent part of the furniture.
It would be "disposed of Tony Blair" or plain old "deposed Tony Blair".
Personally I'm not sure why internal plotting should be regarded as a key skill-set in a position where basic political competence and ability to win elections would be a major asset. Failing that, an internal healer-of-wounds, some kind of unity figure, would fit the bill. A prolific organiser could come in handy. A dark arter, I'm really less convinced.
(Incidentally, the bit in Blair's autobiography where he talks about Watson's role in the coup is pretty damning - he was upset that, unlike Sion Simon, Watson was experienced enough that he "should have known better" and taken more care in the way he went about things. A minister calling for the PM to resign in a letter made the party look very publicly divided. To be honest this didn't require any strategic genius on Watson's part, so I wouldn't chalk Tony Blair's scalp up as a Watsonian success. Blair was pretty clearly on the cusp of going anyway: what the Brownites wanted at the time was a clear time-frame for the succession, a commitment that Blair was unwilling to give because he didn't want to become a lame duck. He felt that with a date set, he might well be forced out in advance anyway.)
You should watch a congressional hearing or two. Compared to them the whole process was frankly feeble. Watson clearly doesn't understand the point of a cross or a redirect.
1 Jason Day does not win tomorrow
and
2 Rory McIlroy finishes outside the top ten
then Jordan Spieth would become world #1 the same week as he missed the cut.
No player has ever done that before.
Usually, I would consider basic political competence and ability to win elections as the main major asset Labour should be looking for in a deputy leader. However, at this moment in time Labour look to be set on electing Jeremy Corbyn as their leader. In this case, Peter Mandelson and Alistair Campbell could return to the scene, and Labour would still be unelectable because of the kind of person who is set to be their leader. As a result of that, the next best thing is for Labour to elect a deputy leader who can stop the party being held hostage to the whims of Corbyn and Corbynites, and become some hard-left platform. In this case, out of all of the deputy leader candidates, Tom Watson is best placed to do this. Labour were united under Ed Miliband; unity did very little for the party. In fact, under a disaster of a leader I'd wager that unity is pretty much pointless.
I know that by 2005/6 it was obvious Blair was going - he said in 2004 that he wouldn't serve another full-term. I don't think Watson is some kind of genius. But I do think that he knows the structures of the Labour party inside out, and his past regarding Blair proves that he'll be reluctant to assist in an agenda he doesn't agree with. In this case, the agenda would be the Corbynisation of the Labour party. This is important, as Corbyn himself has never really held senior positions in the party, so will most likely be relying not only on his supporters, but his deputy leader to change the structure of the Labour party to strengthen his position. Many of Corbyn's supporters - have hardly held senior positions, too.
'I'm quite happy being in the EEA, if by some clever device we can still avoid being in Schengen - and this still encourages us as the biggest source of EU inward investment. Of course in every other respect it will make very little difference to any movement of labour between countries or our agreement to EU standards. We may as well be still in.'
Don't see why we should be in EEA or anything else.
Canada seems to manage extremely well without being absorbed into the USA.
Good night all.
It's as simple as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_World_Golf_Ranking
As for his claims to political genius, I present two pieces of evidence: the Bradford West by-election, for which some blame was thrust in his direction, and then the farce in candidate selection at Falkirk (for which he got the chop).
Damage will be impossible to reverse, warns head of UNHCR, after 10% fall in funding forces cuts to food rations and closure of clinics"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/06/refugee-crisis-un-agencies-broke-failing
When they entered the Euro, they didn't realise that it wouldn't work for their economic models. They either needed to change to a flexible labour system, or they needed to leave the Euro.
(The funny bit about Germany, of course, is that it used to have inflexible labour markets. Then - post reunification - the Haartz reforms freed up the German labour market, and gave it a huge advantage in Euroland. But that's another story.)
I would point out, by the way, that Europe had structurally higher unemployment than China, the UK, the US etc., in 1999 - so you need to compare unemployment (or even better, employment) rates compare to the average for the 1990s, otherwise you are not going to be able to strip out what is the result of inflexible labour markets generally, and what is the Euro specifically.
'I think NAFTA, with its ISDA provisions, is more denuding of sovereignty than EFTA/EEA. I don't think a provincial government in any EEA country has been forced to roll back decisions by a democratically elected local government, for example. (This happened in Quebec where an ISDA court ruled that Quebec's banning of genetically modified foods was to the disadvantage of American company Monsanto.)'
Nothing is perfect.
But you come up with one example of a democratically elected government having to roll back a decision versus the UK democratically elected government having around 60% of its legislation imposed on it by the EU that nobody elected..
I think I could live with the Canadian situation.
http://news.sky.com/story/1547773/europe-divided-as-austria-to-resume-border-limits