politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ministers U-turn over the Saudi prison deal following an un

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Ministers U-turn over the Saudi prison deal following an unlikely alliance of Michael Gove and Jeremy Corbyn

Gove & Corbyn unusual allies on cancelling Saudi prisons deal; MoJ objections overruled by FCO & No 10 (The Times) https://t.co/GyZ8hd5YkR

Read the full story here

Anorak

First?

And good. Well done Gove; a credit to him.

John_M

I'm practicing to be an official Labour party spokesman. This is a terrible, or possibly great, thing to happen. Let me get back to you later.

surbiton

Anorak said:

First?

And good. Well done Gove; a credit to him.

No. Corbyn was first on this one.

DavidL

FPT
@Stodge

I have real reservations about the idea of this being a law rather than a policy but I disagree with your reasoning. The fact that tory governments have overspent in the past actually helps to make the case for the rule rather than the reverse.

The fact is that elected politicians of all stripes want to deliver a buoyant economy at election times and focus on that narrow window instead of the longer term good of the country. To a certain extent Osborne himself did that from 2012 onwards when he considerably slowed the rate of deficit reduction in recognition that the economy was not exactly roaring (it was in fact doing somewhat better than official statistics of the time indicated but that is another matter).

I don't think anyone serious has any problem with a countercyclical budget with deficits and additional spending when the economy is in recession. Many on the left, however, have a major problem with the quid pro quo of surpluses during boom periods. The temptation of politicians to bribe us with our own money is strong and it is never hard to find a real need for a new hospital, school, road, bridge, railway, airport, etc etc

At the moment we have debt at about 85% of GDP. This costs a lot of money in interest and reduces the ability of governments to respond positively when the need arises. I do think a policy of having surpluses in all times other than periods of below average growth makes a great deal of sense and will give the country better options. So I like the policy but really question whether it should be a matter of law.

Charles

@HurstLlama FPT

Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.

I simply said 'bribe them' but your explanation is a little more elegant!

John_M

Charles said:

@HurstLlama FPT

Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.

I simply said 'bribe them' but your explanation is a little more elegant!

It's positively Bevanite to stuff their mouths with gold.

DavidL

Well done Gove. Once again showing his libertarian tendencies.

The criminal justice system in Saudi is disgusting. We do not want to be associated with it in any way let alone give it a patina of credibility. Were we going to be advising on the length of the lashes?

Yuck.

JEO

Charles said:

@HurstLlama FPT

Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.

I simply said 'bribe them' but your explanation is a little more elegant!

I once read that research suggested people often became more opposed to a local project when they were offered money. Apparently the behavioural economics behind it was that people think "if they're trying to bribe me, there must be something really wrong with it!"

It would certainly work on me, however.

Anorak

surbiton said:

Anorak said:

First?

And good. Well done Gove; a credit to him.

No. Corbyn was first on this one.

It was tongue-in-cheek given Chris Brooke's tweet. I did read the article you know.

[That said, Gove has gone up further in my estimation because of this. He pushed it through in the face of pretty stiff cabinet opposition. Anyone can say "you should do this", but not everyone is in a position, or is willing to spend enough capital, to make it happen.]

Richard_Nabavi

The Guardian seems to think that Gove was the prime mover on this, starting back in July:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/13/gove-emerges-as-human-rights-hero-over-bid-to-scrap-saudi-prisons-deal

(I don't know why they are surprised that Gove is a champion of human rights. He always has been.)

Philip_Thompson

DavidL said:

At the moment we have debt at about 85% of GDP. This costs a lot of money in interest and reduces the ability of governments to respond positively when the need arises. I do think a policy of having surpluses in all times other than periods of below average growth makes a great deal of sense and will give the country better options. So I like the policy but really question whether it should be a matter of law.

I don't question it.

The fact is laws can be reversed. However that would mean this (or a future) government would have to reverse the law. Which will trigger two responses, first a debate in Parliament on reversing the law, secondly if the stuff hits the fan afterwards and reversing it was a mistake then this will be a clear issue of "well you decided to do this".

Its not iron-cast but nothing ever can be. However I think it is appropriate that if the government is going to borrow in boom times with an 85% debt:GDP ratio then we should trigger a Parliamentary debate and the government should justify why they are doing it.

Plato_Says

Rob Ford
UKIP majority on Thanet council lasted less than 5 months, as 5 members split to form new group: http://t.co/f5pdpBjES6

Plato_Says

Lol

Ross Hawking
Interesting turn of phrase on the Lords annunciator http://t.co/M0amuND9cY

TOPPING

JEO said:

Charles said:

@HurstLlama FPT

Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.

I simply said 'bribe them' but your explanation is a little more elegant!

I once read that research suggested people often became more opposed to a local project when they were offered money. Apparently the behavioural economics behind it was that people think "if they're trying to bribe me, there must be something really wrong with it!"

It would certainly work on me, however.

Isn't this how they get to build on gardens? Offer the first person a huge amount of money so FOMO grips everyone else and before you know it, everyone has sold..

watford30

O woe. Save their tax credits!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3269511/Britain-s-Shameless-mother-twelve-rakes-40-000-year-benefits-reveals-spent-1-300-gifts-son-s-sixth-birthday-tells-taxpayers-ve-got-opinion-stuffed.html

JEO

European officials are warning David Cameron to meet a deadline of early November to spell out in writing his demands for EU reform, according to senior diplomatic sources. If the British prime minister does not produce the list by early November, the sources said, the topic will be wiped from the agenda of the December EU leaders’ summit. That meeting has long been planned as the moment for European leaders to give direction on what British demands they are willing to entertain in order to keep the U.K. in the European Union.

http://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-gives-cameron-a-november-deadline-merkel-tusk-brexit-farror-euroskeptics/

The phrase "willing to entertain" makes the EU leaders sound like some sort of absolutist monarchy.

DavidL

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

At the moment we have debt at about 85% of GDP. This costs a lot of money in interest and reduces the ability of governments to respond positively when the need arises. I do think a policy of having surpluses in all times other than periods of below average growth makes a great deal of sense and will give the country better options. So I like the policy but really question whether it should be a matter of law.

I don't question it.

The fact is laws can be reversed. However that would mean this (or a future) government would have to reverse the law. Which will trigger two responses, first a debate in Parliament on reversing the law, secondly if the stuff hits the fan afterwards and reversing it was a mistake then this will be a clear issue of "well you decided to do this".

Its not iron-cast but nothing ever can be. However I think it is appropriate that if the government is going to borrow in boom times with an 85% debt:GDP ratio then we should trigger a Parliamentary debate and the government should justify why they are doing it.

Is that not called a budget speech? And do we not debate it already?

JosiasJessop

JEO said:

Charles said:

@HurstLlama FPT

Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.

I simply said 'bribe them' but your explanation is a little more elegant!

I once read that research suggested people often became more opposed to a local project when they were offered money. Apparently the behavioural economics behind it was that people think "if they're trying to bribe me, there must be something really wrong with it!"

It would certainly work on me, however.

FPT:

Whilst I agree with both of you that compulsory purchase prices for such schemes should be increased, it would not solve the problem in total.

For as well as the people whose properties need to be purchased, others complain:

*) Locals whose properties are not to be purchased. Their objections can be reasonable: e.g. noise foootprints (ISTR there is compensation for this in HS2, although many say the distance at which compensation is granted is too short), diverted rights of way, views, local traffic (both during construction and afterwards), etc, etc. There are also many who are genuine NIMBYs.

*) Pressure groups. For instance one of the biggest objectors to a Severn Barrage are the RSPB, despite getting their own way on many projects of their liking with merely a squeak.

As an example of the former, I heard of one farmer who objected to HS1 because his land would be split into two. The alternative route they gave him was along a busy road that he could not safely take stock down. His objection was reasonable, and an alternative was devised at some cost to the project.

Sandpit

Richard_Nabavi said:

The Guardian seems to think that Gove was the prime mover on this, starting back in July:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/13/gove-emerges-as-human-rights-hero-over-bid-to-scrap-saudi-prisons-deal

(I don't know why they are surprised that Gove is a champion of human rights. He always has been.)

Was it only me whose favourite moment of the last Parliament was Gove reminding Leveson about the importance of freedom of speech..?

DavidL

Sandpit said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The Guardian seems to think that Gove was the prime mover on this, starting back in July:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/13/gove-emerges-as-human-rights-hero-over-bid-to-scrap-saudi-prisons-deal

(I don't know why they are surprised that Gove is a champion of human rights. He always has been.)

Was it only me who's favourite moment of the last Parliament was Gove reminding Leveson about the importance of freedom of speech..?

Nope. Referred to it the other day. It was excellent. Leveson was an ass and his inquiry a farce but very few public figures had the courage to say so.

AlastairMeeks

Good. I don't mind success having many authors. I do want to see my government having nothing to do with a vile and backward regime's administration.

flightpath01

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

At the moment we have debt at about 85% of GDP. This costs a lot of money in interest and reduces the ability of governments to respond positively when the need arises. I do think a policy of having surpluses in all times other than periods of below average growth makes a great deal of sense and will give the country better options. So I like the policy but really question whether it should be a matter of law.

I don't question it.

The fact is laws can be reversed. However that would mean this (or a future) government would have to reverse the law. Which will trigger two responses, first a debate in Parliament on reversing the law, secondly if the stuff hits the fan afterwards and reversing it was a mistake then this will be a clear issue of "well you decided to do this".

Its not iron-cast but nothing ever can be. However I think it is appropriate that if the government is going to borrow in boom times with an 85% debt:GDP ratio then we should trigger a Parliamentary debate and the government should justify why they are doing it.

Is that not called a budget speech? And do we not debate it already?

So remind me, all through Brown's many budget speeches how often his ruinous spending and increasing structural deficits were discussed??

Scott_P

@JohnRentoul: Make a right-thinking liberal lefty sputter: ask what they think of Michael Gove now.

Richard_Tyndall

JosiasJessop said:

JEO said:

Charles said:

@HurstLlama FPT

Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.

I simply said 'bribe them' but your explanation is a little more elegant!

I once read that research suggested people often became more opposed to a local project when they were offered money. Apparently the behavioural economics behind it was that people think "if they're trying to bribe me, there must be something really wrong with it!"

It would certainly work on me, however.

FPT:

Whilst I agree with both of you that compulsory purchase prices for such schemes should be increased, it would not solve the problem in total.

For as well as the people whose properties need to be purchased, others complain:

*) Locals whose properties are not to be purchased. Their objections can be reasonable: e.g. noise foootprints (ISTR there is compensation for this in HS2, although many say the distance at which compensation is granted is too short), diverted rights of way, views, local traffic (both during construction and afterwards), etc, etc. There are also many who are genuine NIMBYs.

*) Pressure groups. For instance one of the biggest objectors to a Severn Barrage are the RSPB, despite getting their own way on many projects of their liking with merely a squeak.

As an example of the former, I heard of one farmer who objected to HS1 because his land would be split into two. The alternative route they gave him was along a busy road that he could not safely take stock down. His objection was reasonable, and an alternative was devised at some cost to the project.

Not to use as an argument against HS2 even though as you know I oppose it as a white elephant. But I remember hearing a programme about some of those living along the HS1 corridor in Kent whose lives had been blighted by the extreme noise from the trains because the limits for compensation had been set too close. Whilst I understand that radio can perhaps be manipulated to make things sound louder, taken on face value, the noise they had to suffer did seem extreme.

Still it is better than some of the earlier TGV routes in France where, if you house was directly in line and knocked down then you got compensation but if the train ran 50 feet from you window you got nothing. There were a lot of law suits about that at the time.

Philip_Thompson

FPT response next post as body too long otherwise:

Alanbrooke said:

Oh well if I must - the problem with being older is you appreciate your time much more.

This is simply Osborne playing politcal games, efrfective ones yes, but ones which do nothing for our economy.

Firstly this is a set of rules which GO himself hasn't kept for the last 6 years and which he has no chance of keeping for the next 3 or 4. So will he send himself to prison ? Can't see it myself.

Secondly as you can see on this thread there are so many caveats and let outs ( if it's a recession, what is spending etc. ) that the whole thing is stuffed full of holes.

Thirdly it's madness to set binding rules even one's stuffed with holes -since each set of of economic problems need different solutions, there may well come a time when a deficit is the right answer. The economy is doing well but - a big bank keels over or we are funding a war or a major inestment programme is required or there is a dip in tax receipts as sometimes happens. In that event are we going to shove up taxes or stop child benefit to meet a rule plucked out of Osborne's fundament ?

Fourthly in any case if Labour get back in to power they'll simply change the law as is their right, they'll justify it it "becasue it's the right thing to do",there'll be a bit of a hoohah for a week or so and then the story will change.So in effect he's only limiting a cosnervative CoE' room for manoeuvre ie shooting himself in the foot but can't quite see it.

This is stupid politics and one of the reasons Osborne annoys me, if he'd spend his time getting on with structural reforms to the economy we'd all be better off. But he's Brown's bastard son I'm afraid.

Philip_Thompson

Totally disagreed.

Firstly: Osborne is clearing up Brown's mess and attempting to fix things so that we are in surplus by the time of the next inevitable recession. Had Brown followed Osborne's rules and we'd been in surplus in 2007 then Osborne would not be needing to fix Brown's mess.

Secondly: There are guidelines as to when a deficit should be OK. IIRC it is up to the OBR to determine with a sub 1% growth being the guideline. To have the OBR determine if a deficit is OK could end up being like having the Bank of England determining interest rates which is the only thing Brown did that he deserves credit for in my eyes and something nobody now would reverse.

Thirdly: If an emergency happens then the government of the day can go to Parliament and say we are suspending this rule because insert reasons here and have a vote in Parliament. That seems the right response.

Fourthly: We'll see if Labour reverse the law. If they do that is their right, as is every law, but that suggests we should have no laws unless everyone agrees. Again Labour would have to go to Parliament and justify it and be held accountable by voters. If a long time passes as it should were surpluses in booms is the new normal then like BoE independence diverting from this path could be harder than you imagine.

It seems to me you're upset with Osborne trying to enshrine sound finances not because you object in principle to his financial guidelines but because you don't think Labour would follow it. I don't think that's good enough a reason not to be responsible and try to hold the government of the day (and future governments) to account.

SimonStClare

Plato_Says said:

Lol
Ross Hawking
Interesting turn of phrase on the Lords annunciator http://t.co/M0amuND9cY

My guess it’s an anachronism from days gone by – does raise an eyebrow today however…

Roger

Does anyone know what the Saudi prison deal involved? How to cut off a limb using minimal anaesthetic?

How to sever several heads without incurring overtime?

Philip_Thompson

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

At the moment we have debt at about 85% of GDP. This costs a lot of money in interest and reduces the ability of governments to respond positively when the need arises. I do think a policy of having surpluses in all times other than periods of below average growth makes a great deal of sense and will give the country better options. So I like the policy but really question whether it should be a matter of law.

I don't question it.

The fact is laws can be reversed. However that would mean this (or a future) government would have to reverse the law. Which will trigger two responses, first a debate in Parliament on reversing the law, secondly if the stuff hits the fan afterwards and reversing it was a mistake then this will be a clear issue of "well you decided to do this".

Its not iron-cast but nothing ever can be. However I think it is appropriate that if the government is going to borrow in boom times with an 85% debt:GDP ratio then we should trigger a Parliamentary debate and the government should justify why they are doing it.

Is that not called a budget speech? And do we not debate it already?

No, the budget speech is a plethora of issues all mixed into one and "fiscal rules" get drowned out with everything else. By having a specific rule in place there'll have to be a specific debate and a deliberate decision to reverse it.

Its a technical issue to make any government of the day actually come to the House to reverse it but then it is not just a case of saying "I commend this budget to the house" and ignoring the rules of the past.

DavidL

flightpath01 said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

At the moment we have debt at about 85% of GDP. This costs a lot of money in interest and reduces the ability of governments to respond positively when the need arises. I do think a policy of having surpluses in all times other than periods of below average growth makes a great deal of sense and will give the country better options. So I like the policy but really question whether it should be a matter of law.

I don't question it.

The fact is laws can be reversed. However that would mean this (or a future) government would have to reverse the law. Which will trigger two responses, first a debate in Parliament on reversing the law, secondly if the stuff hits the fan afterwards and reversing it was a mistake then this will be a clear issue of "well you decided to do this".

Its not iron-cast but nothing ever can be. However I think it is appropriate that if the government is going to borrow in boom times with an 85% debt:GDP ratio then we should trigger a Parliamentary debate and the government should justify why they are doing it.

Is that not called a budget speech? And do we not debate it already?

So remind me, all through Brown's many budget speeches how often his ruinous spending and increasing structural deficits were discussed??

Well they were discussed at length but he had the backing of a majority in the House of Commons so they passed.

I think its called democracy. Worst form of government apart from all the others and all that.

Williamz

flightpath01 said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

At the moment we have debt at about 85% of GDP. This costs a lot of money in interest and reduces the ability of governments to respond positively when the need arises. I do think a policy of having surpluses in all times other than periods of below average growth makes a great deal of sense and will give the country better options. So I like the policy but really question whether it should be a matter of law.

I don't question it.

The fact is laws can be reversed. However that would mean this (or a future) government would have to reverse the law. Which will trigger two responses, first a debate in Parliament on reversing the law, secondly if the stuff hits the fan afterwards and reversing it was a mistake then this will be a clear issue of "well you decided to do this".

Its not iron-cast but nothing ever can be. However I think it is appropriate that if the government is going to borrow in boom times with an 85% debt:GDP ratio then we should trigger a Parliamentary debate and the government should justify why they are doing it.

Is that not called a budget speech? And do we not debate it already?

So remind me, all through Brown's many budget speeches how often his ruinous spending and increasing structural deficits were discussed??

No law will ever stop a chancellor like Brown. His fantasy economy where growth kept on at 3% forever allowing him to balance the books 10/15/20 years into the future never existed but all were happy to allow him to buy votes in the short term.

tlg86

Call me a cynic, but could this all be a set up to make Michael Gove look good? He seemed to take demotion in his stride, and I wonder if he was promised some good press after the election (assuming they were still in power).

Scott_P

Dan's not happy...

@TeleComment: Here's some "straight talking" for you, John McDonnell: you. Are. A. Clown. @DPJHodges: http://t.co/ElV5SK3zb0 http://t.co/fobx12fCoY

kle4

Well, that shouldprovide some political distraction from Labour infighting for a bit

Philip_Thompson

DavidL said:

flightpath01 said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

At the moment we have debt at about 85% of GDP. This costs a lot of money in interest and reduces the ability of governments to respond positively when the need arises. I do think a policy of having surpluses in all times other than periods of below average growth makes a great deal of sense and will give the country better options. So I like the policy but really question whether it should be a matter of law.

I don't question it.

The fact is laws can be reversed. However that would mean this (or a future) government would have to reverse the law. Which will trigger two responses, first a debate in Parliament on reversing the law, secondly if the stuff hits the fan afterwards and reversing it was a mistake then this will be a clear issue of "well you decided to do this".

Its not iron-cast but nothing ever can be. However I think it is appropriate that if the government is going to borrow in boom times with an 85% debt:GDP ratio then we should trigger a Parliamentary debate and the government should justify why they are doing it.

Is that not called a budget speech? And do we not debate it already?

So remind me, all through Brown's many budget speeches how often his ruinous spending and increasing structural deficits were discussed??

Well they were discussed at length but he had the backing of a majority in the House of Commons so they passed.

I think its called democracy. Worst form of government apart from all the others and all that.

So if a future Brown decides to reverse Osborne's law he is free to do so, nobody is saying otherwise. But he'll have to say he wants to do so and justify it. Then if things do go tits up then it will be harder to say "nothing to do with me, its all Americas fault".

Scott_P

kle4 said:

Well, that shouldprovide some political distraction from Labour infighting for a bit

@neilelkes: ICYMI: More resignations likely to add to Labour leaders' woes https://t.co/e4GYVU2ka0

...in Birmingham

flightpath01

Anorak said:

First?

And good. Well done Gove; a credit to him.

It was a deal set up in 2014, under the coalition for what that is worth.
Does abandoning it in any way make it more or less likely that saudi justice will be more humane? The contract was for training, its only a guess but I speculate its aim was to improve conditions for prisoners.
Gove has specifically said that it is important to maintain security links with saudi so in all other respects I do not see the official position of our relationship changing.

taffys

''Call me a cynic, but could this all be a set up to make Michael Gove look good? He seemed to take demotion in his stride, and I wonder if he was promised some good press after the election (assuming they were still in power).''

Gove is one of the conservatives' best assets, and he himself may be entitled to feel it is an asset that is somewhat undervalued, right now.

Alanbrooke

antifrank said:

Good. I don't mind success having many authors. I do want to see my government having nothing to do with a vile and backward regime's administration.

so how do we govern NI then ?

Morris_Dancer

Good afternoon, everyone.

DavidL

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

At the moment we have debt at about 85% of GDP. This costs a lot of money in interest and reduces the ability of governments to respond positively when the need arises. I do think a policy of having surpluses in all times other than periods of below average growth makes a great deal of sense and will give the country better options. So I like the policy but really question whether it should be a matter of law.

I don't question it.

The fact is laws can be reversed. However that would mean this (or a future) government would have to reverse the law. Which will trigger two responses, first a debate in Parliament on reversing the law, secondly if the stuff hits the fan afterwards and reversing it was a mistake then this will be a clear issue of "well you decided to do this".

Its not iron-cast but nothing ever can be. However I think it is appropriate that if the government is going to borrow in boom times with an 85% debt:GDP ratio then we should trigger a Parliamentary debate and the government should justify why they are doing it.

Is that not called a budget speech? And do we not debate it already?

No, the budget speech is a plethora of issues all mixed into one and "fiscal rules" get drowned out with everything else. By having a specific rule in place there'll have to be a specific debate and a deliberate decision to reverse it.

Its a technical issue to make any government of the day actually come to the House to reverse it but then it is not just a case of saying "I commend this budget to the house" and ignoring the rules of the past.

Are you seriously suggesting this new law could not be amended, repealed or disapplied by a Finance Act?

I don't agree with his assessment of Osborne which is far too harsh but I am with @Alanbrooke on this one. It is gesture politics and not quite redeemed by the hilarity that Labour's response has produced.

Charles

John_M said:

Charles said:

@HurstLlama FPT

Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.

I simply said 'bribe them' but your explanation is a little more elegant!

It's positively Bevanite to stuff their mouths with gold.

Just market forces.

They have something I want (the right to build)

So I'll pay them for it.

Charles

JEO said:

Charles said:

@HurstLlama FPT

Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.

I simply said 'bribe them' but your explanation is a little more elegant!

I once read that research suggested people often became more opposed to a local project when they were offered money. Apparently the behavioural economics behind it was that people think "if they're trying to bribe me, there must be something really wrong with it!"

It would certainly work on me, however.

It's just a matter of upping the price paid for their houses in this case. Pay 150% of market value and I'm sure people will be fine.

Alanbrooke

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

At the moment we have debt at about 85% of GDP. This costs a lot of money in interest and reduces the ability of governments to respond positively when the need arises. I do think a policy of having surpluses in all times other than periods of below average growth makes a great deal of sense and will give the country better options. So I like the policy but really question whether it should be a matter of law.

I don't question it.

The fact is laws can be reversed. However that would mean this (or a future) government would have to reverse the law. Which will trigger two responses, first a debate in Parliament on reversing the law, secondly if the stuff hits the fan afterwards and reversing it was a mistake then this will be a clear issue of "well you decided to do this".

Its not iron-cast but nothing ever can be. However I think it is appropriate that if the government is going to borrow in boom times with an 85% debt:GDP ratio then we should trigger a Parliamentary debate and the government should justify why they are doing it.

Is tha this budget to the house" and ignoring the rules of the past.

Are you seriously suggesting this new law could not be amended, repealed or disapplied by a Finance Act?

I don't agree with his assessment of Osborne which is far too harsh but I am with @Alanbrooke on this one. It is gesture politics and not quite redeemed by the hilarity that Labour's response has produced.

I'm afraid Mr L the problem I can see is GO getting hoisted on his own petard. People coming up with clever wheezes have a propensity to think they won't get caught out by them themselves, history has an irritating tendency to prove them wrong.

DavidL

tlg86 said:

Call me a cynic, but could this all be a set up to make Michael Gove look good? He seemed to take demotion in his stride, and I wonder if he was promised some good press after the election (assuming they were still in power).

Ok you are a cynic.

Gove took removal and demotion from a role he loved for the team without complaint. He has now deservedly been promoted again. I think he will be the next Chancellor myself when Osborne moves up.

Richard_Nabavi

Scott_P said:

Dan's not happy...

@TeleComment: Here's some "straight talking" for you, John McDonnell: you. Are. A. Clown. @DPJHodges: http://t.co/ElV5SK3zb0 http://t.co/fobx12fCoY

That's a very funny article.

Alanbrooke

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

flightpath01 said:

DavidL said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

At the moment we have debt at about 85% of GDP. This costs a lot of money in interest and reduces the ability of governments to respond positively when the need arises. I do think a policy of having surpluses in all times other than periods of below average growth makes a great deal of sense and will give the country better options. So I like the policy but really question whether it should be a matter of law.

I don't question it.

The fact is laws can be reversed. However that would mean this (or a future) government would have to reverse the law. Which will trigger two responses, first a debate in Parliament on reversing the law, secondly if the stuff hits the fan afterwards and reversing it was a mistake then this will be a clear issue of "well you decided to do this".

Its not iron-cast but nothing ever can be. However I think it is appropriate that if the government is going to borrow in boom times with an 85% debt:GDP ratio then we should trigger a Parliamentary debate and the government should justify why they are doing it.

Is that not called a budget speech? And do we not debate it already?

So remind me, all through Brown's many budget speeches how often his ruinous spending and increasing structural deficits were discussed??

Well they were discussed at length but he had the backing of a majority in the House of Commons so they passed.

I think its called democracy. Worst form of government apart from all the others and all that.

So if a future Brown decides to reverse Osborne's law he is free to do so, nobody is saying otherwise. But he'll have to say he wants to do so and justify it. Then if things do go tits up then it will be harder to say "nothing to do with me, its all Americas fault".

you think the guys who invaded Iraq on a falsehood, signed the Lisbon treaty without understanding it and still deny they overspent when in government are going to worry about being embarrassed ?

flightpath01

Charles said:

John_M said:

Charles said:

@HurstLlama FPT

Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.

I simply said 'bribe them' but your explanation is a little more elegant!

It's positively Bevanite to stuff their mouths with gold.

Just market forces.

They have something I want (the right to build)

So I'll pay them for it.

No.
I suggest they do not hold the rights. An airport can be built nearby not on their land. We have planning procedures, and legitimate compensation, not bribery. Your solution is as bogus as the protests that it would elicit. And in the process the rights and wrongs of any proposal just get thrown in the bin.
You are no doubt clever sensible and astute and successful. Good luck to. But you prove you can talk as much bollocks as the next man (or Dianne Abbott!) when the occasion suits.

The_Apocalypse

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Richard_Nabavi

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Why is it odd? It has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Theuniondivvie

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

It's not odd at all.

Philip_Thompson

DavidL said:

Are you seriously suggesting this new law could not be amended, repealed or disapplied by a Finance Act?

I don't agree with his assessment of Osborne which is far too harsh but I am with @Alanbrooke on this one. It is gesture politics and not quite redeemed by the hilarity that Labour's response has produced.

It probably could be but it will need to be specifically done. Which should get the media of the day to report it is being done and again make the government of the day take responsibility for reversing it both when the bill is reversed and in the future afterwards being held to account.

I've listed two potential benefits for having the bill on the books. You and Alan seem to h ave only an objection that it will be reversed without fuss. If so it is meaningless and no harm done, if you're wrong then it isn't meaningless and good is done. May be an odd analogy for me to use as an atheist but this to me seems like an economic version of Pascal's Wager, there is a potential upside but no real downside so why not do this? What is the harm?

You're also not taking into account the possibility that like Bank of England independence this could become adopted as a new responsible norm that it is very difficult and not easy to reverse.

oxfordsimon

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Why is it odd? It has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Who is this Corbyn of whom you speak?

JosiasJessop

Richard_Tyndall said:

Not to use as an argument against HS2 even though as you know I oppose it as a white elephant. But I remember hearing a programme about some of those living along the HS1 corridor in Kent whose lives had been blighted by the extreme noise from the trains because the limits for compensation had been set too close. Whilst I understand that radio can perhaps be manipulated to make things sound louder, taken on face value, the noise they had to suffer did seem extreme.

Still it is better than some of the earlier TGV routes in France where, if you house was directly in line and knocked down then you got compensation but if the train ran 50 feet from you window you got nothing. There were a lot of law suits about that at the time.

You cannot tell noise levels unless you are there, preferably with calibrated meters. Even then it can be difficult: it depends on terrain and atmospheric conditions. I wouldn't trust the noise as depicted from a radio broadcast: there are too many places where gains can be made.

As it happens, ISTR figures that railways are far better than motorways for noise: for a similar distance from the route, railways (even high-speed) create far less noise. The noise is also for a few seconds every few minutes rather than continuous.

I lived next to the Cambridge to London line for a while, and the biggest problem were the maintenance trains tamping the line at night. Not just the noise and vibration, but the bright lights set up by the workmen which would invariably shine onto our windows.

Charles

flightpath01 said:

Charles said:

John_M said:

Charles said:

@HurstLlama FPT

Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.

I simply said 'bribe them' but your explanation is a little more elegant!

It's positively Bevanite to stuff their mouths with gold.

Just market forces.

They have something I want (the right to build)

So I'll pay them for it.

No.
I suggest they do not hold the rights. An airport can be built nearby not on their land. We have planning procedures, and legitimate compensation, not bribery. Your solution is as bogus as the protests that it would elicit. And in the process the rights and wrongs of any proposal just get thrown in the bin.
You are no doubt clever sensible and astute and successful. Good luck to. But you prove you can talk as much bollocks as the next man (or Dianne Abbott!) when the occasion suits.

Sure. We have planning procedures.

But I believe that people should be compensated for the loss of amenity value (in this case noise).

But even so if they protest it takes years, and time costs money. So you are asking them to waive their right to protest in return for a payment.

That's not bollocks - that's a fairly standard commercial transaction. (In my world it's a fee for an extend & pretend transaction)

Morris_Dancer

Ms. Apocalypse, good to see you on.

I think it's because Corbyn has lots of ideas that are bloody horrendous, so when he's right about something it's a bit like a stopped clock giving the right time.

Also, Corbyn's in a position to pontificate only. Just as Kinnock didn't get the blame for the ERM disaster or the Conservatives for Iraq, governments get the credit or blame for actions taken.

Philip_Thompson

Alanbrooke said:

I'm afraid Mr L the problem I can see is GO getting hoisted on his own petard. People coming up with clever wheezes have a propensity to think they won't get caught out by them themselves, history has an irritating tendency to prove them wrong.

If this bill forces a future GO government (perhaps in 2020-25 as PM GO) to act differently because they'd be caught out by this otherwise then I'd view that as a good thing. Wouldn't you? If in 2024 the economy is growing healthily and the government runs a surplus rather than a pre-election giveaway to attempt to bribe a victory in 2025 then good has been done - just as BoE independence preventing the government of the day trying to use interest rates as a pre-election bonanza has worked.

Should GO not be held to his own standards? I think he should.

The_Apocalypse

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Why is it odd? It has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Nothing to do with him? Maybe my memory's hazy, but I recall him mentioning this very issue at the Labour party conference last month.

DavidL

Richard_Nabavi said:

Scott_P said:

Dan's not happy...

@TeleComment: Here's some "straight talking" for you, John McDonnell: you. Are. A. Clown. @DPJHodges: http://t.co/ElV5SK3zb0 http://t.co/fobx12fCoY

That's a very funny article.

Seriously funny, although I do feel genuinely sorry for decent Labour types being embarrassed by this nonsense.

oxfordsimon

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34519164

The man is utterly mad. There is not a single bit of coherent thinking in his approach.

MikeSmithson

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Why is it odd? It has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Rubbish. Corbyn raised it at his conference last month

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/13/saudi-prisons-contract-gove-and-hammond-clash-over-deal

Philip_Thompson

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Why is it odd? It has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Nothing to do with him? Maybe my memory's hazy, but I recall him mentioning this very issue at the Labour party conference last month.

Corbyn's said a lot of stuff, doesn't make it government policy.

Having the Secretary of State for Justice oppose a justice-related issue is a different kettle of fish.

Richard_Nabavi

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Why is it odd? It has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Nothing to do with him? Maybe my memory's hazy, but I recall him mentioning this very issue at the Labour party conference last month.

Yes, and Michael Gove wanted to cancel the proposed contract as soon as he became Justice Secretary.

The difference is that one is in government, and the other is engaged in playing out a Dadaist piece of political installation art, and a very funny one.

Philip_Thompson

oxfordsimon said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34519164

The man is utterly mad. There is not a single bit of coherent thinking in his approach.

Mr McDonnell said he had changed his mind on parliamentary tactics but denied changing his economic policy. He said they had seen the bill as a "gimmick" so had intended to "ridicule it" by voting for it

So Labour voting for something makes that something ridiculous now? Sounds about right!

Sandpit

Charles said:

JEO said:

Charles said:

@HurstLlama FPT

Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.

I simply said 'bribe them' but your explanation is a little more elegant!

I once read that research suggested people often became more opposed to a local project when they were offered money. Apparently the behavioural economics behind it was that people think "if they're trying to bribe me, there must be something really wrong with it!"

It would certainly work on me, however.

It's just a matter of upping the price paid for their houses in this case. Pay 150% of market value and I'm sure people will be fine.

Yep. For something like a new airport you'd also want to buy plenty of land around to safeguard future development and reduce objections. Could be leased back to crop farmers until it's needed.

Just needs politicians with the balls to make a decision and live with it. The easy option of kicking the can down the road for the next lot leads us to where we are now with LHR, HS2 and power generation, to give three examples of where we need spades in the ground yesterday.

Razedabode

Andy Burnham currently arguing against the immigration bill in parliament. Now channelling corbyn.

The_Apocalypse

Morris_Dancer said:

Ms. Apocalypse, good to see you on.

I think it's because Corbyn has lots of ideas that are bloody horrendous, so when he's right about something it's a bit like a stopped clock giving the right time.

Also, Corbyn's in a position to pontificate only. Just as Kinnock didn't get the blame for the ERM disaster or the Conservatives for Iraq, governments get the credit or blame for actions taken.

Good to see you too Morris_Dancer, I've been very busy in the last month or so! I don't agree with much of what Michael Gove does, or for that matter Jeremy Corbyn, but it doesn't mean that I won't praise/agree with them both on this issue. I also think, although most of the analysis does centre on governments, Leaders of the Opposition do get credit from time to time.

Alanbrooke

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

I'm afraid Mr L the problem I can see is GO getting hoisted on his own petard. People coming up with clever wheezes have a propensity to think they won't get caught out by them themselves, history has an irritating tendency to prove them wrong.

If this bill forces a future GO government (perhaps in 2020-25 as PM GO) to act differently because they'd be caught out by this otherwise then I'd view that as a good thing. Wouldn't you? If in 2024 the economy is growing healthily and the government runs a surplus rather than a pre-election giveaway to attempt to bribe a victory in 2025 then good has been done - just as BoE independence preventing the government of the day trying to use interest rates as a pre-election bonanza has worked.

Should GO not be held to his own standards? I think he should.

GO isn't being held to his own standards today. He still has a deficit.

Furthermore unless GO has magically abolished boom and bust 2024 would be 16 years since the last recession. Personally I don't think he has.

Richard_Nabavi

MikeSmithson said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Why is it odd? It has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Rubbish. Corbyn raised it at his conference last month

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/13/saudi-prisons-contract-gove-and-hammond-clash-over-deal

Sure he did. So what? The government was responding to Gove's concerns, not Corbyn's.

MarqueeMark

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Are you seriously suggesting this new law could not be amended, repealed or disapplied by a Finance Act?

I don't agree with his assessment of Osborne which is far too harsh but I am with @Alanbrooke on this one. It is gesture politics and not quite redeemed by the hilarity that Labour's response has produced.

It probably could be but it will need to be specifically done. Which should get the media of the day to report it is being done and again make the government of the day take responsibility for reversing it both when the bill is reversed and in the future afterwards being held to account.

I've listed two potential benefits for having the bill on the books. You and Alan seem to h ave only an objection that it will be reversed without fuss. If so it is meaningless and no harm done, if you're wrong then it isn't meaningless and good is done. May be an odd analogy for me to use as an atheist but this to me seems like an economic version of Pascal's Wager, there is a potential upside but no real downside so why not do this? What is the harm?

You're also not taking into account the possibility that like Bank of England independence this could become adopted as a new responsible norm that it is very difficult and not easy to reverse.

It will be a big issue at the next election. Labour won't pledge to keep it on the statute books. The Tories will plug away at "Why do Labour want the right to be economically feckless? We know why. They want to crash the economy again..."

Philip_Thompson

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

I'm afraid Mr L the problem I can see is GO getting hoisted on his own petard. People coming up with clever wheezes have a propensity to think they won't get caught out by them themselves, history has an irritating tendency to prove them wrong.

If this bill forces a future GO government (perhaps in 2020-25 as PM GO) to act differently because they'd be caught out by this otherwise then I'd view that as a good thing. Wouldn't you? If in 2024 the economy is growing healthily and the government runs a surplus rather than a pre-election giveaway to attempt to bribe a victory in 2025 then good has been done - just as BoE independence preventing the government of the day trying to use interest rates as a pre-election bonanza has worked.

Should GO not be held to his own standards? I think he should.

GO isn't being held to his own standards today. He still has a deficit.

Furthermore unless GO has magically abolished boom and bust 2024 would be 16 years since the last recession. Personally I don't think he has.

Because the government of the day before the last recession was running a deficit. GO is saying (quite rightly IMO) that the government of the day should be running a surplus when the economy goes into recession, like it was in 1990. Had we been running a surplus in 2007 our deficit could have been cleared by now.

I don't think boom and bust either can, should or has been abolished. Which makes it all the more important to be running a surplus by the time of the next crash. If it hasn't yet occurred by 2024 the last thing I want is a deficit in 2024 due to pre-election giveaways.

The_Apocalypse

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Why is it odd? It has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Nothing to do with him? Maybe my memory's hazy, but I recall him mentioning this very issue at the Labour party conference last month.

Yes, and Michael Gove wanted to cancel the proposed contract as soon as he became Justice Secretary.

The difference is that one is in government, and the other is engaged in playing out a Dadaist piece of political installation art, and a very funny one.

On your first point. And? I don't believe I disputed that point. On this issue, well done to Michael Gove. On your second point, do you really not believe that Corbyn's position is a genuine one? Corbyn cannot change that he is not a member of the government; what he can do is try to raise awareness of such issues, and whatever else he can as the leader of the Opposition. This is one of the few times when I think Corbyn has done something praiseworthy, by raising awareness of such an issue.

Same to @Philip_Thompson.

flightpath01

DavidL said:

tlg86 said:

Call me a cynic, but could this all be a set up to make Michael Gove look good? He seemed to take demotion in his stride, and I wonder if he was promised some good press after the election (assuming they were still in power).

Ok you are a cynic.

Gove took removal and demotion from a role he loved for the team without complaint. He has now deservedly been promoted again. I think he will be the next Chancellor myself when Osborne moves up.

Fist point ... correct.
Second ... personally I would not bet on him being chancellor. Foreign Secretary. Home Secretary. Hammond or May chancellor. Probably Hammond. There is scope for one of current big wigs to be DPM.
Who will be Osborne's campaign manager??

Philip_Thompson

MarqueeMark said:

Philip_Thompson said:

DavidL said:

Are you seriously suggesting this new law could not be amended, repealed or disapplied by a Finance Act?

I don't agree with his assessment of Osborne which is far too harsh but I am with @Alanbrooke on this one. It is gesture politics and not quite redeemed by the hilarity that Labour's response has produced.

It probably could be but it will need to be specifically done. Which should get the media of the day to report it is being done and again make the government of the day take responsibility for reversing it both when the bill is reversed and in the future afterwards being held to account.

I've listed two potential benefits for having the bill on the books. You and Alan seem to h ave only an objection that it will be reversed without fuss. If so it is meaningless and no harm done, if you're wrong then it isn't meaningless and good is done. May be an odd analogy for me to use as an atheist but this to me seems like an economic version of Pascal's Wager, there is a potential upside but no real downside so why not do this? What is the harm?

You're also not taking into account the possibility that like Bank of England independence this could become adopted as a new responsible norm that it is very difficult and not easy to reverse.

It will be a big issue at the next election. Labour won't pledge to keep it on the statute books. The Tories will plug away at "Why do Labour want the right to be economically feckless? We know why. They want to crash the economy again..."

Exactly!

Either let Labour justify why they want to be feckless or have them sign up to be responsible. I see nothing bad with this and only potential benefits for the economy.

JosiasJessop

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

JEO said:

Charles said:

@HurstLlama FPT

Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.

I simply said 'bribe them' but your explanation is a little more elegant!

I once read that research suggested people often became more opposed to a local project when they were offered money. Apparently the behavioural economics behind it was that people think "if they're trying to bribe me, there must be something really wrong with it!"

It would certainly work on me, however.

It's just a matter of upping the price paid for their houses in this case. Pay 150% of market value and I'm sure people will be fine.

(snip)

Just needs politicians with the balls to make a decision and live with it. The easy option of kicking the can down the road for the next lot leads us to where we are now with LHR, HS2 and power generation, to give three examples of where we need spades in the ground yesterday.

Hopefully that's something Adonis's Infrastructure Commission will be able to help with.

It was a good idea nicked from Labour. Having said that, I have little confidence that Labour would have followed through with the ideas from the Armitt Review.

AlastairMeeks

Alanbrooke said:

antifrank said:

Good. I don't mind success having many authors. I do want to see my government having nothing to do with a vile and backward regime's administration.

so how do we govern NI then ?

Mr Corbyn has a suggestion for that too. I'm not sure you'd be too enthused about it.

SquareRoot

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

I'm afraid Mr L the problem I can see is GO getting hoisted on his own petard. People coming up with clever wheezes have a propensity to think they won't get caught out by them themselves, history has an irritating tendency to prove them wrong.

If this bill forces a future GO government (perhaps in 2020-25 as PM GO) to act differently because they'd be caught out by this otherwise then I'd view that as a good thing. Wouldn't you? If in 2024 the economy is growing healthily and the government runs a surplus rather than a pre-election giveaway to attempt to bribe a victory in 2025 then good has been done - just as BoE independence preventing the government of the day trying to use interest rates as a pre-election bonanza has worked.

Should GO not be held to his own standards? I think he should.

GO isn't being held to his own standards today. He still has a deficit.

Furthermore unless GO has magically abolished boom and bust 2024 would be 16 years since the last recession. Personally I don't think he has.

Irrespective of the fact that no one can "abolish" boom and bust, you would say that due to your irrational dislike of GO.

Alanbrooke

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

I'm afraid Mr L the problem I can see is GO getting hoisted on his own petard. People coming up with clever wheezes have a propensity to think they won't get caught out by them themselves, history has an irritating tendency to prove them wrong.

If this bill forces a future GO government (perhaps in 2020-25 as PM GO) to act differently because they'd be caught out by this otherwise then I'd view that as a good thing. Wouldn't you? If in 2024 the economy is growing healthily and the government runs a surplus rather than a pre-election giveaway to attempt to bribe a victory in 2025 then good has been done - just as BoE independence preventing the government of the day trying to use interest rates as a pre-election bonanza has worked.

Should GO not be held to his own standards? I think he should.

GO isn't being held to his own standards today. He still has a deficit.

Furthermore unless GO has magically abolished boom and bust 2024 would be 16 years since the last recession. Personally I don't think he has.

Because the government of the day before the last recession was running a deficit. GO is saying (quite rightly IMO) that the government of the day should be running a surplus when the economy goes into recession, like it was in 1990. Had we been running a surplus in 2007 our deficit could have been cleared by now.

I don't think boom and bust either can, should or has been abolished. Which makes it all the more important to be running a surplus by the time of the next crash. If it hasn't yet occurred by 2024 the last thing I want is a deficit in 2024 due to pre-election giveaways.

you haven't quite got this. now is the time when the sun is shining and the roof should be fixed. GO is annoying the neighbours shouting how he'll fix the roof better than they will, but not actually filling in holes.

manana

JEO

Razedabode said:

Andy Burnham currently arguing against the immigration bill in parliament. Now channelling corbyn.

Labour on the side of open borders again I see.

Philip_Thompson

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Why is it odd? It has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Nothing to do with him? Maybe my memory's hazy, but I recall him mentioning this very issue at the Labour party conference last month.

Yes, and Michael Gove wanted to cancel the proposed contract as soon as he became Justice Secretary.

The difference is that one is in government, and the other is engaged in playing out a Dadaist piece of political installation art, and a very funny one.

On your first point. And? I don't believe I disputed that point. On this issue, well done to Michael Gove. On your second point, do you really not believe that Corbyn's position is a genuine one? Corbyn cannot change that he is not a member of the government; what he can do is try to raise awareness of such issues, and whatever else he can as the leader of the Opposition. This is one of the few times when I think Corbyn has done something praiseworthy, by raising awareness of such an issue.

Same to @Philip_Thompson.

I think Corbyn was an irrelevance here as far as the decision making process was concerned and it was the Secretary of State for Justice who was entirely responsible for a decision not to assist with Saudi Justice.

Whether Corbyn should have been an irrelevance here is another question but frankly he has made himself one. This is the scenario where Labour have found themselves, that even when they're on the right side of the issue they're not responsible. The Tories pre-Cameron had a similar problem so no sympathy.

JEO

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Probably because Michael Gove is consistent in opposing vile Islamist nutters, while Corbyn calls the ones on his side "friends".

Alanbrooke

SquareRoot said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

I'm afraid Mr L the problem I can see is GO getting hoisted on his own petard. People coming up with clever wheezes have a propensity to think they won't get caught out by them themselves, history has an irritating tendency to prove them wrong.

If this bill forces a future GO government (perhaps in 2020-25 as PM GO) to act differently because they'd be caught out by this otherwise then I'd view that as a good thing. Wouldn't you? If in 2024 the economy is growing healthily and the government runs a surplus rather than a pre-election giveaway to attempt to bribe a victory in 2025 then good has been done - just as BoE independence preventing the government of the day trying to use interest rates as a pre-election bonanza has worked.

Should GO not be held to his own standards? I think he should.

GO isn't being held to his own standards today. He still has a deficit.

Furthermore unless GO has magically abolished boom and bust 2024 would be 16 years since the last recession. Personally I don't think he has.

Irrespective of the fact that no one can "abolish" boom and bust, you would say that due to your irrational dislike of GO.

my dislike is fairly rational. He;s not doing what needs to be done.

DavidL

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Why is it odd? It has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Nothing to do with him? Maybe my memory's hazy, but I recall him mentioning this very issue at the Labour party conference last month.

Yes, and Michael Gove wanted to cancel the proposed contract as soon as he became Justice Secretary.

The difference is that one is in government, and the other is engaged in playing out a Dadaist piece of political installation art, and a very funny one.

Corbyn cannot change that he is not a member of the government;
Same to @Philip_Thompson.

I think that is a little unfair. It is not that he cannot change it, more that he is doing all he can to avoid any risk of such a change.

Richard_Nabavi

@The_Apocalypse - Yes of course Jeremy Corbyn's position on this is a genuine one, but he's irrelevant to the decision.

I don't know whether he and Gove are right on this; the Guardian leader, which seems to be quite sensible, mentions an alternative view:

But there remains one nagging doubt. There are serious liberal criminal justice commentators who have argued that engagement with the Saudis over prisons has merit. Rob Allen writes that help in “bringing about improvements in overseas prison systems [that] can reduce the risk of torture and ill treatment among detainees is a good thing in itself and part of our soft diplomacy”.

I don't know enough about the subject, and the likely Saudi response, to have a view on that, although a priori the Gove (and Corbyn) view sounds more likely to be right.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. JEO, is he playing the race card?

McDonnell is mad as a bicycle.

Razedabode

JEO said:

Razedabode said:

Andy Burnham currently arguing against the immigration bill in parliament. Now channelling corbyn.

Labour on the side of open borders again I see.

Amazes me really. If there's one thing that did then damage last time around it was their stance on immigration and votes lost to ukip. All seemingly forgotten now.

The_Apocalypse

JEO said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Probably because Michael Gove is consistent in opposing vile Islamist nutters, while Corbyn calls the ones on his side "friends".

It doesn't ultimately alter that he's on the right of this issue, though which is what I'm referring to.

SimonStClare

Philip_Thompson said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Why is it odd? It has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Nothing to do with him? Maybe my memory's hazy, but I recall him mentioning this very issue at the Labour party conference last month.

Yes, and Michael Gove wanted to cancel the proposed contract as soon as he became Justice Secretary.

The difference is that one is in government, and the other is engaged in playing out a Dadaist piece of political installation art, and a very funny one.

On your first point. And? I don't believe I disputed that point. On this issue, well done to Michael Gove. On your second point, do you really not believe that Corbyn's position is a genuine one? Corbyn cannot change that he is not a member of the government; what he can do is try to raise awareness of such issues, and whatever else he can as the leader of the Opposition. This is one of the few times when I think Corbyn has done something praiseworthy, by raising awareness of such an issue.

Same to @Philip_Thompson.

I think Corbyn was an irrelevance here as far as the decision making process was concerned and it was the Secretary of State for Justice who was entirely responsible for a decision not to assist with Saudi Justice.

Whether Corbyn should have been an irrelevance here is another question but frankly he has made himself one. This is the scenario where Labour have found themselves, that even when they're on the right side of the issue they're not responsible. The Tories pre-Cameron had a similar problem so no sympathy.

Exactly. - I suspect HMG were already having second thoughts over the Saudi prison deal – The British pensioner sentenced to 350 lashes gives them the perfect cover to announce the deal is off. A Tory U-Turn that few would oppose and a Tory gets the credit for it.

Alanbrooke

antifrank said:

Alanbrooke said:

antifrank said:

Good. I don't mind success having many authors. I do want to see my government having nothing to do with a vile and backward regime's administration.

so how do we govern NI then ?

Mr Corbyn has a suggestion for that too. I'm not sure you'd be too enthused about it.

Of course not, what has the Republic done to us that we should stuff them up to that extent ?

MikeSmithson

Philip_Thompson said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Why is it odd? It has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Nothing to do with him? Maybe my memory's hazy, but I recall him mentioning this very issue at the Labour party conference last month.

Yes, and Michael Gove wanted to cancel the proposed contract as soon as he became Justice Secretary.

The difference is that one is in government, and the other is engaged in playing out a Dadaist piece of political installation art, and a very funny one.

On your first point. And? I don't believe I disputed that point. On this issue, well done to Michael Gove. On your second point, do you really not believe that Corbyn's position is a genuine one? Corbyn cannot change that he is not a member of the government; what he can do is try to raise awareness of such issues, and whatever else he can as the leader of the Opposition. This is one of the few times when I think Corbyn has done something praiseworthy, by raising awareness of such an issue.

Same to @Philip_Thompson.

I think Corbyn was an irrelevance here as far as the decision making process was concerned and it was the Secretary of State for Justice who was entirely responsible for a decision not to assist with Saudi Justice.

Whether Corbyn should have been an irrelevance here is another question but frankly he has made himself one. This is the scenario where Labour have found themselves, that even when they're on the right side of the issue they're not responsible. The Tories pre-Cameron had a similar problem so no sympathy.

Bullshit. The Tories are desperate to show that this wasn't a concession to JC when he was th first to raise it.

What's the blue team scared of?

Philip_Thompson

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

I'm afraid Mr L the problem I can see is GO getting hoisted on his own petard. People coming up with clever wheezes have a propensity to think they won't get caught out by them themselves, history has an irritating tendency to prove them wrong.

If this bill forces a future GO government (perhaps in 2020-25 as PM GO) to act differently because they'd be caught out by this otherwise then I'd view that as a good thing. Wouldn't you? If in 2024 the economy is growing healthily and the government runs a surplus rather than a pre-election giveaway to attempt to bribe a victory in 2025 then good has been done - just as BoE independence preventing the government of the day trying to use interest rates as a pre-election bonanza has worked.

Should GO not be held to his own standards? I think he should.

GO isn't being held to his own standards today. He still has a deficit.

Furthermore unless GO has magically abolished boom and bust 2024 would be 16 years since the last recession. Personally I don't think he has.

Because the government of the day before the last recession was running a deficit. GO is saying (quite rightly IMO) that the government of the day should be running a surplus when the economy goes into recession, like it was in 1990. Had we been running a surplus in 2007 our deficit could have been cleared by now.

I don't think boom and bust either can, should or has been abolished. Which makes it all the more important to be running a surplus by the time of the next crash. If it hasn't yet occurred by 2024 the last thing I want is a deficit in 2024 due to pre-election giveaways.

you haven't quite got this. now is the time when the sun is shining and the roof should be fixed. GO is annoying the neighbours shouting how he'll fix the roof better than they will, but not actually filling in holes.

manana

You're wrong, he is fixing the roof. The deficit has come down every single year that Osborne has been Chancellor. It is taking a long time, but that is because the situation inherited was atrocious and that is something we can not afford to ever happen again. We're now facing the world on 85% debt to GDP not ~40% so we can't afford another blowout like Brown did again.

If these new rules are followed from once the roof is fixed onwards then we should be better off.

Morris_Dancer

Bad news for Ireland, their captain's career is over:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34516393

Richard_Nabavi

MikeSmithson said:

Bullshit. The Tories are desperate to show that this wasn't a concession to JC when he was th first to raise it.

He wasn't the first to raise it:

As the Times reported this morning, the incoming justice secretary had demanded back in July that the Ministry of Justice’s £5.9m commercial bid to provide a “training-needs analysis” to the Saudi prison authorities should be scrapped.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/13/gove-emerges-as-human-rights-hero-over-bid-to-scrap-saudi-prisons-deal

The_Apocalypse

Philip_Thompson said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Why is it odd? It has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Nothing to do with him? Maybe my memory's hazy, but I recall him mentioning this very issue at the Labour party conference last month.

Yes, and Michael Gove wanted to cancel the proposed contract as soon as he became Justice Secretary.

The difference is that one is in government, and the other is engaged in playing out a Dadaist piece of political installation art, and a very funny one.

On your first point. And? I don't believe I disputed that point. On this issue, well done to Michael Gove. On your second point, do you really not believe that Corbyn's position is a genuine one? Corbyn cannot change that he is not a member of the government; what he can do is try to raise awareness of such issues, and whatever else he can as the leader of the Opposition. This is one of the few times when I think Corbyn has done something praiseworthy, by raising awareness of such an issue.

Same to @Philip_Thompson.

I think Corbyn was an irrelevance here as far as the decision making process was concerned and it was the Secretary of State for Justice who was entirely responsible for a decision not to assist with Saudi Justice.

Whether Corbyn should have been an irrelevance here is another question but frankly he has made himself one. This is the scenario where Labour have found themselves, that even when they're on the right side of the issue they're not responsible. The Tories pre-Cameron had a similar problem so no sympathy.

I don't see that Corbyn has become an 'irrelvance' on this issue; nor do I agree with the rest of your last paragraph on this issue. The reluctance of PB Tories to praise Labour on anything, even when it may chime in with their own opinion on the matter, is not necessarily representative. Even The Times, on their opening page acknowledge Corbyn.

Sandpit

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

JEO said:

Charles said:

@HurstLlama FPT

Someone, I think it was Mr, Charles, proposed a very sensible scheme and very simple for overcoming local objections. It is called money. Just offer the local residents who object sufficient cash and they will stop objecting. The extra expenditure would not be huge, in fact in a large project it would be less than a rounding error.

I simply said 'bribe them' but your explanation is a little more elegant!

I once read that research suggested people often became more opposed to a local project when they were offered money. Apparently the behavioural economics behind it was that people think "if they're trying to bribe me, there must be something really wrong with it!"

It would certainly work on me, however.

It's just a matter of upping the price paid for their houses in this case. Pay 150% of market value and I'm sure people will be fine.

(snip)

Just needs politicians with the balls to make a decision and live with it. The easy option of kicking the can down the road for the next lot leads us to where we are now with LHR, HS2 and power generation, to give three examples of where we need spades in the ground yesterday.

Hopefully that's something Adonis's Infrastructure Commission will be able to help with.

It was a good idea nicked from Labour. Having said that, I have little confidence that Labour would have followed through with the ideas from the Armitt Review.

This is the sort of thing that I'd love to see Cameron run with after the EU referendum and before he stands down. Let him personally take the 'blame' for it, knowing that he isn't standing for election again as PM and is doing what needs to be done for the good of the country.

surbiton

JEO said:

Razedabode said:

Andy Burnham currently arguing against the immigration bill in parliament. Now channelling corbyn.

Labour on the side of open borders again I see.

Yes !!!!!!! Well done. Support the lawyers and retired judges.

Alanbrooke

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

I'm afraid Mr L the problem I can see is GO getting hoisted on his own petard. People coming up with clever wheezes have a propensity to think they won't get caught out by them themselves, history has an irritating tendency to prove them wrong.

If this bill forces a future GO government (perhaps in 2020-25 as PM GO) to act differently because they'd be caught out by this otherwise then I'd view that as a good thing. Wouldn't you? If in 2024 the economy is growing healthily and the government runs a surplus rather than a pre-election giveaway to attempt to bribe a victory in 2025 then good has been done - just as BoE independence preventing the government of the day trying to use interest rates as a pre-election bonanza has worked.

Should GO not be held to his own standards? I think he should.

GO isn't being held to his own standards today. He still has a deficit.

Furthermore unless GO has magically abolished boom and bust 2024 would be 16 years since the last recession. Personally I don't think he has.

Because the government of the day before the last recession was running a deficit. GO is n giveaways.

you haven't quite got this. now is the time when the sun is shining and the roof should be fixed. GO is annoying the neighbours shouting how he'll fix the roof better than they will, but not actually filling in holes.

manana

You're wrong, he is fixing the roof. The deficit has come down every single year that Osborne has been Chancellor. It is taking a long time, but that is because the situation inherited was atrocious and that is something we can not afford to ever happen again. We're now facing the world on 85% debt to GDP not ~40% so we can't afford another blowout like Brown did again.

If these new rules are followed from once the roof is fixed onwards then we should be better off.

Like all bad builders the date for the completion of works keeps going back as the bill gets bigger.

Worse this is simply riding the natural recovery unless he addresses structural reform there will be little to undepin hollow foundations.

flightpath01

SquareRoot said:

Alanbrooke said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Alanbrooke said:

I'm afraid Mr L the problem I can see is GO getting hoisted on his own petard. People coming up with clever wheezes have a propensity to think they won't get caught out by them themselves, history has an irritating tendency to prove them wrong.

If this bill forces a future GO government (perhaps in 2020-25 as PM GO) to act differently because they'd be caught out by this otherwise then I'd view that as a good thing. Wouldn't you? If in 2024 the economy is growing healthily and the government runs a surplus rather than a pre-election giveaway to attempt to bribe a victory in 2025 then good has been done - just as BoE independence preventing the government of the day trying to use interest rates as a pre-election bonanza has worked.

Should GO not be held to his own standards? I think he should.

GO isn't being held to his own standards today. He still has a deficit.

Furthermore unless GO has magically abolished boom and bust 2024 would be 16 years since the last recession. Personally I don't think he has.

Irrespective of the fact that no one can "abolish" boom and bust, you would say that due to your irrational dislike of GO.

And the deficit started at 160 billion as I recall. Plus an economy shrunk by 7%. As the governor of the BoE said , that 7 % was permanent, a strucrural loss. Any pillock can complain about the lingering residue of that. It takes someone with some fine judgement to steer our economy through it.
Idiots from left right and centre were made to look stupid in May. They have learned nothing.

DearPB

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Why is it odd? It has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Nothing to do with him? Maybe my memory's hazy, but I recall him mentioning this very issue at the Labour party conference last month.

Yes, and Michael Gove wanted to cancel the proposed contract as soon as he became Justice Secretary.

The difference is that one is in government, and the other is engaged in playing out a Dadaist piece of political installation art, and a very funny one.

On your first point. And? I don't believe I disputed that point. On this issue, well done to Michael Gove. On your second point, do you really not believe that Corbyn's position is a genuine one? Corbyn cannot change that he is not a member of the government; what he can do is try to raise awareness of such issues, and whatever else he can as the leader of the Opposition. This is one of the few times when I think Corbyn has done something praiseworthy, by raising awareness of such an issue.

Same to @Philip_Thompson.

I think Corbyn was an irrelevance here as far as the decision making process was concerned and it was the Secretary of State for Justice who was entirely responsible for a decision not to assist with Saudi Justice.

Whether Corbyn should have been an irrelevance here is another question but frankly he has made himself one. This is the scenario where Labour have found themselves, that even when they're on the right side of the issue they're not responsible. The Tories pre-Cameron had a similar problem so no sympathy.

Bullshit. The Tories are desperate to show that this wasn't a concession to JC when he was th first to raise it.

What's the blue team scared of?

It's not clear to me why the Tories would concede anything to JC. The idea that the government much gives a damn about what JC raises is fairly implausible. This was a very niche issue that would have got no coverage had they just gone ahead.

Michael Gove running scared from Jeremy Corbyn? I don't think so.

Philip_Thompson

MikeSmithson said:

Philip_Thompson said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

The_Apocalypse said:

It's very odd how many of the commentators on here have a lot to say in regard to praising Michael Gove on this issue, but by contrast very little to say on Corbyn.

Why is it odd? It has nothing to do with Corbyn.

Nothing to do with him? Maybe my memory's hazy, but I recall him mentioning this very issue at the Labour party conference last month.

Yes, and Michael Gove wanted to cancel the proposed contract as soon as he became Justice Secretary.

The difference is that one is in government, and the other is engaged in playing out a Dadaist piece of political installation art, and a very funny one.

On your first point. And? I don't believe I disputed that point. On this issue, well done to Michael Gove. On your second point, do you really not believe that Corbyn's position is a genuine one? Corbyn cannot change that he is not a member of the government; what he can do is try to raise awareness of such issues, and whatever else he can as the leader of the Opposition. This is one of the few times when I think Corbyn has done something praiseworthy, by raising awareness of such an issue.

Same to @Philip_Thompson.

I think Corbyn was an irrelevance here as far as the decision making process was concerned and it was the Secretary of State for Justice who was entirely responsible for a decision not to assist with Saudi Justice.

Whether Corbyn should have been an irrelevance here is another question but frankly he has made himself one. This is the scenario where Labour have found themselves, that even when they're on the right side of the issue they're not responsible. The Tories pre-Cameron had a similar problem so no sympathy.

Bullshit. The Tories are desperate to show that this wasn't a concession to JC when he was th first to raise it.

What's the blue team scared of?

If the Secretary of State for Justice raised this judicial issue months ago and Corbyn raised it last month then how was JC first?

I don't think the blue team are scared of anything. When Labour are busy committing hari kari I think you're the one talking bullshit if you think the blue team are scared.