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 biggest issue of concern to the British public and the Blairites, Brownites and Jezlamists are all on the wrong side of it.
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.
McDonell said, “You know the narrative George Osborne wanted to present of us this week. Deficit deniers risking the security of the nation etc. It was so obvious you could write it yourself blindfolded. He has brought forward his grandiose fiscal charter not as serious policy making but as a political stunt. A trap for us to fall into. We are not playing those games any more."
Let me just repeat those words. “It was so obvious you could write it yourself blindfolded." So. Obvious. You. Could. Write. It. Yourself. Blindfolded.
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!
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.
Q: What do you call the Leader of the Opposition? A: Jeremy Corbyn
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.
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.
And the Guardian say that Gove raised objections in July; when Corbyn was still a twinkle in the eye of the new political army. If anything being on the same side as Corbyn could have been a reason to go ahead regardless.
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
McDonell said, “You know the narrative George Osborne wanted to present of us this week. Deficit deniers risking the security of the nation etc. It was so obvious you could write it yourself blindfolded. He has brought forward his grandiose fiscal charter not as serious policy making but as a political stunt. A trap for us to fall into. We are not playing those games any more."
Let me just repeat those words. “It was so obvious you could write it yourself blindfolded." So. Obvious. You. Could. Write. It. Yourself. Blindfolded.
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!
I wish Dan Hodges would say what he thinks. All this pussy-footing around things just seems a bit weak!!
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.
Q: What do you call the Leader of the Opposition? A: Jeremy Corbyn
is about as Dada as it gets.
I would argue it's more surrealist than Dada; but I'm not going to fall out over art history concepts.
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
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.
It may have been pushed back but work is still going on. There have been many negative externalities - the Eurocrisis going from bad to worse, the Chinese slowdown etc - a true heir to Brown could have justified expanding the deficit again using any of those but instead roof repairs have happened every year and talk is still of a surplus.
Barring an economic slowdown between now and 2020 I will be very annoyed if we don't reach surplus.
So, there we are. Corbyn's trying to claim credit for something that was raised long before he became leader. Still, one can't expect him to try and claim credit for the Labour Party's little civil war.
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.
Q: What do you call the Leader of the Opposition? A: Jeremy Corbyn
is about as Dada as it gets.
I would argue it's more surrealist than Dada; but I'm not going to fall out over art history concepts.
Pointillism, surely? From a distance you can see what they're trying to do but when you look at it closely it's just a disconnected mess.
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
Sure he did. So what? The government was responding to Gove's concerns, not Corbyn's.
You are starting to sound like a blue team spinner. Of course opposition's don't make policy but they can be influential.
And you seriously think that while the Labour Party is tearing itself apart over the fiscal charter the government was influenced by this rabble rather than their own Secretary of State?
Having a pint in holiday pub at moment. Late middle aged couple come in with a newspaper and sit down. 'Gove in dispute with Saudi Arabia' he says,looking at a headline. 'Oh!' says wife. 'Yes,' says man, 'arms deals, Saudi arms deals.' 'Oh,' says wife. 'Yes,'says man, '...news, I know all the news. All doom and gloom.' He turns over pages, 'Oh, England won 3 - 1 last night, I did not know they were playing.' He turns over pages and they start doing the puzzle pages. The newspaper is The Times.
This is life outside the famed Westminster Bubble. Punters should learn to live with it.
So, there we are. Corbyn's trying to claim credit for something that was raised long before he became leader. Still, one can't expect him to try and claim credit for the Labour Party's little civil war.
Perhaps we should re-title it the Uncivil War - as they seem to be being very rude about it all!
Well quite, it smacks of scrabbling around to find a trophy for Corbyn - despite Mr 350 Lashes being a superb excuse to u-turn on a Coalition decision.
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
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.
Q: What do you call the Leader of the Opposition? A: Jeremy Corbyn
is about as Dada as it gets.
I would argue it's more surrealist than Dada; but I'm not going to fall out over art history concepts.
Pointillism, surely? From a distance you can see what they're trying to do but when you look at it closely it's just a disconnected mess.
So, there we are. Corbyn's trying to claim credit for something that was raised long before he became leader. Still, one can't expect him to try and claim credit for the Labour Party's little civil war.
The fact he was the first one to raise the matter in public. What Gove may or may not have done behind the scenes is neither here or there.
From Number 10 spokesbod. Clearly Gove didn't like this whole concept.
“The review has been ongoing following the decision that was announced earlier in September to close down the Just Solutions International branch of the Ministry of Justice that was providing some of these services.”
So, there we are. Corbyn's trying to claim credit for something that was raised long before he became leader. Still, one can't expect him to try and claim credit for the Labour Party's little civil war.
The fact he was the first one to raise the matter in public. What Gove may or may not have done behind the scenes is neither here or there.
Corbyn 1, Gove 1/2 Hammond / Cameron 0.
What Gove did vs what Corbyn said. And Gove didn't give a damn what Corbyn said. Corbyn not even in the game.
Maybe, just maybe, he envisaged a time when he was Chancellor and had already spent what this law allows as certified by the OBR and something like Redcar comes along. Is a Chancellor really to have his hands tied in such a scenario, say, sorry but the law provides that there is nothing we can do?
I am a strong believer in fiscal prudence and I am very concerned about our current debt levels but I am also a believer in governments governing and then being held to account for the decisions they actually make.
Right now, and for the foreseeable future, a policy such as Osborne is proposing makes sense but there will come a time when it does not and when that happens there should not be a stupid law in the road.
Mr. Surbiton, governments govern. This wasn't on anybody's radar before now.
If the Government had suddenly axed Trident, Corbyn could claim great success. The idea the wider public will give him any credit for this is fanciful in the extreme.
...and using redcar as a bit of an emotional smokescreen.
The government are actually spending money as a result of the Redcar closure. The Redcar closure is a result of the 'global downturn which started in China'. Well actually redcars problems began just before the 2010 election didn't it?. It has nothing to do with this government's policies which as Osborne haters will readily attest cannot be due to over zealous cutting of the deficit.
Shall I ask the couple sat next to me in the pub what they think? On reflection I'd better not, they have been taken by surprise by the size of their toasted sandwich.
And the Guardian say that Gove raised objections in July; when Corbyn was still a twinkle in the eye of the new political army. If anything being on the same side as Corbyn could have been a reason to go ahead regardless.
I never though I'd see the day on PB when The Guardian was seen as a more preferable source of information than The Times. Still, as I said before; I don't dispute Gove's involvement; that's not my aim here. Corbyn was the one who first raised it in public in September; and it's notable that although Gove raised his objections as early as July, it's taken until early October for the Government to announce that they are cancelling the Saudi Prison deal.
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.
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?
Being first doesn't matter if you don't build momentum.
It may be that Corbyn raised it first (although I strongly suspect that Gove was working on it already behind the scenes as few government decisions are made in a couple of weeks). So he might get a nod, but he didn't achieve the outcome, and it wasn't a concession to this.
To put this in terms that Mr. Dancer will understand: Cannae came before Zama.
Mr. Surbiton, governments govern. This wasn't on anybody's radar before now.
If the Government had suddenly axed Trident, Corbyn could claim great success. The idea the wider public will give him any credit for this is fanciful in the extreme.
The wider public won't even notice this has happened
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.
Q: What do you call the Leader of the Opposition? A: Jeremy Corbyn
is about as Dada as it gets.
I would argue it's more surrealist than Dada; but I'm not going to fall out over art history concepts.
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.
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.
So, there we are. Corbyn's trying to claim credit for something that was raised long before he became leader. Still, one can't expect him to try and claim credit for the Labour Party's little civil war.
The fact he was the first one to raise the matter in public. What Gove may or may not have done behind the scenes is neither here or there.
Corbyn 1, Gove 1/2 Hammond / Cameron 0.
Sounds like someone clutching at straws and failing to me
Maybe, just maybe, he envisaged a time when he was Chancellor and had already spent what this law allows as certified by the OBR and something like Redcar comes along. Is a Chancellor really to have his hands tied in such a scenario, say, sorry but the law provides that there is nothing we can do?
I am a strong believer in fiscal prudence and I am very concerned about our current debt levels but I am also a believer in governments governing and then being held to account for the decisions they actually make.
Right now, and for the foreseeable future, a policy such as Osborne is proposing makes sense but there will come a time when it does not and when that happens there should not be a stupid law in the road.
Going back to being a PBtory now.
Government budgets have a contingency reserve. A government might be facedwith a military and or terrorist crisis. A govt migh have a cause spend sums of money that are legitimate and passed by parliament.
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.
True, but even though you don't get points for coming up with an idea or proposing a policy first, it's fair game to bring it up, and Corbyn should do so. Sure, Corbyn has a lot of ideas, some few of which they will even end up agreeing with, so it may not be significant, but it's also fair game to suggest it is significant, and he doesn't have much of substance besides a mythical rise of the disenchanted to point to as proof he's achieving things.
Hang on a sec, Jeremy Corbyn didn't call for this contract to be terminated. He called for some mythical contract, existing only in his own fantasy, to be terminated:
And while you’re about it, terminate that bid made by our Ministry of Justice’s to provide services for Saudi Arabia - which would be required to carry out the sentence that would be put down on Mohammed Ali al-Nimr.
What on earth was that about? Some contract for beheading and crucifying, which the Saudis couldn't manage without our assistance?
Hang on a sec, Jeremy Corbyn didn't call for this contract to be terminated. He called for some mythical contract, existing only in his own fantasy, to be terminated:
And while you’re about it, terminate that bid made by our Ministry of Justice’s to provide services for Saudi Arabia - which would be required to carry out the sentence that would be put down on Mohammed Ali al-Nimr.
What on earth was that about? Some contract for beheading and crucifying, which the Saudis couldn't manage without our assistance?
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.
True, but even though you don't get points for coming up with an idea or proposing a policy first, it's fair game to bring it up, and Corbyn should do so. Sure, Corbyn has a lot of ideas, some few of which they will even end up agreeing with, so it may not be significant, but it's also fair game to suggest it is significant, and he doesn't have much of substance besides a mythical rise of the disenchanted to point to as proof he's achieving things.
Of course and if the Labour Party weren't busy tearing red strips off each other over the Shadow Chancellor's latest u-turn it might have been relevant.
...and using redcar as a bit of an emotional smokescreen.
The government are actually spending money as a result of the Redcar closure. The Redcar closure is a result of the 'global downturn which started in China'. Well actually redcars problems began just before the 2010 election didn't it?. It has nothing to do with this government's policies which as Osborne haters will readily attest cannot be due to over zealous cutting of the deficit.
Shall I ask the couple sat next to me in the pub what they think? On reflection I'd better not, they have been taken by surprise by the size of their toasted sandwich.
Surely if there were to be any political blame attached to the Redcar closure, it will be those on both sides who advocated higher Western energy prices as a matter of policy over the past few years. Take a step forward and a big bow Ed Miliband who signed the last such treaty.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. Every British government since WW2 has fawned on the Saudi's without any regard to their horrible internal method of governing their people.
So whats new now? Simply that their oil is no longer the all powerful mineral it was only a couple of years ago. There is a glut on the present international market, so our Dave can make a small criticism without fearing an almighty backlash of Arab anger.
What he really should be doing is to send the proverbial gunboat down the Red Sea to Jeddah; but he can't 'cause Britain is now a weak kitten and laughed at around the hubble-bubble.
I am a strong believer in fiscal prudence and I am very concerned about our current debt levels but I am also a believer in governments governing and then being held to account for the decisions they actually make.
Going back to being a PBtory now.
FPT
Thanks for your response on the previous but IMHO Governments shouldn't be forced by law to be sensible. Ken Clarke eschewed the clarion calls for a tax cut before the 1997 election and ensured (at least in public finance terms) a splendid inheritance for Blair and Brown and of course they kept to Clarke's plans for the first two years to much discontent because everyone could see how atrophied the public services were.
Money needed to be spent on the public services in the late 1990s but Brown effectively tried to force feed a banquet to a starving man. A gradual above-inflation increase in expenditure could have been managed and directed but that wasn't the Brown way.
The current Osborne plan is effectively telling an overweight man he has to be on a diet for the rest of his life and is never allowed a takeaway or a roast lunch. If Clarke acted against electoral interest and in the interest of the public finances (more than Lawson did of course) why can't future Chancellors be allowed to take the personal and electoral responsibility for economic decisions agreed (presumably) by Cabinet ?
This "Fiscal Responsibility Act" is political chicanery and opportunism. It's all very amusing to watch Labour flounder but that doesn't make it a good law or a sensible use of parliamentary time.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. Every British government since WW2 has fawned on the Saudi's without any regard to their horrible internal method of governing their people.
So whats new now? Simply that their oil is no longer the all powerful mineral it was only a couple of years ago. There is a glut on the present international market, so our Dave can make a small criticism without fearing an almighty backlash of Arab anger.
What he really should be doing is to send the proverbial gunboat down the Red Sea to Jeddah; but he can't 'cause Britain is now a weak kitten and laughed at around the hubble-bubble.
I don't know what all the fuss is about. Every British government since WW2 has fawned on the Saudi's without any regard to their horrible internal method of governing their people.
So whats new now? Simply that their oil is no longer the all powerful mineral it was only a couple of years ago. There is a glut on the present international market, so our Dave can make a small criticism without fearing an almighty backlash of Arab anger.
What he really should be doing is to send the proverbial gunboat down the Red Sea to Jeddah; but he can't 'cause Britain is now a weak kitten and laughed at around the hubble-bubble.
I almost hate to say it, but by and large I agree with that.
The only thing that worries me even more is IS replacing the House of Saud and controlling not only the oil but the cradle of Islam too.
So now you get to see what Corbynomics means. Producing things the world doesn't need at a subsidised price the country can't justify. And if Redcar never made economic sense ever again? It would still be kept open.
So now you get to see what Corbynomics means. Producing things the world doesn't need at a subsidised price the country can't justify. And if Redcar never made economic sense ever again? It would still be kept open.
Completely off topic, For those that might be interested in these things. The Dutch Safety Board report into the Malaysian 777 airliner shot down over Eastern Ukraine. http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf (30mb PDF) Executive Summary: It was shot down by a missile.
So now you get to see what Corbynomics means. Producing things the world doesn't need at a subsidised price the country can't justify. And if Redcar never made economic sense ever again? It would still be kept open.
Of course a couple of weeks ago they were ranting about 'corporate welfare' and wanting to grab back tens of billions of alleged 'subsidies' given to companies. Now they seem to want corporate welfare.
Having said that, there's no doubt that the closure of the Redcar plant is a massive blow to an area which was already in a pretty dire state.
So now you get to see what Corbynomics means. Producing things the world doesn't need at a subsidised price the country can't justify. And if Redcar never made economic sense ever again? It would still be kept open.
Next up - deep coal....
Spot on. I too wish that we could all have highly paid and highly skilled jobs, but history tells us that throwing good money after bad is not helpful. Market is just not there for steel at the moment
If you really want a conspiracy theory, perhaps this little peice of Saudi patronage has actually fallen victim to recent austerity cuts (they have been making them believe it or not, oil price being what it is), and this is just a way to let us down gently so we don't seem like the jilted party.
''Having said that, there's no doubt that the closure of the Redcar plant is a massive blow to an area which was already in a pretty dire state. ''
If you ask the bosses they will tell you about the horrendous cost of power to make steel. A cost that is a direct result of policies supported by those now wailing about Redcar.
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.
On topic - the thread header refers to an 'unlikely alliance of Gove and Corbyn' - since when is two people having a barely similar position an 'alliance'? Who's spinning now?
So now you get to see what Corbynomics means. Producing things the world doesn't need at a subsidised price the country can't justify. And if Redcar never made economic sense ever again? It would still be kept open.
Next up - deep coal....
Can we get a factory that only makes left shoes?
That is not as stupid as it sounds. A factory devoted to making only left shoes and one devoted to making only right shoes may well be more cost-effective than one large one making left and right shoes. Or haven't you heard of specialisation?
So now you get to see what Corbynomics means. Producing things the world doesn't need at a subsidised price the country can't justify. And if Redcar never made economic sense ever again? It would still be kept open.
Next up - deep coal....
Spot on. I too wish that we could all have highly paid and highly skilled jobs, but history tells us that throwing good money after bad is not helpful. Market is just not there for steel at the moment
The market is not there at the moment, but will it be there in future? If so, Redcar won't be. There is certainly a case for keeping it open so it can flourish once more when the recovery comes. Whether it is a good case is another question, of course. But one day steel will be needed, so do we ride out the bad times or shall we need to import it?
So now you get to see what Corbynomics means. Producing things the world doesn't need at a subsidised price the country can't justify. And if Redcar never made economic sense ever again? It would still be kept open.
Next up - deep coal....
Can we get a factory that only makes left shoes?
That is not as stupid as it sounds. A factory devoted to making only left shoes and one devoted to making only right shoes may well be more cost-effective than one large one making left and right shoes. Or haven't you heard of specialisation?
Unlikely, because you would need to have a coordinated mechanism for matching up individual shoes to make a pair.
So now you get to see what Corbynomics means. Producing things the world doesn't need at a subsidised price the country can't justify. And if Redcar never made economic sense ever again? It would still be kept open.
Next up - deep coal....
Spot on. I too wish that we could all have highly paid and highly skilled jobs, but history tells us that throwing good money after bad is not helpful. Market is just not there for steel at the moment
The market is not there at the moment, but will it be there in future? If so, Redcar won't be. There is certainly a case for keeping it open so it can flourish once more when the recovery comes. Whether it is a good case is another question, of course. But one day steel will be needed, so do we ride out the bad times or shall we need to import it?
That's writing a blank cheque. Moreover if in ten years the demand for steel still hasn't recovered we'd be in the same mess, only down £1bn or whatever, and we'd have to decide on whether to invest further in the plant to keep it up to speed.
Imagine we'd said the same about the coal mines - how many have re-opened? Not enough, I suspect.
I am a strong believer in fiscal prudence and I am very concerned about our current debt levels but I am also a believer in governments governing and then being held to account for the decisions they actually make.
Going back to being a PBtory now.
FPT
Thanks for your response on the previous but IMHO Governments shouldn't be forced by law to be sensible. Ken Clarke eschewed the clarion calls for a tax cut before the 1997 election and ensured (at least in public finance terms) a splendid inheritance for Blair and Brown and of course they kept to Clarke's plans for the first two years to much discontent because everyone could see how atrophied the public services were.
Money needed to be spent on the public services in the late 1990s but Brown effectively tried to force feed a banquet to a starving man. A gradual above-inflation increase in expenditure could have been managed and directed but that wasn't the Brown way.
The current Osborne plan is effectively telling an overweight man he has to be on a diet for the rest of his life and is never allowed a takeaway or a roast lunch. If Clarke acted against electoral interest and in the interest of the public finances (more than Lawson did of course) why can't future Chancellors be allowed to take the personal and electoral responsibility for economic decisions agreed (presumably) by Cabinet ?
This "Fiscal Responsibility Act" is political chicanery and opportunism. It's all very amusing to watch Labour flounder but that doesn't make it a good law or a sensible use of parliamentary time.
I believe that Gordon Brown made his famous raid on pensions to fund the NHS in his 1st budget. (as well as a windfall tax on utility companies)
"Many pension funds are in substantial surplus and at present many companies are enjoying pension holidays, so this is the right time to undertake a long-needed reform. So, with immediate effect, I propose to abolish tax credits paid to pension funds and companies."
So now you get to see what Corbynomics means. Producing things the world doesn't need at a subsidised price the country can't justify. And if Redcar never made economic sense ever again? It would still be kept open.
Next up - deep coal....
Spot on. I too wish that we could all have highly paid and highly skilled jobs, but history tells us that throwing good money after bad is not helpful. Market is just not there for steel at the moment
The market is not there at the moment, but will it be there in future? If so, Redcar won't be. There is certainly a case for keeping it open so it can flourish once more when the recovery comes. Whether it is a good case is another question, of course. But one day steel will be needed, so do we ride out the bad times or shall we need to import it?
You import it. If other governments are stupid enough to subsidise our steel consumption, let them.
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.
Has the deficit actually been coming down, or has it been coming down as a percentage of GDP?
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.
Has the deficit actually been coming down, or has it been coming down as a percentage of GDP?
So now you get to see what Corbynomics means. Producing things the world doesn't need at a subsidised price the country can't justify. And if Redcar never made economic sense ever again? It would still be kept open.
Next up - deep coal....
Spot on. I too wish that we could all have highly paid and highly skilled jobs, but history tells us that throwing good money after bad is not helpful. Market is just not there for steel at the moment
The market is not there at the moment, but will it be there in future? If so, Redcar won't be. There is certainly a case for keeping it open so it can flourish once more when the recovery comes. Whether it is a good case is another question, of course. But one day steel will be needed, so do we ride out the bad times or shall we need to import it?
You import it. If other governments are stupid enough to subsidise our steel consumption, let them.
I agree, but it is sad that they have all lost their jobs though.
I'm not sure what else there is up in Redcar that can absorb 2,000 ex-employees and, of course, they may lose the sense of community and camaraderie from it as well.
I am a strong believer in fiscal prudence and I am very concerned about our current debt levels but I am also a believer in governments governing and then being held to account for the decisions they actually make.
Going back to being a PBtory now.
FPT
Thanks for your response on the previous but IMHO Governments shouldn't be forced by law to be sensible. Ken Clarke eschewed the clarion calls for a tax cut before the 1997 election and ensured (at least in public finance terms) a splendid inheritance for Blair and Brown and of course they kept to Clarke's plans for the first two years to much discontent because everyone could see how atrophied the public services were.
Money needed to be spent on the public services in the late 1990s but Brown effectively tried to force feed a banquet to a starving man. A gradual above-inflation increase in expenditure could have been managed and directed but that wasn't the Brown way.
The current Osborne plan is effectively telling an overweight man he has to be on a diet for the rest of his life and is never allowed a takeaway or a roast lunch. If Clarke acted against electoral interest and in the interest of the public finances (more than Lawson did of course) why can't future Chancellors be allowed to take the personal and electoral responsibility for economic decisions agreed (presumably) by Cabinet ?
This "Fiscal Responsibility Act" is political chicanery and opportunism. It's all very amusing to watch Labour flounder but that doesn't make it a good law or a sensible use of parliamentary time.
Fair enough. Shall we abolish the Climate Change Act too?
I am a strong believer in fiscal prudence and I am very concerned about our current debt levels but I am also a believer in governments governing and then being held to account for the decisions they actually make.
Going back to being a PBtory now.
FPT
Thanks for your response on the previous but IMHO Governments shouldn't be forced by law to be sensible. Ken Clarke eschewed the clarion calls for a tax cut before the 1997 election and ensured (at least in public finance terms) a splendid inheritance for Blair and Brown and of course they kept to Clarke's plans for the first two years to much discontent because everyone could see how atrophied the public services were.
Money needed to be spent on the public services in the late 1990s but Brown effectively tried to force feed a banquet to a starving man. A gradual above-inflation increase in expenditure could have been managed and directed but that wasn't the Brown way.
The current Osborne plan is effectively telling an overweight man he has to be on a diet for the rest of his life and is never allowed a takeaway or a roast lunch. If Clarke acted against electoral interest and in the interest of the public finances (more than Lawson did of course) why can't future Chancellors be allowed to take the personal and electoral responsibility for economic decisions agreed (presumably) by Cabinet ?
This "Fiscal Responsibility Act" is political chicanery and opportunism. It's all very amusing to watch Labour flounder but that doesn't make it a good law or a sensible use of parliamentary time.
We are getting there from rather different angles and perspectives but I think we are pretty much in agreement about this piece of legislation.
So now you get to see what Corbynomics means. Producing things the world doesn't need at a subsidised price the country can't justify. And if Redcar never made economic sense ever again? It would still be kept open.
Next up - deep coal....
Spot on. I too wish that we could all have highly paid and highly skilled jobs, but history tells us that throwing good money after bad is not helpful. Market is just not there for steel at the moment
The market is not there at the moment, but will it be there in future? If so, Redcar won't be. There is certainly a case for keeping it open so it can flourish once more when the recovery comes. Whether it is a good case is another question, of course. But one day steel will be needed, so do we ride out the bad times or shall we need to import it?
What reason do we have to assume the market will be there in the future? Many other nations are happy to subsidise their own production and in the meantime a lot of scientific and technological work has been done in recent decades to replace steel as a product.
I am a strong believer in fiscal prudence and I am very concerned about our current debt levels but I am also a believer in governments governing and then being held to account for the decisions they actually make.
Going back to being a PBtory now.
FPT
Thanks for your response on the previous but IMHO Governments shouldn't be forced by law to be sensible. Ken Clarke eschewed the clarion calls for a tax cut before the 1997 election and ensured (at least in public finance terms) a splendid inheritance for Blair and Brown and of course they kept to Clarke's plans for the first two years to much discontent because everyone could see how atrophied the public services were.
Money needed to be spent on the public services in the late 1990s but Brown effectively tried to force feed a banquet to a starving man. A gradual above-inflation increase in expenditure could have been managed and directed but that wasn't the Brown way.
The current Osborne plan is effectively telling an overweight man he has to be on a diet for the rest of his life and is never allowed a takeaway or a roast lunch. If Clarke acted against electoral interest and in the interest of the public finances (more than Lawson did of course) why can't future Chancellors be allowed to take the personal and electoral responsibility for economic decisions agreed (presumably) by Cabinet ?
This "Fiscal Responsibility Act" is political chicanery and opportunism. It's all very amusing to watch Labour flounder but that doesn't make it a good law or a sensible use of parliamentary time.
Fair enough. Shall we abolish the Climate Change Act too?
Comments
A: Jeremy Corbyn
is about as Dada as it gets.
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell claims Redcar visit changed his policy on the deficit. http://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/update/2015-10-13/shadow-chancellor-claims-redcar-visit-changed-his-policy-on-deficit/ …
I wish Dan Hodges would say what he thinks. All this pussy-footing around things just seems a bit weak!!
It sounds like he's making it up as he goes along
Barring an economic slowdown between now and 2020 I will be very annoyed if we don't reach surplus.
Late middle aged couple come in with a newspaper and sit down.
'Gove in dispute with Saudi Arabia' he says,looking at a headline.
'Oh!' says wife.
'Yes,' says man, 'arms deals, Saudi arms deals.'
'Oh,' says wife.
'Yes,'says man, '...news, I know all the news. All doom and gloom.'
He turns over pages, 'Oh, England won 3 - 1 last night, I did not know they were playing.'
He turns over pages and they start doing the puzzle pages. The newspaper is The Times.
This is life outside the famed Westminster Bubble. Punters should learn to live with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquerie
I always said so...
Corbyn 1, Gove 1/2 Hammond / Cameron 0.
I am a strong believer in fiscal prudence and I am very concerned about our current debt levels but I am also a believer in governments governing and then being held to account for the decisions they actually make.
Right now, and for the foreseeable future, a policy such as Osborne is proposing makes sense but there will come a time when it does not and when that happens there should not be a stupid law in the road.
Going back to being a PBtory now.
If the Government had suddenly axed Trident, Corbyn could claim great success. The idea the wider public will give him any credit for this is fanciful in the extreme.
Shall I ask the couple sat next to me in the pub what they think? On reflection I'd better not, they have been taken by surprise by the size of their toasted sandwich.
It may be that Corbyn raised it first (although I strongly suspect that Gove was working on it already behind the scenes as few government decisions are made in a couple of weeks). So he might get a nod, but he didn't achieve the outcome, and it wasn't a concession to this.
To put this in terms that Mr. Dancer will understand: Cannae came before Zama.
Reverse engineering that may delight Osbo even more?
http://t.co/UhUzHqdTu3
Corbyn won't get the credit for something 99% of people won't notice.
Easier than commenting on the civil war within the PLP, though.
Mr. Charles, are you accusing Gove of being Scipio Africanus? That's a shade generous.
And while you’re about it, terminate that bid made by our Ministry of Justice’s to provide services for Saudi Arabia - which would be required to carry out the sentence that would be put down on Mohammed Ali al-Nimr.
What on earth was that about? Some contract for beheading and crucifying, which the Saudis couldn't manage without our assistance?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/09/jeremy-corbyns-labour-party-conference-speech-2015-full-text
@johndavidblake: The business concerned was Lehman Brothers about 48 hrs before it went broke. https://t.co/Iadez769PU
So whats new now? Simply that their oil is no longer the all powerful mineral it was only a couple of years ago. There is a glut on the present international market, so our Dave can make a small criticism without fearing an almighty backlash of Arab anger.
What he really should be doing is to send the proverbial gunboat down the Red Sea to Jeddah; but he can't 'cause Britain is now a weak kitten and laughed at around the hubble-bubble.
Thanks for your response on the previous but IMHO Governments shouldn't be forced by law to be sensible. Ken Clarke eschewed the clarion calls for a tax cut before the 1997 election and ensured (at least in public finance terms) a splendid inheritance for Blair and Brown and of course they kept to Clarke's plans for the first two years to much discontent because everyone could see how atrophied the public services were.
Money needed to be spent on the public services in the late 1990s but Brown effectively tried to force feed a banquet to a starving man. A gradual above-inflation increase in expenditure could have been managed and directed but that wasn't the Brown way.
The current Osborne plan is effectively telling an overweight man he has to be on a diet for the rest of his life and is never allowed a takeaway or a roast lunch. If Clarke acted against electoral interest and in the interest of the public finances (more than Lawson did of course) why can't future Chancellors be allowed to take the personal and electoral responsibility for economic decisions agreed (presumably) by Cabinet ?
This "Fiscal Responsibility Act" is political chicanery and opportunism. It's all very amusing to watch Labour flounder but that doesn't make it a good law or a sensible use of parliamentary time.
Credit to @stephentall - he honours his bets. I've sponsored him, and I hope you will, too https://t.co/yrbBz4LXAw https://t.co/xO72mdkz9t
With photos
Lib Dem @StephenTall loses #GE2015 bet, walks 'naked' down Whitehall for charity. GIVE here http://t.co/fAARaXXzr5 http://t.co/CPm4AjLYQe
Such a talented family, the Lovelaces.....
The only thing that worries me even more is IS replacing the House of Saud and controlling not only the oil but the cradle of Islam too.
This is an excellent article on what happens when you cross the Saudis.
Next up - deep coal....
http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf (30mb PDF)
Executive Summary: It was shot down by a missile.
Having said that, there's no doubt that the closure of the Redcar plant is a massive blow to an area which was already in a pretty dire state.
Thus, ISIS is proving extremely useful to the Saudis.
http://sydneypadua.com/2dgoggles/
Yes I'm sure this will shift lots of votes.
If you ask the bosses they will tell you about the horrendous cost of power to make steel. A cost that is a direct result of policies supported by those now wailing about Redcar.
It was obviously UKIP that tipped the balance....
https://twitter.com/guidofawkes/status/653901394349543424
Unless all the shoes were identical...
Imagine we'd said the same about the coal mines - how many have re-opened? Not enough, I suspect.
"Many pension funds are in substantial surplus and at present many companies are enjoying pension holidays, so this is the right time to undertake a long-needed reform. So, with immediate effect, I propose to abolish tax credits paid to pension funds and companies."
I'm not sure what else there is up in Redcar that can absorb 2,000 ex-employees and, of course, they may lose the sense of community and camaraderie from it as well.
They could do a choice one of those tweets on Ken Clarke....
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/10/political-betting-in-the-age-of-jeremy-corbyn/
Sorry, just noted the date on the article.
*puzzled face*