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.
We need to concentrate on selling them Rolls Royce's and Nissan's back.
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?
Mr. Llama, and whatever Act it is that dictates aid spending is 0.7%.
Quite so, M.r Dancer. It would seem that there are some who are more than happy to support binding, long-term legislation when it forces HMG to spend money but when such legislation is proposed to force governments to be more frugal it suddenly becomes a dreadful imposition and wrong in principle.
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 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.
What a load of nonsense.
Perhaps some of UKIPs 102 MP's could raise the matter in the HoC?
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?
Agree with that. It's a good thing we kept open all those chariot factories when the Romans left and the market looked a little flaky. Very farsighted. They'll be useful when the recovery comes.
LOL at Corbyn and McDonnell imposing a three-line whip. With Corbyn's record, there's no way in hell he can impose any kind of whip on the PLP. They will definitely be some rebels within the PLP, for sure on the fiscal charter - Umunna's already made his POV clear, and I doubt the small coterie of Blairites, and even a portion of the soft left/Brownites will obey the whip too. Those who want Corbyn out, especially have no real reason to obey the whip.
I don't think he'll resign even if there's a massive rebellion. That said, it's a wide open goal for Labour MPs to rebel on this if they want Corbyn out.
LOL at Corbyn and McDonnell imposing a three-line whip. With Corbyn's record, there's no way in hell he can impose any kind of whip on the PLP. They will definitely be some rebels within the PLP, for sure on the fiscal charter - Umunna's already made his POV clear, and I doubt the small coterie of Blairites, and even a portion of the soft left/Brownites will obey the whip too. Those who want Corbyn out, especially have no real reason to obey the whip.
Mass abstentions , dentist appointments etc imminent.
Predictable – Corbyn’s history of rebellion against 3 line whipping comes back to bite him when imposing it on others, shock – Another U-turn as I thought he was against them?
Now that we're not selling the Saudis consulting services for prisons as it's immoral, can we stop selling them military equipment to bomb Yemen and bulldoze Bahrain?
LOL at Corbyn and McDonnell imposing a three-line whip. With Corbyn's record, there's no way in hell he can impose any kind of whip on the PLP. They will definitely be some rebels within the PLP, for sure on the fiscal charter - Umunna's already made his POV clear, and I doubt the small coterie of Blairites, and even a portion of the soft left/Brownites will obey the whip too. Those who want Corbyn out, especially have no real reason to obey the whip.
Mass abstentions , dentist appointments etc imminent.
Those who want Corbyn out, especially have no real reason to obey the whip.
There's one big reason: deselections.
I didn't even vote for Corbyn, but I would happily vote to deselect my MP if he made a habit of voting with the Tories just to make a point. Despite their weird sense of entitlement, they don't have a fundamental right to remain an MP forevermore irrespective of what they do.
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?
In the early 90s I had occasion to visit PZL (Poland's largest aerospace company) in Warsaw. During the visit the management complained bitterly about Antonov - they made the wings for one of its aircraft. Over time, Antonov had drifted from being very tardy paying to stopping altogether. PZL had tried everything management could think of to get Antonov to pay but to no avail, so it had been decided to stop delivering the wings; it still hadn't been paid. PZL's problem now was how to pay the workers who were producing the wings, which it was still building and stockpiling! I'm sure Corbyn would have been proud.
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
LOL at Corbyn and McDonnell imposing a three-line whip. With Corbyn's record, there's no way in hell he can impose any kind of whip on the PLP. They will definitely be some rebels within the PLP, for sure on the fiscal charter - Umunna's already made his POV clear, and I doubt the small coterie of Blairites, and even a portion of the soft left/Brownites will obey the whip too. Those who want Corbyn out, especially have no real reason to obey the whip.
Mass abstentions , dentist appointments etc imminent.
There's a stampede to book Scottish mini breaks.
Isn’t it a bit early to be delivering Christmas presents…!
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
Yes. But only if they left the Labour Party and formed a group of 116+ MPs though.
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.
Mr. JEO, I believe that would be the case, but I'm not sure if someone could do that whilst being a member of Labour. They could break-away, of course and form New Labour or suchlike.
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
Yes. But only if they left the Labour Party and formed a group of 116+ MPs though.
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
Stand as New Labour. That's the brand that won elections. Labour haven't won an election for decades...
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
Yes. But only if they left the Labour Party and formed a group of 116+ MPs though.
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
There's nothing to stop them using "New Labour" or "Moderate Labour" as a brand though.
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
Yes. But only if they left the Labour Party and formed a group of 116+ MPs though.
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
Only they can force a by-election. Otherwise they're safe to GE2020, even if they're deselected in the meantime.
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
Stand as New Labour. That's the brand that won elections. Labour haven't won an election for decades...
UK election winners
1979: Tory 1983: Tory 1987: Tory 1992: Tory 1997: Red Tory 2001: Red Tory 2005: Red Tory 2010: Tory lite 2015: Tory 2020: Tory
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?
Well that makes sense in theory certainly, and Redcar of course was kept viable last time. I don't know if every option was fully exhausted in this case.
All we know is nobody is prepared to put the money up and take the risk to keep the option open. I don't think government stepping in to bail out every failed business is a good idea, that was my point really. I think McDonnell's instincts are that way. Reminds me of Scargill and his comment about there being no uneconomic coal mines just ones which hadn't had enough investment. By that logic BL would still be churning out Marinas...
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
Yes. But only if they left the Labour Party and formed a group of 116+ MPs though.
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
I know we are only being silly kicking around this idea, but how would there be by-elections? A MP can change perty or resign a whip without triggering a by-election.
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
Stand as New Labour. That's the brand that won elections. Labour haven't won an election for decades...
Well, anyone who was enthused by the "New Labour" brand just recently had a chance to vote for Liz Kendall for just £3....
1997, 2001 and 2005 were won by Tony Blair as a personality, nothing else.
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
Stand as New Labour. That's the brand that won elections. Labour haven't won an election for decades...
UK election winners
1979: Tory 1983: Tory 1987: Tory 1992: Tory 1997: Red Tory 2001: Red Tory 2005: Red Tory 2010: Tory lite 2015: Tory 2020: Tory
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
Stand as New Labour. That's the brand that won elections. Labour haven't won an election for decades...
UK election winners
1979: Tory 1983: Tory 1987: Tory 1992: Tory 1997: Red Tory 2001: Red Tory 2005: Red Tory 2010: Tory lite 2015: Tory 2020: Tory
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
Yes. But only if they left the Labour Party and formed a group of 116+ MPs though.
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
I know we are only being silly kicking around this idea, but how would there be by-elections? A MP can change perty or resign a whip without triggering a by-election.
Carswell and Reckless have surely set a precedent in practice, though?
(Also, there's been mixed messages on whether the recall petitions could force a by-election in those circumstances.)
Those who want Corbyn out, especially have no real reason to obey the whip.
There's one big reason: deselections.
I didn't even vote for Corbyn, but I would happily vote to deselect my MP if he made a habit of voting with the Tories just to make a point. Despite their weird sense of entitlement, they don't have a fundamental right to remain an MP forevermore irrespective of what they do.
How many rebellions is grounds for deselection though? They weren't elected under the Corbyn programme, so if they state they should vote differently to stay true to the programme they were elected under, that might be disloyal to Corbyn, and it might even be damaging to the party, but is it actually disloyal to the party itself? How many times before it stops being principled rebellion?
If Labour moderates are going to form a new party, they only really have the next couple of years to do it. If they wait until half of them are deselected, it will look like sour grapes. If they wait until after the general election, then a lot of them will no longer be MPs.
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
Mrs T had a reputation for being hard nosed about this sort of thing, but the case in Sunderland is instructive. She was certainly instrumental in bringing about the demise of shipbuilding on Wearside but she was equally instrumental in getting Nissan to set up there and its facility has been and continues to be very successful. I don't think for a moment that she expected Wearsiders to vote Tory and they haven't. Of course, companies like Nissan don't grow on trees unless Corbyn has one on his allotment to go with the money tree.
If Labour moderates are going to form a new party, they only really have the next couple of years to do it. If they wait until half of them are deselected, it will look like sour grapes. If they wait until after the general election, then a lot of them will no longer be MPs.
Yep. That's the tension.
They need both a narrative of abusive Corbynism to justify walking away, and sufficient time to set up a victory in 2020 - which will be by taking part of the CLP with them, defecting to someone else or building from scratch.
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?
How exactly do we ride out the good times? How much would it take? - the billions mentioned in the HoC? Would you approve of abolishing tax credits and housing benefits to sustain the plant up to the uncertain good time (assuming the EU would let us do it).
The UK has never had an industrial policy. Historically, the aristocracy considered being in trade as not an appropriate activity. The City preferred to gamble on the stock exchange or commodities. The Left has traditionally hated business and has sought to undermine it. When the plants were owned by the state the unions went on strike.
Re Redcar: What possible justification is there for keeping the place open. Steelworks consume vast amounts of energy and therefore are huge polluters. I am frankly surprised that it had not been taxed out of existence years ago. Under Labour's legislation we have to get our greenhouse gases to 80% below their 1990 level. That cannot happen by having big polluters staying in business.
It is sad that lots of little people must lose their jobs and an already roughly treated part of the country will lose even more employment. However, I am sure Mr. Miliband and his Labour MPs considered all that when they introduced the act to de-industrialise the UK, and they considered the little people's sacrifice worthwhile. Got to think of the polar bears.
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
Yes. But only if they left the Labour Party and formed a group of 116+ MPs though.
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
I know we are only being silly kicking around this idea, but how would there be by-elections? A MP can change perty or resign a whip without triggering a by-election.
Carswell and Reckless have surely set a precedent in practice, though?
(Also, there's been mixed messages on whether the recall petitions could force a by-election in those circumstances.)
A mass split to an SDP mk II would probably not involve by-elections. They would argue that they are better representing the manifesto that their constituents voted for.
The Carswell/Reckless precedent is (a) not at all binding, and (b) with respect to defection, not splitting. I think that's more than a technical distinction.
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
Yes. But only if they left the Labour Party and formed a group of 116+ MPs though.
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
I know we are only being silly kicking around this idea, but how would there be by-elections? A MP can change perty or resign a whip without triggering a by-election.
Carswell and Reckless have surely set a precedent in practice, though?
I'd hope so, but no guarantee. If someone were to do such a thing from Labour, and I don't think they would, they'd probably say they were the true Labour people or something, and so argue it wasn't necessary.
It's a depressing comment on British politics that a major change in policy toward Saudi Arabia is debated here ENTIRELY in terms of which British politician should get most credit for it.
In a micro way, it's like the argument over the NI peace process. Major made a start, Blair completed it. Credit to both of them.
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
So here's an interesting thought. Does the leader of the Labour Party have to be the Leader of the Opposition? Ultimately, parties in the UK are just electoral banners to run for parliament under. Our constitution does not give them any status in parliament. The Prime Minister is chosen as the person most able to control a parliamentary majority. Presumably the Leader of the Opposition is the person who can control the next largest group of MPs? If enough MPs from the Opposition defy Corbyn and decided to follow someone else, couldn't they depose him as Leader of the Opposition, even while he remained Leader of the Labour Party?
Yes. But only if they left the Labour Party and formed a group of 116+ MPs though.
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
I know we are only being silly kicking around this idea, but how would there be by-elections? A MP can change perty or resign a whip without triggering a by-election.
Carswell and Reckless have surely set a precedent in practice, though?
(Also, there's been mixed messages on whether the recall petitions could force a by-election in those circumstances.)
Carswell and Reckless left the Tory party; the party however seems to have left the MPs where Labour is concerned.
An existing Labour MP sticking to the 2015 Labour manifesto could legitimately argue that he/she hasn't broken their promise, pledge or position or shifted in any way from the one they were elected on.
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?
How exactly do we ride out the good times? How much would it take? - the billions mentioned in the HoC? Would you approve of abolishing tax credits and housing benefits to sustain the plant up to the uncertain good time (assuming the EU would let us do it).
The UK has never had an industrial policy. Historically, the aristocracy considered being in trade as not an appropriate activity. The City preferred to gamble on the stock exchange or commodities. The Left has traditionally hated business and has sought to undermine it. When the plants were owned by the state the unions went on strike.
One of the major problems in Redcar being viable is the carbon price floor, which makes so much heavy industry in this country unviable. Even if you accept the AGW case wholesale, it makes no difference to the environment, because production is simply offshored. It's all very well being economically pure about it, but you can't do that at the same time as taxing an industry ot of business.
It's a depressing comment on British politics that a major change in policy toward Saudi Arabia is debated here ENTIRELY in terms of which British politician should get most credit for it.
In a micro way, it's like the argument over the NI peace process. Major made a start, Blair completed it. Credit to both of them.
It's a depressing comment on British politics that a major change in policy toward Saudi Arabia is debated here ENTIRELY in terms of which British politician should get most credit for it.
On the contrary - if the only debate is over who gets credit for it, does that not suggest it must definitely be an unambiguously good thing which all are agreed on? That is a rare thing in politics.
It's a depressing comment on British politics that a major change in policy toward Saudi Arabia is debated here ENTIRELY in terms of which British politician should get most credit for it.
In a micro way, it's like the argument over the NI peace process. Major made a start, Blair completed it. Credit to both of them.
I thought it was john McDonnells baby?
I still confused as to how this matter is a "major change in policy toward Saudi Arabia".
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?
I believe it is being maintained for 5 years so that it can be restarted during that period but even the workers know that's a fairy tale. We haven't stopped using steel, we buy it where its cheapest. Mao had a post war ambition to make China's steel production match the UK's. He encouraged the building of neighbourhood smelters where the local population melted down their pots and pans and any other appropriate scrap to make crap steel which was no use to anyone. The transfer of thousands of agricultural workers into this steel production would be a significant factor in causing the Great Famine.
Re Redcar: What possible justification is there for keeping the place open. Steelworks consume vast amounts of energy and therefore are huge polluters. I am frankly surprised that it had not been taxed out of existence years ago. Under Labour's legislation we have to get our greenhouse gases to 80% below their 1990 level. That cannot happen by having big polluters staying in business.
It is sad that lots of little people must lose their jobs and an already roughly treated part of the country will lose even more employment. However, I am sure Mr. Miliband and his Labour MPs considered all that when they introduced the act to de-industrialise the UK, and they considered the little people's sacrifice worthwhile. Got to think of the polar bears.
It's the same reason that so many UK brickworks and cement factories shut down in the last decade. And now we import those products from overseas polluters with far dirtier plant.
It's a depressing comment on British politics that a major change in policy toward Saudi Arabia is debated here ENTIRELY in terms of which British politician should get most credit for it.
In a micro way, it's like the argument over the NI peace process. Major made a start, Blair completed it. Credit to both of them.
Well, yes, it is a bit depressing. But your analogy is way off the mark: we're not talking two PM's here.
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
Stand as New Labour. That's the brand that won elections. Labour haven't won an election for decades...
UK election winners
1979: Tory 1983: Tory 1987: Tory 1992: Tory 1997: Red Tory 2001: Red Tory 2005: Red Tory 2010: Tory lite 2015: Tory 2020: Tory
It's a depressing comment on British politics that a major change in policy toward Saudi Arabia is debated here ENTIRELY in terms of which British politician should get most credit for it.
In a micro way, it's like the argument over the NI peace process. Major made a start, Blair completed it. Credit to both of them.
Well, yes, it is a bit depressing. But your analogy is way off the mark: we're not talking two PM's here.
Palmer's clearly miffed that Corbyn hasn't got all the credit.
Depends on how many rebels there are. If many do rebel, he can't deselect say 25% - 50% of the PLP.
Why not?
He can replace the entire PLP (however many are left) with aging commies like himself
The reason why the Labour party can function is because of those who aren't aging commies like himself. He can bring all his acolytes in, but they'll have no idea how to run a political party, and very soon Corbyn will be running around like a headless chicken.
It's a depressing comment on British politics that a major change in policy toward Saudi Arabia is debated here ENTIRELY in terms of which British politician should get most credit for it.
In a micro way, it's like the argument over the NI peace process. Major made a start, Blair completed it. Credit to both of them.
Well, yes, it is a bit depressing. But your analogy is way off the mark: we're not talking two PM's here.
Palmer's clearly miffed that Corbyn hasn't got all the credit.
Even if he is due some credit, his shadow chancellor has managed to whip up such a storm over his u-turns that nobody will notice.
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
Stand as New Labour. That's the brand that won elections. Labour haven't won an election for decades...
UK election winners
1979: Tory 1983: Tory 1987: Tory 1992: Tory 1997: Red Tory 2001: Red Tory 2005: Red Tory 2010: Tory lite 2015: Tory 2020: Tory
Depends on how many rebels there are. If many do rebel, he can't deselect say 25% - 50% of the PLP.
Why not?
He can replace the entire PLP (however many are left) with aging commies like himself
The reason why the Labour party can function is because of those who aren't aging commies like himself. He can bring all his acolytes in, but they'll have no idea how to run a political party, and very soon Corbyn will be running around like a headless chicken.
Depends on how many rebels there are. If many do rebel, he can't deselect say 25% - 50% of the PLP.
Why not?
He can replace the entire PLP (however many are left) with aging commies like himself
The reason why the Labour party can function is because of those who aren't aging commies like himself. He can bring all his acolytes in, but they'll have no idea how to run a political party, and very soon Corbyn will be running around like a headless chicken.
Yes, we know. That's why the PB Tories are so chipper. Though a functioning Opposition would actually be better all round.
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.
We need to concentrate on selling them Rolls Royce's and Nissan's back.
Re Redcar: What possible justification is there for keeping the place open. Steelworks consume vast amounts of energy and therefore are huge polluters. I am frankly surprised that it had not been taxed out of existence years ago. Under Labour's legislation we have to get our greenhouse gases to 80% below their 1990 level. That cannot happen by having big polluters staying in business.
It is sad that lots of little people must lose their jobs and an already roughly treated part of the country will lose even more employment. However, I am sure Mr. Miliband and his Labour MPs considered all that when they introduced the act to de-industrialise the UK, and they considered the little people's sacrifice worthwhile. Got to think of the polar bears.
It's the same reason that so many UK brickworks and cement factories shut down in the last decade. And now we import those products from overseas polluters with far dirtier plant.
And of course with the biggest building boom since WW2 kicking off exporting our dwindling store of wealth to pay for all those essentials makes no economic sense whatsoever. The whole policy enshrined in the Climate Change Act is insane.
If Labour moderates are going to form a new party, they only really have the next couple of years to do it. If they wait until half of them are deselected, it will look like sour grapes. If they wait until after the general election, then a lot of them will no longer be MPs.
Yep. That's the tension.
They need both a narrative of abusive Corbynism to justify walking away, and sufficient time to set up a victory in 2020 - which will be by taking part of the CLP with them, defecting to someone else or building from scratch.
Adding in the £3ers to full membership and creating a party within a party ought to be enough, within the next 6 months.Labour are being taken over. It's not justification they need its determination.
Now that we're not selling the Saudis consulting services for prisons as it's immoral, can we stop selling them military equipment to bomb Yemen and bulldoze Bahrain?
Well worth a read if you can track down the relevant issues of Private Eye:
This campaign was the culmination of a long-running Private Eye investigation into corruption on a contract between the governments of the UK and Saudi Arabia. In 2012, the team obtained details from a whistleblower of illicit payments and gifts made on a multi-billion pound contract to deliver electronic warfare equipment to the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Over the following two years the team unravelled the mechanisms of the bribery, revealed those who had accepted corrupt payments, and exposed the network behind the deal – as well as revealing the highly sensitive matter of the Ministry of Defence's complicity in bribery even as the Coalition government professed to be clamping down on corruption.
The team examined corporate records and other histories in the UK, Switzerland, the Cayman Islands and Liechtenstein, stretching back over 40 years. They revealed the names of officials who had been complicit in decades of bribery, with its origins in the earliest days of the British arms trade in Saudi. A few months after the story broke, the Serious Fraud Office announced a criminal investigation. It continues today.
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
Stand as New Labour. That's the brand that won elections. Labour haven't won an election for decades...
UK election winners
1979: Tory 1983: Tory 1987: Tory 1992: Tory 1997: Red Tory 2001: Red Tory 2005: Red Tory 2010: Tory lite 2015: Tory 2020: Tory
Mr. Llama, but exporting the pollution means we get to feel good about ourselves.
Like when there was a biofuel kick a few years ago, and southern Asian island nations destroyed ancient pristine forests so there was room was oil plantations.
And then the vast majority of them can get slaughtered in the subsequent by-elections as they find out how little personal standing they have in their constituencies, without the Labour brand to boost them.
Stand as New Labour. That's the brand that won elections. Labour haven't won an election for decades...
UK election winners
1979: Tory 1983: Tory 1987: Tory 1992: Tory 1997: Red Tory 2001: Red Tory 2005: Red Tory 2010: Tory lite 2015: Tory 2020: Tory
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.
What a load of nonsense.
Perhaps some of UKIPs 102 MP's could raise the matter in the HoC?
Simply that their oil is no longer the all powerful mineral it was only a couple of years ago
But it is. The Saudis can hugely influence the price of oil by turning their taps on and off. They are pumping like mad now to try to price out USA fracked oil. Of course they won't be able to do this forever but I believe McDonnell advised them on the strategy.
It's a depressing comment on British politics that a major change in policy toward Saudi Arabia is debated here ENTIRELY in terms of which British politician should get most credit for it.
In a micro way, it's like the argument over the NI peace process. Major made a start, Blair completed it. Credit to both of them.
Well, yes, it is a bit depressing. But your analogy is way off the mark: we're not talking two PM's here.
Now that we're not selling the Saudis consulting services for prisons as it's immoral, can we stop selling them military equipment to bomb Yemen and bulldoze Bahrain?
Well worth a read if you can track down the relevant issues of Private Eye:
This campaign was the culmination of a long-running Private Eye investigation into corruption on a contract between the governments of the UK and Saudi Arabia. In 2012, the team obtained details from a whistleblower of illicit payments and gifts made on a multi-billion pound contract to deliver electronic warfare equipment to the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Over the following two years the team unravelled the mechanisms of the bribery, revealed those who had accepted corrupt payments, and exposed the network behind the deal – as well as revealing the highly sensitive matter of the Ministry of Defence's complicity in bribery even as the Coalition government professed to be clamping down on corruption.
The team examined corporate records and other histories in the UK, Switzerland, the Cayman Islands and Liechtenstein, stretching back over 40 years. They revealed the names of officials who had been complicit in decades of bribery, with its origins in the earliest days of the British arms trade in Saudi. A few months after the story broke, the Serious Fraud Office announced a criminal investigation. It continues today.
@Danny565 That's even worse. What you'll get with that, is to essentially kill any individualism or debate throughout the PLP; and those who are potentially sympathetic to Labour's cause will be put off by such draconian action. As far as I can see, if MPs vote against the whip, it'll be because they disagree with Corbyn's position on the fiscal charter, rather than some conspiracy to be Red Tories. A vast majority of the PLP, and a vast majority of voters do not share most of Corbyn's political views in the first place; there is a reason why only 20% of the PLP backed him. So to expect them to constantly support a Corbynite stance no matter what is strange. The PLP does not exist just to be an echo-chamber for the views and thoughts of activists, members and unions. The PLP is supposed to take in account their own views, the activists'/members'/unions' views who fund and campaign for the party, and also their constituents views, whom they have a duty to represent. If Labour party members/activists think their views take precedent over anything else then that's fine; they are going to find out what happens at the ballot box if that's what they truly think.
As for the standing of MPs; most don't have that much of a standing; the Labour party is in a transition period where all the big-hitters from the Blair/Brown era are long gone, and the party is filled with up and coming figures who can be hit and miss, and not-quite-a-failure politicians such as Burnham and Cooper. It'll be sometime before figures which can have a genuine standing within the party and the public emerge. Because the 'and' is a crucial thing - Corbyn may well be popular among activists and members, but the public don't share their enthusiasm for him. Corbyn is lucky that it's not Cameron he's facing in 2020, but most likely Osborne - someone who the public, when thinking of him as PM, also don't have much time for either.
Those who want Corbyn out, especially have no real reason to obey the whip.
True, but Corbyn controls the party. The rebels will face deselection battles.
Those MPs under threat will have to work out whether their survival chances are better served by pushing on Corbyn now or waiting until they are stabbed in the back.
It's a depressing comment on British politics that a major change in policy toward Saudi Arabia is debated here ENTIRELY in terms of which British politician should get most credit for it.
In a micro way, it's like the argument over the NI peace process. Major made a start, Blair completed it. Credit to both of them.
Well, yes, it is a bit depressing. But your analogy is way off the mark: we're not talking two PM's here.
That's why I said "in a micro way".
No, I mean it's a bad analogy because Major & Blair's roles in the peace process are clearly at a comparable level [though Blair probably ought to get some sort of premium for "completing" it].
Whereas [to my eye] Gove & Corbyn's roles in this affair are not at all comparable: one got the policy changed; one called for it to be changed. But if you think the Government changed their tune thanks to Corbyn's intervention, then fair enough.
I still confused as to how this matter is a "major change in policy toward Saudi Arabia".
I can't remember the last time we did ANYTHING that the Saudis might consider to be a hint of reproof or distance, can you?
Oil security, regional stability and defence contracts are part of it but I think there's something else going on as well.
Fundamentally, we're a bit upset/feel guilty that Saudi Arabia moved out of our sphere of influence - cue Lawrence of Arabia - and was set up with the assistance of the Americans instead.
We've been trying to compensate and make amends ever since.
So who was responsible for scrapping the Saudi deal: Gove who is in power or someone who makes speeches, which few notice and who has a chequered history of supporting some rather unsavoury organisations?
Now that we're not selling the Saudis consulting services for prisons as it's immoral, can we stop selling them military equipment to bomb Yemen and bulldoze Bahrain?
Well worth a read if you can track down the relevant issues of Private Eye:
This campaign was the culmination of a long-running Private Eye investigation into corruption on a contract between the governments of the UK and Saudi Arabia. In 2012, the team obtained details from a whistleblower of illicit payments and gifts made on a multi-billion pound contract to deliver electronic warfare equipment to the Saudi Arabian National Guard. Over the following two years the team unravelled the mechanisms of the bribery, revealed those who had accepted corrupt payments, and exposed the network behind the deal – as well as revealing the highly sensitive matter of the Ministry of Defence's complicity in bribery even as the Coalition government professed to be clamping down on corruption.
The team examined corporate records and other histories in the UK, Switzerland, the Cayman Islands and Liechtenstein, stretching back over 40 years. They revealed the names of officials who had been complicit in decades of bribery, with its origins in the earliest days of the British arms trade in Saudi. A few months after the story broke, the Serious Fraud Office announced a criminal investigation. It continues today.
Frankly, it stinks. A stain on the good name of Britain.
I get the realpolitik but that shouldn't involve us lowering ourselves to their level.
Someone else can sell them defence equipment (and they will), and we can shut down more manufacturing plants in the UK. A few more blue collar workers on the dole won't matter.
Those who want Corbyn out, especially have no real reason to obey the whip.
True, but Corbyn controls the party. The rebels will face deselection battles.
Those MPs under threat will have to work out whether their survival chances are better served by pushing on Corbyn now or waiting until they are stabbed in the back.
Noone is going to be stabbing anyone in the back. It's all out in plain view.
Comments
Perhaps some of UKIPs 102 MP's could raise the matter in the HoC?
I don't think he'll resign even if there's a massive rebellion. That said, it's a wide open goal for Labour MPs to rebel on this if they want Corbyn out.
True, but Corbyn controls the party. The rebels will face deselection battles.
@TGOHF Probably true.
I didn't even vote for Corbyn, but I would happily vote to deselect my MP if he made a habit of voting with the Tories just to make a point. Despite their weird sense of entitlement, they don't have a fundamental right to remain an MP forevermore irrespective of what they do.
Just got back from a trip to Longleat and Bath late last night. Stayed in Frome. Railway
conquestsacquisitionsannexationsadditions at the weekend:Newbury to Westbury (EDIT: I reached Newbury back in 2011)
Westbury to Frome
Westbury to Bath Spa
and last but not least:
The 15-inch Longleat Railway!
He can replace the entire PLP (however many are left) with aging commies like himself
Syria are playing Afghanistan in a FIFA World Cup qualifier match:
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/football/event?id=27561336
1979: Tory
1983: Tory
1987: Tory
1992: Tory
1997: Red Tory
2001: Red Tory
2005: Red Tory
2010: Tory lite
2015: Tory
2020: Tory
All we know is nobody is prepared to put the money up and take the risk to keep the option open. I don't think government stepping in to bail out every failed business is a good idea, that was my point really. I think McDonnell's instincts are that way. Reminds me of Scargill and his comment about there being no uneconomic coal mines just ones which hadn't had enough investment. By that logic BL would still be churning out Marinas...
Just asking.
*innocent face*
1997, 2001 and 2005 were won by Tony Blair as a personality, nothing else.
(Also, there's been mixed messages on whether the recall petitions could force a by-election in those circumstances.)
I doubt that anyone would be rash enough to go it alone and it seems more likely there would be a genuine fracturing of the group.
A gang of at least four.
They need both a narrative of abusive Corbynism to justify walking away, and sufficient time to set up a victory in 2020 - which will be by taking part of the CLP with them, defecting to someone else or building from scratch.
The UK has never had an industrial policy. Historically, the aristocracy considered being in trade as not an appropriate activity. The City preferred to gamble on the stock exchange or commodities. The Left has traditionally hated business and has sought to undermine it. When the plants were owned by the state the unions went on strike.
It is sad that lots of little people must lose their jobs and an already roughly treated part of the country will lose even more employment. However, I am sure Mr. Miliband and his Labour MPs considered all that when they introduced the act to de-industrialise the UK, and they considered the little people's sacrifice worthwhile. Got to think of the polar bears.
The Carswell/Reckless precedent is (a) not at all binding, and (b) with respect to defection, not splitting. I think that's more than a technical distinction.
In a micro way, it's like the argument over the NI peace process. Major made a start, Blair completed it. Credit to both of them.
An existing Labour MP sticking to the 2015 Labour manifesto could legitimately argue that he/she hasn't broken their promise, pledge or position or shifted in any way from the one they were elected on.
https://twitter.com/paddypower/status/653915142984327170
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/642785117795168256
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_the_Headless_Chicken
Like when there was a biofuel kick a few years ago, and southern Asian island nations destroyed ancient pristine forests so there was room was oil plantations.
Somuchguardian
#TheGuardianLost19Point1MillionPoundsThisYear http://t.co/Gon1R1UM1H
Simply that their oil is no longer the all powerful mineral it was only a couple of years ago
But it is. The Saudis can hugely influence the price of oil by turning their taps on and off. They are pumping like mad now to try to price out USA fracked oil. Of course they won't be able to do this forever but I believe McDonnell advised them on the strategy.
Frankly, it stinks. A stain on the good name of Britain.
I get the realpolitik but that shouldn't involve us lowering ourselves to their level.
As for the standing of MPs; most don't have that much of a standing; the Labour party is in a transition period where all the big-hitters from the Blair/Brown era are long gone, and the party is filled with up and coming figures who can be hit and miss, and not-quite-a-failure politicians such as Burnham and Cooper. It'll be sometime before figures which can have a genuine standing within the party and the public emerge. Because the 'and' is a crucial thing - Corbyn may well be popular among activists and members, but the public don't share their enthusiasm for him. Corbyn is lucky that it's not Cameron he's facing in 2020, but most likely Osborne - someone who the public, when thinking of him as PM, also don't have much time for either.
Whereas [to my eye] Gove & Corbyn's roles in this affair are not at all comparable: one got the policy changed; one called for it to be changed. But if you think the Government changed their tune thanks to Corbyn's intervention, then fair enough.
With £44.2 million losses in 2012, £31 million in 2013, they’ll soon be making a profit.
Fundamentally, we're a bit upset/feel guilty that Saudi Arabia moved out of our sphere of influence - cue Lawrence of Arabia - and was set up with the assistance of the Americans instead.
We've been trying to compensate and make amends ever since.
I get the realpolitik but that shouldn't involve us lowering ourselves to their level.
Someone else can sell them defence equipment (and they will), and we can shut down more manufacturing plants in the UK. A few more blue collar workers on the dole won't matter.