The transmitter on here this morning seems stuck on Radio Leave. The wonky aerials must be responsible.
Nah. People have turned off Radio Remain because presenters keep threatening listeners with dreadful consequences if their patronising tone is not adhered too.
"So what was the dusinesses a) prefer one-size-fits-all regulations; or b) dislike one-size-fits-all regulations?
The point he is making, and it is a good point, is that the single market has not delivered any of the promise that those who fought for it (mainly Brits, some Germans) told us we would have.
Integrating our regulations in widgets has not increased the manufacture or supply of widgets in the UK, it has actually made the manufacture and supply of widgets by countries like China easier wiping out our domestic industry.
The growth rate of the EU has markedly slowed since the Single Market came into being and we need to think about why that is. The UK is not the worst affected by this, indeed our relative performance has improved markedly over that period but that is because we have slowed down less than most of the EZ, not because we are growing faster. Our growth is now largely being driven by immigration and the increase in the size of the workforce. One has to wonder for how long that is sustainable.
The EU project of having ever more regulation from the centre is not working. It is a model from the 50s and the 60s that looks increasingly archaic, bureaucratic and hostile to innovation. It is making the EU less competitive, not more. Proof is in the numbers. We need a major change of direction and that does not look possible inside the EU.
I am not surprised that the EU growth rate is slowing since the rise of the tiger, the brics (RIP), and other new emerging trading blocs. I think this is not tied into the EU structure per se.
Coming back to our famous widget manufacturers (I have missed them), to de-hyperbolise the issue, my point was only ever that it is useful to have a common, one-size-fits-all set of regulations in a trading bloc and, crucially, that the UK has a seat at the table when those regulations are being determined and can fight for elements of the regulations that favour UK-based widget manufacturers.
As for the point about growth being driven by immigration, I don't have a huge problem with that, even Brexit economic papers (the Capital Economics one for example, I think) say a drop in immigration would lower UK growth.
As for hostile to innovation, well they seem rigorously pro-consumer sometimes, I think, at the expense of innovation so yes I don't disagree completely with that. Is it for the greater good? Perhaps, perhaps not.
That was answered in the speech: only 6% of UK companies sell to the EU.
44% of our exports are to the EU.
Not all UK companies export.
No, they don't. The newsagent at the bottom of your road probably doesn't export to the EU. I don't suppose either that they are too concerned by EU widget regulations.
No, but they still need to comply with 100% of EU company red tape.
As a Remainer, I wish Cameron would shut up and lead a trade delegation to Antarctica or somewhere else far away.
But, but but... he's such an asset...
All mickey-taking aside, he's certainly not turned out to be the Big Gun many expected him to be.
Cameron's credibility has been based entirely on him appearing like a moderate and reasonable 'chap'.
He now appears like one of the cranks at Speaker's Corner, raving about the end of the World in case of Brexit. It's unsurprising the public are now starting to view him in a very different light.
He's also being very rude. When a man famed for having good manners outside PMQs gets rather boorish - it turns many off too. He lived to regret saying what he did about Kippers, and he's doing it again with members of his own Party. It's not big or clever - especially when you're PM.
He's thrown away so much for so little in the last three months - I still can't quite believe it, though I feel the same.
What a very good post, it confirms what I've been saying for weeks, Cameron is relying on people he's insulted to prop him up, that says plenty about his character. On a personal level I've always defended him, after the tragedy with his son he was very dignified and he appears to be a good family man, but he has demonstrated a very unpleasant side too often, people don't forget that.
I find the same. 'A very good post' is always one "which confirms what I've been saying for weeks"!
The Times: "Britain must not bank on its “special relationship” with the United States to compensate for losing global influence by leaving the EU, foreign and defence chiefs from every White House administration over the past 40 years have warned. In a letter to The Times, 13 former US secretaries of state and defence and national security advisers say that the country’s “place and influence in the world would be diminished and Europe would be dangerously weakened” after a vote to leave in next month’s referendum."
Yet more interference from our American friends, tinged with just a hint of blackmail.
Until their next war of course where we will be expected to "snap into line"
You're quite right, Leave are pushing us in the direction of the worst of both worlds, where the USA would pay less interest in us because we featured so much less in their calculations by being more disengaged and on those rare (usually military) occasions where we did become of more interest to the USA we would feel compelled to throw ourselves wholeheartedly in the endeavour in order to try to attract more of their attention.
It is a definite downside of voting Leave.
I agree with the first part of that, but I don't remember the last time that a British PM (or Conservative leader when opposition) offered anything other than full-throated how-would-you-like me eagerness to get involved in US military adventures in order to attract attention and appear statesmanlike. So it's hard to see how it could really get worse.
As a Remainer, I wish Cameron would shut up and lead a trade delegation to Antarctica or somewhere else far away.
But, but but... he's such an asset...
All mickey-taking aside, he's certainly not turned out to be the Big Gun many expected him to be.
Cameron's credibility has been based entirely on him appearing like a moderate and reasonable 'chap'.
He now appears like one of the cranks at Speaker's Corner, raving about the end of the World in case of Brexit. It's unsurprising the public are now starting to view him in a very different light.
He's also being very rude. When a man famed for having good manners outside PMQs gets rather boorish - it turns many off too. He lived to regret saying what he did about Kippers, and he's doing it again with members of his own Party. It's not big or clever - especially when you're PM.
He's thrown away so much for so little in the last three months - I still can't quite believe it, though I feel the same.
What a very good post, it confirms what I've been saying for weeks, Cameron is relying on people he's insulted to prop him up, that says plenty about his character. On a personal level I've always defended him, after the tragedy with his son he was very dignified and he appears to be a good family man, but he has demonstrated a very unpleasant side too often, people don't forget that.
I find the same. 'A very good post' is always one "which confirms what I've been saying for weeks"!
Yes, and a view which is gaining momentum.
I thought you were in advertising, you know, having ideas that were ahead of the game.
Coming back to our famous widget manufacturers (I have missed them), to de-hyperbolise the issue, my point was only ever that it is useful to have a common, one-size-fits-all set of regulations in a trading bloc and, crucially, that the UK has a seat at the table when those regulations are being determined and can fight for elements of the regulations that favour UK-based widget manufacturers.
.
Except as we have pointed out before, increasingly these standardising decisions are not made at an EU level but at a higher international level. And since we have surrendered our seat at those organisations to the EU we now have effectively no say in the creation of standards and regulations. The EU speaks on our behalf (or rather 1/28th of our behalf). Outside of the EU we would have full representation on those bodies.
"So what was the dusinesses a) prefer one-size-fits-all regulations; or b) dislike one-size-fits-all regulations?
.
I am not surprised that the EU growth rate is slowing since the rise of the tiger, the brics (RIP), and other new emerging trading blocs. I think this is not tied into the EU structure per se.
Coming back to our famous widget manufacturers (I have missed them), to de-hyperbolise the issue, my point was only ever that it is useful to have a common, one-size-fits-all set of regulations in a trading bloc and, crucially, that the UK has a seat at the table when those regulations are being determined and can fight for elements of the regulations that favour UK-based widget manufacturers.
As for the point about growth being driven by immigration, I don't have a huge problem with that, even Brexit economic papers (the Capital Economics one for example, I think) say a drop in immigration would lower UK growth.
As for hostile to innovation, well they seem rigorously pro-consumer sometimes, I think, at the expense of innovation so yes I don't disagree completely with that. Is it for the greater good? Perhaps, perhaps not.
The problem is greater than you are acknowledging. The growth of the BRICS, specifically China, is creating hundreds of millions of new middle class consumers. Of course countries in catch up mode are going to grow more quickly than us but why is the EU growing more slowly in a world that has so many new opportunities?
The answers are complex. Those on the right would point to excessively generous social security systems, excessive bureaucracy, wasteful public spending. Those on the middle might look at our educational standards. Those on the left would no doubt claim that a more equal, cohesive society would do better and that the rewards of society being so unequally distributed reduces overall demand.
What is clear, after more than 20 years of relative failure, is that the EU model is not the answer. When the EU dream up more employee rights they condemn too many of their citizens to unemployment. When it imposes such enormously high regulatory standards it creates barriers to entry which protect existing businesses at the cost of the new, innovative and creative alternatives. When artificial creations such as fishing quota or single farm payments are worth more than the boats or the farms the market is so distorted that resources are not efficiently allocated.
"Labour values are British values. In the face of Tory and Ukip populism it is vital that we continually assert that Labour is the patriotic party.
"Part of what makes us British and patriotic is that Labour is the anti-Fascist party."
These kinds of comments are not just why Labour will lose in 2020; not even why Labour will deserve to lose in 2020; but why they will be completely incredulous as to how and why it happens.
The supreme arrogance and complacence to believe that Labour is, simply by assertion and self-definition, the complete and therefore unique representation of British values is breathtaking. It's also distinctly worrying: what does it say about Labour's views of the legitimacy of other parties.
Don tells us: "Labour is the anti-Fascist party". Leave aside that Labour has proven itself these last few weeks to be indirectly institutionally anti-Semitic, tolerating member after member who was directly so, "the anti-Fascist party"? THE anti-Fascist party??!!" What does that make the rest?
No, Don. Labour cannot be the patriotic party because far too many people within Labour - including those at the very top - hate what Britain is and what it stands for, they hate its power in the world, they hate its history (inescapably tied to patriotism), they oppose the symbols of patriotism.
Symbols do indeed matter. But symbols can only reinforce an existing truth; they cannot manufacture one, still less negate one that runs counter to the symbol; that is to play the harmony to a completely different melody. The patriotism game is one that Labour simply cannot win under its current leadership. What is remarkable is that people like Don not only believe that they should try, not only believe that they can prevail but believe that to to do, they need do nothing more than state deluded self-evidencies against a photoshoot backdrop.
Best of British with that.
I can hardly believe that post is yours. I've never thought of you as one of those John O' Gaunt posters who proliferate this site
Not sure Labour should take lectures on patriotism and British values from the party that just brought us the Zac Goldsmith campaign.
"British values" as accepted by the majority of posters on this site are most succinctly expressed by Richard Dodd.
That was answered in the speech: only 6% of UK companies sell to the EU.
44% of our exports are to the EU.
Not all UK companies export.
But as a country we - like every modern economy - are dependent on imports. Coal, oil, natural gas, electricity, food, electronics, iron ore, and almost every type of raw material.
Without exports, we cannot afford to pay for the imports.
There are essential imports and non essential ones. Where do we get our essential ones from?
There are also imports that can be sourced from other destinations and there are imports that can be replaced by domestic production.
We are back to German cars and French wines. We can build our own and buy elsewhere if the mood takes.
"Labour values are British values. In the face of Tory and Ukip populism it is vital that we continually assert that Labour is the patriotic party.
"Part of what makes us British and patriotic is that Labour is the anti-Fascist party."
These kinds of comments are not just why Labour will lose in 2020; not even why Labour will deserve to lose in 2020; but why they will be completely incredulous as to how and why it happens.
The supreme arrogance and complacence to believe that Labour is, simply by assertion and self-definition, the complete and therefore unique representation of British values is breathtaking. It's also distinctly worrying: what does it say about Labour's views of the legitimacy of other parties.
Don tells us: "Labour is the anti-Fascist party". Leave aside that Labour has proven itself these last few weeks to be indirectly institutionally anti-Semitic, tolerating member after member who was directly so, "the anti-Fascist party"? THE anti-Fascist party??!!" What does that make the rest?
No, Don. Labour cannot be the patriotic party because far too many people within Labour - including those at the very top - hate what Britain is and what it stands for, they hate its power in the world, they hate its history (inescapably tied to patriotism), they oppose the symbols of patriotism.
Symbols do indeed matter. But symbols can only reinforce an existing truth; they cannot manufacture one, still less negate one that runs counter to the symbol; that is to play the harmony to a completely different melody. The patriotism game is one that Labour simply cannot win under its current leadership. What is remarkable is that people like Don not only believe that they should try, not only believe that they can prevail but believe that to to do, they need do nothing more than state deluded self-evidencies against a photoshoot backdrop.
Best of British with that.
I can hardly believe that post is yours. I've never thought of you as one of those John O' Gaunt posters who proliferate this site
Not sure Labour should take lectures on patriotism and British values from the party that just brought us the Zac Goldsmith campaign.
"British values" as accepted by the majority of posters on this site are most succinctly expressed by Richard Dodd.
There's no such thing as British values, ask 20 British people you'll get 20 different answers.
"Labour values are British values. In the face of Tory and Ukip populism it is vital that we continually assert that Labour is the patriotic party.
"Part of what makes us British and patriotic is that Labour is the anti-Fascist party."
These kinds of comments are not just why Labour will lose in 2020; not even why Labour will deserve to lose in 2020; but why they will be completely incredulous as to how and why it happens.
The supreme arrogance and complacence to believe that Labour is, simply by assertion and self-definition, the complete and therefore unique representation of British values is breathtaking. It's also distinctly worrying: what does it say about Labour's views of the legitimacy of other parties.
Don tells us: "Labour is the anti-Fascist party". Leave aside that Labour has proven itself these last few weeks to be indirectly institutionally anti-Semitic, tolerating member after member who was directly so, "the anti-Fascist party"? THE anti-Fascist party??!!" What does that make the rest?
Symbols do indeed matter. But symbols can only reinforce an existing truth; they cannot manufacture one, still less negate one that runs counter to the symbol; that is to play the harmony to a completely different melody. The patriotism game is one that Labour simply cannot win under its current leadership. What is remarkable is that people like Don not only believe that they should try, not only believe that they can prevail but believe that to to do, they need do nothing more than state deluded self-evidencies against a photoshoot backdrop.
Best of British with that.
The whole point of Parliamentary democracy is that no political Party has a monopoly of patriotism.
This is of necessity particularly true in Britain, a state made up of three-and-a-bit countries.
Both Donald Brind and David Herdson have demeaned themselves this morning. Labour under JC will continue to take pride in its internationalism - indeed, if it follows Donald's advice it will deserve to lose as many votes to the Greens (and civic Nationalists where they exist) as it picks up on the Right.
David's concept of "indirect institutional racism" is straight out of the Trotskyist playbook. Either he thinks that the Chakrabati Inquiry (which he doesn't mention) will show Labour what it needs to do, or else he doesn't. Since we are all now happily replacing rational argument with ugly smears, let me predict that whatever she recommends, and however much of her recommendations JC accepts, David, let along the Hard Right claque which seeks to dominate this site 24/7 will say it's not enough. Frankly, if it's not enough, the Labour Party should be criminalised. And if it is enough their opponents should welcome it.
But "fight fair" is no part of multi-cultural politics. And that is why representative democracy is doomed to fail within a generation.
The problem is greater than you are acknowledging. The growth of the BRICS, specifically China, is creating hundreds of millions of new middle class consumers. Of course countries in catch up mode are going to grow more quickly than us but why is the EU growing more slowly in a world that has so many new opportunities?
The answers are complex. Those on the right would point to excessively generous social security systems, excessive bureaucracy, wasteful public spending. Those on the middle might look at our educational standards. Those on the left would no doubt claim that a more equal, cohesive society would do better and that the rewards of society being so unequally distributed reduces overall demand.
What is clear, after more than 20 years of relative failure, is that the EU model is not the answer. When the EU dream up more employee rights they condemn too many of their citizens to unemployment. When it imposes such enormously high regulatory standards it creates barriers to entry which protect existing businesses at the cost of the new, innovative and creative alternatives. When artificial creations such as fishing quota or single farm payments are worth more than the boats or the farms the market is so distorted that resources are not efficiently allocated.
And the proof is in the numbers.
I don't see how us leaving the EU would address all those issues. We know that there is a structural change in the global economy whereby an increasing developing world workforce will put pressure on us in several ways, mainly factor inputs.
If you are saying that by leaving we can reinvent ourselves as a nimble, new, young growing economy so as to compete with Asia, then I am not so sure. That is one hell of a transformation with markedly reduced new members (cos we will have reduced the workhorse element of immigration).
And as everyone has mentioned the slowdown in growth of the EU, it is nevertheless still the destination for just under 50% of our exports.
I must head off now but look forward to picking this up later I hope. Sorry the response was disjointed.
@ThreeQuidder what EU regs does your newsagent have to follow? Genuinely interested.
@Richard_Tyndall yes but there is still a ton of EU regs in particular, to get back on (but sadly I must now step off) the merry-go-round again, in financial services.
Roger..As always..wrong...I do have values.. which are easily definable.. whereas you appear to have none whatsoever..you seem to wait until you see which way the wind blows...then follow it.
David's concept of "indirect institutional racism" is straight out of the Trotskyist playbook. Either he thinks that the Chakrabati Inquiry (which he doesn't mention) will show Labour what it needs to do, or else he doesn't. Since we are all now happily replacing rational argument with ugly smears, let me predict that whatever she recommends, and however much of her recommendations JC accepts, David, let along the Hard Right claque which seeks to dominate this site 24/7 will say it's not enough. Frankly, if it's not enough, the Labour Party should be criminalised. And if it is enough their opponents should welcome it.
But "fight fair" is no part of multi-cultural politics. And that is why representative democracy is doomed to fail within a generation.
Only you are obsessed with the idea of criminalising the Labour Party. Only in your twisted mind is that an idea, nobody else has suggested it.
Not sure where this delusion of yours has come from but until you realise it is a straw man of your own invention, everyone else will just be laughing at you.
Mr. W, I'm as surprised as you are that Chancellor Merkel doesn't yet have authority to suppress news in the UK
She does .... I heard it exclusively from Finchley Road Lizards News Network via a source at the Bavarian State Prosecutors Office who imposed a news blackout on PB .... Working well so far ....
Don, thanks for this - some interesting stuff. I don't disagree with this but I think you miss some important points. It's always an uphill struggle for Labour to be seen as a patriotic party, because an element in the Labour identity is supporting equality, which you can't really do without standing up for the discriminated-against, who by definition are minorities or relatively powerless (or both). A key element of this discrimination is always an appeal to the sense of patriotism versus the "other", meaning that Labour's stance can be characterised as "unpatriotic" and "against British values" by an unscrupulous opponent. In retrospect having fought for equality which now forms part of "British values" can be seen as patriotic, but you're never going to convince the majority of the electorate that your opposition to their discriminatory views is "patriotic" in real time. That's not a reason to stop doing it (because it's the right thing to do) but neither can it be relied upon as a majority-winning tool.
Because Labour is vulnerable to accusations of anti-patriotism, it is essential that it can't also be tarred with discrimination, which is why the anti-semitism row is so damaging. If you can be attacked on both fronts, and accused of hypocrisy, it's massively toxic to the brand and makes it easier for opponents to deny you a hearing on any other matters. Probably fairly. That's why Livingstone and others should be out of the party without their feet touching the ground.
The biggest electoral problem, though, is that the attributes you are describing are good things about the Labour movement, but not things that win elections. This stuff is all about avoiding negatives. The anti-discrimination element should be a subset of Labour's overriding aim of improving economic equality and offering opportunity to all. Instead the New Labour movement was about abandoning that overriding aim, and offering the anti-discrimination piece as a sop to keep the Labour movement on board with an essentially rightwing economic model. It's a brilliant manoeuvre: keeping your established base onside by convincing them that the new thing you are selling is actually what they've been fighting for all along, but 20 years down the line, the party is incredibly vulnerable to seeing its identity eroded by another party ticking some anti-discrimination boxes. A plan which Cameron, to his credit, has executed beautifully.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
And with confident thought in my head I shall go off to watch the cricketers of Essex (nost of whom are local) beat the visiting Sri Lankans. All of whom are!
David's concept of "indirect institutional racism" is straight out of the Trotskyist playbook. Either he thinks that the Chakrabati Inquiry (which he doesn't mention) will show Labour what it needs to do, or else he doesn't. Since we are all now happily replacing rational argument with ugly smears, let me predict that whatever she recommends, and however much of her recommendations JC accepts, David, let along the Hard Right claque which seeks to dominate this site 24/7 will say it's not enough. Frankly, if it's not enough, the Labour Party should be criminalised. And if it is enough their opponents should welcome it.
But "fight fair" is no part of multi-cultural politics. And that is why representative democracy is doomed to fail within a generation.
Only you are obsessed with the idea of criminalising the Labour Party. Only in your twisted mind is that an idea, nobody else has suggested it.
Not sure where this delusion of yours has come from but until you realise it is a straw man of your own invention, everyone else will just be laughing at you.
David's concept of "indirect institutional racism" is straight out of the Trotskyist playbook. Either he thinks that the Chakrabati Inquiry (which he doesn't mention) will show Labour what it needs to do, or else he doesn't. Since we are all now happily replacing rational argument with ugly smears, let me predict that whatever she recommends, and however much of her recommendations JC accepts, David, let along the Hard Right claque which seeks to dominate this site 24/7 will say it's not enough. Frankly, if it's not enough, the Labour Party should be criminalised. And if it is enough their opponents should welcome it.
But "fight fair" is no part of multi-cultural politics. And that is why representative democracy is doomed to fail within a generation.
Only you are obsessed with the idea of criminalising the Labour Party. Only in your twisted mind is that an idea, nobody else has suggested it.
Not sure where this delusion of yours has come from but until you realise it is a straw man of your own invention, everyone else will just be laughing at you.
I don't see how us leaving the EU would address all those issues. We know that there is a structural change in the global economy whereby an increasing developing world workforce will put pressure on us in several ways, mainly factor inputs.
If you are saying that by leaving we can reinvent ourselves as a nimble, new, young growing economy so as to compete with Asia, then I am not so sure. That is one hell of a transformation with markedly reduced new members (cos we will have reduced the workhorse element of immigration).
Why can we not be nimble?
We don't need to be young, our nation has an old, long, proud history of being nimble and adapting to a changing world and changing challenges. In fact leading those changes frequently.
We have tremendous advantages to help us in being nimble too, not least our native language being the modern global language. Yet every other developed English-speaking nation outside of the EU is better off than we are, or than the EU is doing. How sad is that? How successful is that?
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
And with confident thought in my head I shall go off to watch the cricketers of Essex (nost of whom are local) beat the visiting Sri Lankans. All of whom are!
Take your umbrella ... Frau Merkel dictates it'll rain all over Essex today, but look on the bright side it's a tad friendlier than the Luftwaffe raining bombs over the county during WWII.
Regarding the alleged Munchener Blackout, before reaching for the Giant Tinfoil Hatted Lizard Hypothesis once more, has anyone considered the possibility that one of the alleged perpetrators or victims may merely have been involved in a celebrity threesome?
English test to be taken today by 6 year olds has been published on line. Christine Blower says exams compromised and can't go ahead. No criticism of the leaker I notice. DofE urgently looking into how the leak occurred.
Regarding the alleged Munchener Blackout, before reaching for the Giant Tinfoil Hatted Lizard Hypothesis once more, has anyone considered the possibility that one of the alleged perpetrators or victims may merely have been involved in a celebrity threesome?
Roger..As always..wrong...I do have values.. which are easily definable.. whereas you appear to have none whatsoever..you seem to wait until you see which way the wind blows...then follow it.
Be fair. Difficult to see how the wind is blowing from Monte Carlo. Always CNN world weather report of course.
This is an example of an insufferable arrogance which seems to think that it - and only it - is the embodiment of political morality. I have no doubt that there are plenty of Labour voters who are patriotic but so are plenty of Tories and Lib Dems and others. Patriotism and anti-fascism are not the prerogative of any one party. And nothing angers me more than Labour claiming the moral high ground on this.
My father was at Belsen: he was a doctor in the RAF, a Squadron Leader, and he had to go there to do what he could for the survivors. It was a sight that stayed with him all his life and one of the few memories from the war he shared with me later. He had also been in Germany in the 1930s and it was because of what he saw there that he signed up with the RAF as many other Irishmen did.
He loathed the way the left, exemplified by the likes of Livingstone and McDonnell, sought to appropriate the experiences and fights of others for their own illiberal causes e.g. in relation to Ireland - a cause about which, despite being embraced by the Left, they understood nothing - and still don't.
And if you are really against fascists you don't cosy up to their 21st century equivalents just because they cloak their fascism in religious garb. You don't boast about fighting against homophobia and then invite as honoured guests people who think gays should be killed; you don't cite what your mother did at Cable Street in the 1930's and then invite to Parliament people who propagate the ancient blood libel against Jews; you don't claim to be pro-feminism and speak at gender-segregated meetings and support people who think that women should be stoned for adultery and it is OK for a man to beat his wife.
It's not just symbols that matter. It's the reality as well. And the reality of today's Labour party is a long way away from the misty-eyed recollection of a WW2 survivor speaking of his experiences & being saluted by others who shared his horror at what he saw.
Labour is now a party led by people who use the badges of anti-fascism and anti-racism and anti-this, that and the other to cover up an odious moral and cultural relativity which disguises their failure to distinguish between liberalism and illiberalism, between democracy and authoritarianism, between egalitarianism and misogyny, between social liberalism and homophobia, between tolerance ("live and let live") and an intolerance which seeks to crush anything different to itself.
Until that reality changes, changing symbols will do nothing.
But good for Khan for getting at least some of this and speaking up about anti-Semitism in his party. I have been one of the most critical of him here but credit to him for this. I hope he carries on in this vein.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
Thanks. So, a nudge towards Remain from you.
I think Remain has been in the 53-58 range in every Arse to date?
ARSE REMAIN projections have ranged 53-57.5 with a rounded average of the 12 projections from 29th March of 55.17% and accordingly the LEAVE range has been 42.5-47 with an average of 44.83.
English test to be taken today by 6 year olds has been published on line. Christine Blower says exams compromised and can't go ahead. No criticism of the leaker I notice. DofE urgently looking into how the leak occurred.
Same way as the last one. A sympathetic civil servant or teacher uploaded it.
You make the very relevant point that Labour have always been the 'anti-fascist party'. I watched a documentary on Himmler yesterday and it was notable that as the Nazis began their racist tyranny picking out the Jews the homosexuals and the the infirm the only people standing up to them were the Communists who were also the first residents of the Belsen concentration camp.
For the leader of the country's premier left wing party to allow that USP to be lost is a tragedy. it puts him into the Gerald Ratner category of incompetents but with far more serious consequences. The 'right' are on the march with no one standing in their way.
To believe Chakrabarti can repair the reputational damage with an inquiry is naively optimistic. I'm doubtful turfing out the leadership will be enough but it has to be the starting point.
On the subject of anti-fascism Hillary Benn got it right in the Syria debate:
Of course Benn rewrote history by implying that the PLP were somehow at the forefront of the fight against Franco. In fact they supported the government of the day's policy of non-intervention while the Fascists poured in support for Franco, and of preventing UK subjects from joining the International Brigade. They only reverse ferreted on that once defeat for the legal and democratically elected government of Spain was inevitable.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
And with confident thought in my head I shall go off to watch the cricketers of Essex (nost of whom are local) beat the visiting Sri Lankans. All of whom are!
Take your umbrella ... Frau Merkel dictates it'll rain all over Essex today, but look on the bright side it's a tad friendlier than the Luftwaffe raining bombs over the county during WWII.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
Thanks. So, a nudge towards Remain from you.
I think Remain has been in the 53-58 range in every Arse to date?
If Remain win no-one will remember what JackW's precise numbers were so long as he called the result right. Bit similar to the 2012 Mayoral Poll ARSE v. the result.
You make the very relevant point that Labour have always been the 'anti-fascist party'. I watched a documentary on Himmler yesterday and it was notable that as the Nazis began their racist tyranny picking out the Jews the homosexuals and the the infirm the only people standing up to them were the Communists who were also the first residents of the Belsen concentration camp.
For the leader of the country's premier left wing party to allow that USP to be lost is a tragedy. it puts him into the Gerald Ratner category of incompetents but with far more serious consequences. The 'right' are on the march with no one standing in their way.
To believe Chakrabarti can repair the reputational damage with an inquiry is naively optimistic. I'm doubtful turfing out the leadership will be enough but it has to be the starting point.
Would that be those same Communists who were allies to the Nazis and providing war material to them at a time when people like my father were fighting the Nazis? Those Communists?
In Germany, one of the reasons the post-WW1 attempt at Parliamentary democracy failed was because the Communists were too busy fighting other democratic parties and doing what their masters in Russia ordered and not fighting for Parliamentary liberal democracy, which they didn't believe in anyway. And the Communists were not - and never have been - innocents when it comes to oppression of Jews and gays and other unpopular minorities.
Hillary's immediate problem is that she is going to slump over the line losing a majority of the remaining states I think.
West Virginia - Sanders Kentucky - Clinton Oregon - Sanders Virgin Islands - ?? Puerto Rico - ?? North Dakota - Sanders California - ?? Montana - Sanders New Jersey - Clinton New Mexico - ?? South Dakota - Sanders DC - Clinton
I think Sanders could just pip her in California. It is a big one for her, to show she has united the party - Indiana really couldn't have gone any better for Trump with Bernie being given enough of a boost by it to stay in the race
About 54 percent of “senior” business people said they’ll choose to remain in the 28-nation EU in the June 23 vote, the British Chambers of Commerce said Tuesday in an e-mailed statement. That’s down from 60 percent in February, with support for a “Leave” vote rising to 37 percent from 30 percent.
That's a very powerful article. He's clearly a very brave and intelligent man.
I remember whilst at university detesting his politics and advocacy of multiculturalism, for the reasons he cites, and it's extremely interesting now how he manages to argue that racial equality has now been mixed up with all sorts of worrying cultural trends that are anything but.
As a Remainer, I wish Cameron would shut up and lead a trade delegation to Antarctica or somewhere else far away.
But, but but... he's such an asset... All mickey-taking aside, he's certainly not turned out to be the Big Gun many expected him to be.
REMAIN get half their support in polls from Labour voters. Cameron is only trusted by 11% of them. (Yougov). Smart strategy?
I do wonder if Jezza's Invisibility Strategy with added Take-A-Holiday are his way of securing a Leave win by omission. Who's talking up Remain for Labour? I honestly couldn't say. I see the odd Colonel Bucket or Chuka appearance - but nothing that's caught my attention.
What am I missing? Are Labour hoping their voters will vote Remain regardless?
May I say that I like the REMAIN strategy for getting Labour voters on their side?
Unsurprising being told what to do by superannuated US defence bods is going down like more cold sick.
After the debacle over Obama's intervention, the electorate has become a lot savvier in spotting who's trying to play them like a fiddle for their own ends. And they're not playing.
That's a very powerful article. He's clearly a very brave and intelligent man.
I remember whilst at university detesting his politics and advocacy of multiculturalism, for the reasons he cites, and it's extremely interesting now how he manages to argue that racial equality has now been mixed up with all sorts of worrying cultural trends that are anything but.
I told this story before, but I met him a few years ago at a cricket match. He espoused similar views in general conversation with some people and at the time I thought he was perhaps tailoring his comments to those present. But it appears that is not the case and it is what he now believes, as I am sure twitter will descend on him to claim Islamophobe or some such nonsense.
That's a very powerful article. He's clearly a very brave and intelligent man.
I remember whilst at university detesting his politics and advocacy of multiculturalism, for the reasons he cites, and it's extremely interesting now how he manages to argue that racial equality has now been mixed up with all sorts of worrying cultural trends that are anything but.
Yes, I'm looking forwards to reading his Civitas paper.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
Thanks. So, a nudge towards Remain from you.
I think Remain has been in the 53-58 range in every Arse to date?
ARSE REMAIN projections have ranged 53-57.5 with a rounded average of the 12 projections from 29th March of 55.17% and accordingly the LEAVE range has been 42.5-47 with an average of 44.83.
JackW, what are the major factors that are influencing these forecasts of yours?
Mr. Urquhart, there was much Twitter shrieking of Islamophobia in the run-up to his Channel 4 piece, which essentially amounted to reporting on the findings of an in-depth poll.
Regarding the alleged Munchener Blackout, before reaching for the Giant Tinfoil Hatted Lizard Hypothesis once more, has anyone considered the possibility that one of the alleged perpetrators or victims may merely have been involved in a celebrity threesome?
The locals have been chasing Hillary out of WV with pitchforks after her comments on the coal industry. Big coal mining areas in SE Ohio and across PA. If Trump wins these areas with 60-70% plus with a big turnout in the general that will make it difficult for her to hold either state.
Bernie has made clear he will be going all the way to Cali, and winning a fair few states along the way.
As a Remainer, I wish Cameron would shut up and lead a trade delegation to Antarctica or somewhere else far away.
But, but but... he's such an asset...
All mickey-taking aside, he's certainly not turned out to be the Big Gun many expected him to be.
To be fair, I think he is a Big Gun.
It's just that he has now misfired a couple of times, and the gunners don't know why so they keep sticking more and more powder down the barrel. At some point that's going to be awkward
Unsurprising being told what to do by superannuated US defence bods is going down like more cold sick.
After the debacle over Obama's intervention, the electorate has become a lot savvier in spotting who's trying to play them like a fiddle for their own ends. And they're not playing.
The US wants us to stay in the EU because our voice pulls the whole EU closer to them, and their interests. They fear that without us in it the EU will become more protectionist and/or have a foreign policy less sympathetic to transatlantic perspectives.
More messengers being lined up for the firing squad this morning, I see.
It's also amusing to see that IDS has discovered, rather belatedly, that in a negotiation the views of the other side matter. Admittedly he hasn't yet made the leap to understanding that this will remain the case if we vote Leave.
Hillary's immediate problem is that she is going to slump over the line losing a majority of the remaining states I think.
West Virginia - Sanders Kentucky - Clinton Oregon - Sanders Virgin Islands - ?? Puerto Rico - ?? North Dakota - Sanders California - ?? Montana - Sanders New Jersey - Clinton New Mexico - ?? South Dakota - Sanders DC - Clinton
Who'd have ever thought Hillary's coronation would be so painful - and at the hands of an unreformed 1960s socialist?
Comments
Coming back to our famous widget manufacturers (I have missed them), to de-hyperbolise the issue, my point was only ever that it is useful to have a common, one-size-fits-all set of regulations in a trading bloc and, crucially, that the UK has a seat at the table when those regulations are being determined and can fight for elements of the regulations that favour UK-based widget manufacturers.
As for the point about growth being driven by immigration, I don't have a huge problem with that, even Brexit economic papers (the Capital Economics one for example, I think) say a drop in immigration would lower UK growth.
As for hostile to innovation, well they seem rigorously pro-consumer sometimes, I think, at the expense of innovation so yes I don't disagree completely with that. Is it for the greater good? Perhaps, perhaps not.
I thought you were in advertising, you know, having ideas that were ahead of the game.
BS the majority see violent protests and vandalised war memorials and think 'Left wing thugs'.
https://twitter.com/alivitali/status/729776598182989824?s=09
The answers are complex. Those on the right would point to excessively generous social security systems, excessive bureaucracy, wasteful public spending. Those on the middle might look at our educational standards. Those on the left would no doubt claim that a more equal, cohesive society would do better and that the rewards of society being so unequally distributed reduces overall demand.
What is clear, after more than 20 years of relative failure, is that the EU model is not the answer. When the EU dream up more employee rights they condemn too many of their citizens to unemployment. When it imposes such enormously high regulatory standards it creates barriers to entry which protect existing businesses at the cost of the new, innovative and creative alternatives. When artificial creations such as fishing quota or single farm payments are worth more than the boats or the farms the market is so distorted that resources are not efficiently allocated.
And the proof is in the numbers.
There are also imports that can be sourced from other destinations and there are imports that can be replaced by domestic production.
We are back to German cars and French wines. We can build our own and buy elsewhere if the mood takes.
999 seconds
Cameron does patriotism when he thinks the voters are watching.
Bavarian public radio reports that the Munich prosecutor has imposed a news blackout and that contradictory statements have emerged from the scene.
This is of necessity particularly true in Britain, a state made up of three-and-a-bit countries.
Both Donald Brind and David Herdson have demeaned themselves this morning. Labour under JC will continue to take pride in its internationalism - indeed, if it follows Donald's advice it will deserve to lose as many votes to the Greens (and civic Nationalists where they exist) as it picks up on the Right.
David's concept of "indirect institutional racism" is straight out of the Trotskyist playbook. Either he thinks that the Chakrabati Inquiry (which he doesn't mention) will show Labour what it needs to do, or else he doesn't. Since we are all now happily replacing rational argument with ugly smears, let me predict that whatever she recommends, and however much of her recommendations JC accepts, David, let along the Hard Right claque which seeks to dominate this site 24/7 will say it's not enough. Frankly, if it's not enough, the Labour Party should be criminalised. And if it is enough their opponents should welcome it.
But "fight fair" is no part of multi-cultural politics. And that is why representative democracy is doomed to fail within a generation.
http://tinyurl.com/zw6pz9h
If you are saying that by leaving we can reinvent ourselves as a nimble, new, young growing economy so as to compete with Asia, then I am not so sure. That is one hell of a transformation with markedly reduced new members (cos we will have reduced the workhorse element of immigration).
And as everyone has mentioned the slowdown in growth of the EU, it is nevertheless still the destination for just under 50% of our exports.
I must head off now but look forward to picking this up later I hope. Sorry the response was disjointed.
@ThreeQuidder what EU regs does your newsagent have to follow? Genuinely interested.
@Richard_Tyndall yes but there is still a ton of EU regs in particular, to get back on (but sadly I must now step off) the merry-go-round again, in financial services.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/10/britain-sleepwalking-to-catastrophe-over-race-trevor-phillips/
Not sure where this delusion of yours has come from but until you realise it is a straw man of your own invention, everyone else will just be laughing at you.
The breaking news is that WIND is reporting to JNN the contents of the latest ARSE4EU Referendum Projection :
Should The United Kingdom Remain A Member Of The European Union Or Leave The European Union?
Remain 55% (+1) .. Leave 45% (-1)
Turnout Projection 63% (+1)
Changes from 3rd May.
......................................................................
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division
JNN - Jacobite News Network
ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
Because Labour is vulnerable to accusations of anti-patriotism, it is essential that it can't also be tarred with discrimination, which is why the anti-semitism row is so damaging. If you can be attacked on both fronts, and accused of hypocrisy, it's massively toxic to the brand and makes it easier for opponents to deny you a hearing on any other matters. Probably fairly. That's why Livingstone and others should be out of the party without their feet touching the ground.
The biggest electoral problem, though, is that the attributes you are describing are good things about the Labour movement, but not things that win elections. This stuff is all about avoiding negatives. The anti-discrimination element should be a subset of Labour's overriding aim of improving economic equality and offering opportunity to all. Instead the New Labour movement was about abandoning that overriding aim, and offering the anti-discrimination piece as a sop to keep the Labour movement on board with an essentially rightwing economic model. It's a brilliant manoeuvre: keeping your established base onside by convincing them that the new thing you are selling is actually what they've been fighting for all along, but 20 years down the line, the party is incredibly vulnerable to seeing its identity eroded by another party ticking some anti-discrimination boxes. A plan which Cameron, to his credit, has executed beautifully.
My colleague in Hamburg who I have just had a conference call with says he is reading information on the BBC website.
https://twitter.com/ppppolls/status/729843275578880000
In line with their state polls in NC and WV. Trump starting round about where Romney finished.
I think Remain has been in the 53-58 range in every Arse to date?
We don't need to be young, our nation has an old, long, proud history of being nimble and adapting to a changing world and changing challenges. In fact leading those changes frequently.
We have tremendous advantages to help us in being nimble too, not least our native language being the modern global language. Yet every other developed English-speaking nation outside of the EU is better off than we are, or than the EU is doing. How sad is that? How successful is that?
English test to be taken today by 6 year olds has been published on line. Christine Blower says exams compromised and can't go ahead. No criticism of the leaker I notice. DofE urgently looking into how the leak occurred.
http://www.vdare.com/articles/for-immigration-patriots-scott-brown-probably-trumps-best-vp-choice-but-there-are-others
Surprised Duncan Hunter isn't on there. For me it would be between Brown, Hunter and Kobach.
My father was at Belsen: he was a doctor in the RAF, a Squadron Leader, and he had to go there to do what he could for the survivors. It was a sight that stayed with him all his life and one of the few memories from the war he shared with me later. He had also been in Germany in the 1930s and it was because of what he saw there that he signed up with the RAF as many other Irishmen did.
He loathed the way the left, exemplified by the likes of Livingstone and McDonnell, sought to appropriate the experiences and fights of others for their own illiberal causes e.g. in relation to Ireland - a cause about which, despite being embraced by the Left, they understood nothing - and still don't.
And if you are really against fascists you don't cosy up to their 21st century equivalents just because they cloak their fascism in religious garb. You don't boast about fighting against homophobia and then invite as honoured guests people who think gays should be killed; you don't cite what your mother did at Cable Street in the 1930's and then invite to Parliament people who propagate the ancient blood libel against Jews; you don't claim to be pro-feminism and speak at gender-segregated meetings and support people who think that women should be stoned for adultery and it is OK for a man to beat his wife.
It's not just symbols that matter. It's the reality as well. And the reality of today's Labour party is a long way away from the misty-eyed recollection of a WW2 survivor speaking of his experiences & being saluted by others who shared his horror at what he saw.
Labour is now a party led by people who use the badges of anti-fascism and anti-racism and anti-this, that and the other to cover up an odious moral and cultural relativity which disguises their failure to distinguish between liberalism and illiberalism, between democracy and authoritarianism, between egalitarianism and misogyny, between social liberalism and homophobia, between tolerance ("live and let live") and an intolerance which seeks to crush anything different to itself.
Until that reality changes, changing symbols will do nothing.
But good for Khan for getting at least some of this and speaking up about anti-Semitism in his party. I have been one of the most critical of him here but credit to him for this. I hope he carries on in this vein.
Still, he's a skilled forecaster - no doubt.
http://www.tagesschau.de/
In Germany, one of the reasons the post-WW1 attempt at Parliamentary democracy failed was because the Communists were too busy fighting other democratic parties and doing what their masters in Russia ordered and not fighting for Parliamentary liberal democracy, which they didn't believe in anyway. And the Communists were not - and never have been - innocents when it comes to oppression of Jews and gays and other unpopular minorities.
West Virginia - Sanders
Kentucky - Clinton
Oregon - Sanders
Virgin Islands - ??
Puerto Rico - ??
North Dakota - Sanders
California - ??
Montana - Sanders
New Jersey - Clinton
New Mexico - ??
South Dakota - Sanders
DC - Clinton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhLlXvkm65Y
I remember whilst at university detesting his politics and advocacy of multiculturalism, for the reasons he cites, and it's extremely interesting now how he manages to argue that racial equality has now been mixed up with all sorts of worrying cultural trends that are anything but.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/30/matt-cartoons-may-2016/
After the debacle over Obama's intervention, the electorate has become a lot savvier in spotting who's trying to play them like a fiddle for their own ends. And they're not playing.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/publications/race-and-faith/
Bernie has made clear he will be going all the way to Cali, and winning a fair few states along the way.
It's just that he has now misfired a couple of times, and the gunners don't know why so they keep sticking more and more powder down the barrel. At some point that's going to be awkward
https://twitter.com/itvnews/status/729958658453426176
Interests. Always interests.
It's also amusing to see that IDS has discovered, rather belatedly, that in a negotiation the views of the other side matter. Admittedly he hasn't yet made the leap to understanding that this will remain the case if we vote Leave.
It's so WTF. I thought the article @Andy_JS posted from Salon was most interesting. They called her a Limousine Liberal and the ideal candidate for Trump to oppose. http://www.salon.com/2016/05/08/hillary_is_trumps_dream_opponent_clinton_is_exactly_the_limousine_liberal_his_coalition_distrusts_the_most/