Of course we are not. All the real power was in Brussels.
Now we have voted to change that the Buck Stops with Westminster and that will attract suitably able people over time.
As a suitably able person, politics is shit. Who wants to work awful hours, have the press following you around everywhere, and get paid peanuts?
Other than getting to sleep with your researcher, what's the benefit of being an MP?
An MPs salary is comfortably in the top 10% of earners plus there are still expenses, overseas trips and the chance to be a minor celebrity or a major one if you get to the top
So, being an MP attracts people in the 88th to 92nd percentile.
On this view of the world, where income is used as a way of ranking people by their worth and suitability, a charity worker on minimum wage is a Huxleyan epsilon minus - and a university professor might just scrape by as a Beta.
At any rate, there are supremely intelligent people who lack other skills that are basic prerequisites for being a politician.
Incidentally, your backgrounds in economics should tell you that people are utility-maximisers, not income-maximisers. That's a classic first-year mistake (as you well know - not accusing you of falling for it). Which explains why there are plenty of people with talent, passion and ability who work in lower income bands than if they had pursued money alone. And plenty of people who could have found a fortune outside parliament are prepared to pay the opportunity costs of becoming an MP instead, because they find greater fulfilment - whether that's from a sense of public duty, a lust for power (and the goodies that come with it), a desire to change their country for the better, or just love being around movers and shakers, to feel they are "someone who is someone"...
It's realpolitik. The EU Commission can say what it likes, but in the end if Paris, Rome and Berlin want to talk to London - and clearly they do - then that is what will happen.
And with Barrosso taking a job at Goldman Sachs in London, no doubt the Commission will get the inside track on how the City is viewing things.
I'm going to make a bold and absurd prediction.
May will win. She will swiftly move to a kind of EEA+ situation. The UK will retain full access to the Single Market. We will agree to pay a very hefty contribution - probably more than Norway per capita - but a few million less than we do now; in return we will get qualified free movement: only people with job offers can move to the UK, and we have an emergency brake.
Everyone will be half satisfied, but no more than that. We will be still be closely linked to the EU, pacifying the REMAINIANS. We will be out of CAP, CFP, much of the acquis, pacifying the sovereigntists. Immigration will come down and we will have much more migration control (but not total), pacifying the migration-worriers. The City will survive.
It will be a fudge. But one that most of the country will tolerate, perhaps relieved that Doomsday has been averted.
It's not absurd. In fact, I'd mentally sketched out an article on very similar lines - a sort of Three-Plus Freedoms arrangement. However, the profusion of leadership elections to comment on meant that it hasn't been written yet.
That's an OK deal for the UK but what's in it for the EU? What are they gaining in return for bailing us out of the mess we've got ourselves into?
£90bn annual trade deficit, £3-5bn annual net contribution, access to the UK labour market, access to the deepest capital markets in the world, access for EU students to UK universities. What's not to like for them. All in return for a few more waiting days before being able to claim benefits and tying the right to remain to working status. It's something I believe we could get the EU to agree to role out to the whole bloc, Dave tried to get special status for the UK instead of trying to build an alliance to reform free movement. The latter was far more likely than the former, the EU hates special status, but even they know free movement as it is will eventually lead to the EU breaking up.
UK exports 10% of its GDP to the EU. The EU exports 3% of its GDP to the UK.
Top bit meant to say mainly because you had to work 20h a day?
At university, I was quite lazy. I had an easy subject, requiring one essay and one supervision a week. It took me about six to eight hours of work a week.
A little more than a year after graduation I found myself at Goldman, where I was in before 7am most mornings, and felt it was a result when I got home in time for a quick pint before pub closing. I did take most Saturdays off, mind.
We used to joke that we got 23 days holiday a year, but they all had to be used at weekends.
Out of interest what was the productive work to hanging around waiting for someone/wasting time in pointless meetings ratio?
There was a lot of productive work!
I was in Equity Research, where I was the junior analyst looking at (initially) the whole technology space. When we got a second junior person, we split the role and I did the 'soft' side (software and service) and he did the hard (telecoms equipment and semis).
The work fell into three segments: firsthand company and industry research (meeting companies in the sector, industry analysts, going to conferences); in-house work (company modelling, reading 10Ks, conference call transcripts, writing it all up); and marketing (telling investors the conclusions of all your work). I was very lucky: my two bosses trained me up and took me to meetings with the CEOs of the biggest companies in the (tech) world. Other juniors got left live in Excel.
@MrHarryCole: No Leadsom tax return in the Sunday papers, as I understand it.
Having originally said 'yes' (after 'maybe') to Marr last Sunday, then changed on Monday to 'if I am in the final two', I believe that she changed her answer again to 'no' midweek.
Hmm, disgraceful
She has to be called out - shocking behaviour yet again
Of course we are not. All the real power was in Brussels.
Now we have voted to change that the Buck Stops with Westminster and that will attract suitably able people over time.
As a suitably able person, politics is shit. Who wants to work awful hours, have the press following you around everywhere, and get paid peanuts?
Other than getting to sleep with your researcher, what's the benefit of being an MP?
An MPs salary is comfortably in the top 10% of earners plus there are still expenses, overseas trips and the chance to be a minor celebrity or a major one if you get to the top
So, being an MP attracts people in the 88th to 92nd percentile.
On this view of the world, where income is used as a way of ranking people by their worth and suitability, a charity worker on minimum wage is a Huxleyan epsilon minus - and a university professor might just scrape by as a Beta.
At any rate, there are supremely intelligent people who lack other skills that are basic prerequisites for being a politician.
Incidentally, your backgrounds in economics should tell you that people are utility-maximisers, not income-maximisers. That's a classic first-year mistake (as you well know - not accusing you of falling for it). Which explains why there are plenty of people with talent, passion and ability who work in lower income bands than if they had pursued money alone. And plenty of people who could have found a fortune outside parliament are prepared to pay the opportunity costs of becoming an MP instead, because they find greater fulfilment - whether that's from a sense of public duty, a lust for power (and the goodies that come with it), a desire to change their country for the better, or just love being around movers and shakers, to feel they are "someone who is someone"...
I agree with your utility maximiser view! I think the utility of being an MP (to me, at least) would be staggeringly low.
She must know she cannot possibly win, so what's the point?
Perhaps others come forward "now there's definitely going to be a contest", and she drops out?
Which begs one obvious question. Is there anyone that has a realistic chance of beating Corbyn?
He can only be outflanked from the left, and none of them will dare stand in a straight fight for fear of being on the receiving end of Momentum's wrath of he loses.
None of the other candidates available have the force or ability to beat him in a straight fight, as we saw last year.
Therefore it seems most unlikely he will be ousted unless he withdraws. He has no sense, humility, courage or integrity so that seems unlikely.
Therefore, Labour sub-100 seats at the next election is probably a value bet.
I agree. It's very difficult to see how this doesn't end in a formal split. Corbyn is likely to win against Eagle - assuming she stands - or really against anyone else that the Labour mainstream might put up (not that other such putative candidates are falling over themselves to be nominated). If he does, the confidence of Momentum will be sky high and their respect for the norms of party discipline non-existent. Further infiltration from the left will continue, while centrist activists leave, two defeats being one two many. All of that points to deselections, non-selections on new boundaries, resignations and, ultimately, a rival centre-left party.
She must know she cannot possibly win, so what's the point?
Perhaps others come forward "now there's definitely going to be a contest", and she drops out?
Which begs one obvious question. Is there anyone that has a realistic chance of beating Corbyn?
He can only be outflanked from the left, and none of them will dare stand in a straight fight for fear of being on the receiving end of Momentum's wrath of he loses.
None of the other candidates available have the force or ability to beat him in a straight fight, as we saw last year.
Therefore it seems most unlikely he will be ousted unless he withdraws. He has no sense, humility, courage or integrity so that seems unlikely.
Therefore, Labour sub-100 seats at the next election is probably a value bet.
I agree. It's very difficult to see how this doesn't end in a formal split. Corbyn is likely to win against Eagle - assuming she stands - or really against anyone else that the Labour mainstream might put up (not that other such putative candidates are falling over themselves to be nominated). If he does, the confidence of Momentum will be sky high and their respect for the norms of party discipline non-existent. Further infiltration from the left will continue, while centrist activists leave, two defeats being one two many. All of that points to deselections, non-selections on new boundaries, resignations and, ultimately, a rival centre-left party.
She must know she cannot possibly win, so what's the point?
Perhaps others come forward "now there's definitely going to be a contest", and she drops out?
Which begs one obvious question. Is there anyone that has a realistic chance of beating Corbyn?
He can only be outflanked from the left, and none of them will dare stand in a straight fight for fear of being on the receiving end of Momentum's wrath of he loses.
None of the other candidates available have the force or ability to beat him in a straight fight, as we saw last year.
Therefore it seems most unlikely he will be ousted unless he withdraws. He has no sense, humility, courage or integrity so that seems unlikely.
Therefore, Labour sub-100 seats at the next election is probably a value bet.
I agree. It's very difficult to see how this doesn't end in a formal split. Corbyn is likely to win against Eagle - assuming she stands - or really against anyone else that the Labour mainstream might put up (not that other such putative candidates are falling over themselves to be nominated). If he does, the confidence of Momentum will be sky high and their respect for the norms of party discipline non-existent. Further infiltration from the left will continue, while centrist activists leave, two defeats being one two many. All of that points to deselections, non-selections on new boundaries, resignations and, ultimately, a rival centre-left party.
My friend in Momentum says they are just nice, middle class people who are there to encourage people to make sure they sign up to vote. Oh, and help out with a bit of canvassing. They aren't left wing at all. No. All very fluffy.
Certainly not a group that operates through intimidation and attempts at mob rule. Nothing like that.
Honest, guv!
Mind you, she did used to be a journalist on The Independent
UK exports 10% of its GDP to the EU. The EU exports 3% of its GDP to the UK.
True, but some EU countries have more of a vested interest in trading with the UK than others. 50% of UK imports from the EU come from just 3 countries - Germany, Netherlands, and France. They'll want to retain favourable trading arrangements, and I would suggest that those particular countries may have a bit of influence.
The next few days are going to be consumed with the legal battle to keep him off the ballot
Is it not the case that the courts regard political parties as private clubs? They will not intervene unless there is criminal behaviour. It's up to Labour's national executive to determine whether Corbyn can stand.
She must know she cannot possibly win, so what's the point?
Perhaps others come forward "now there's definitely going to be a contest", and she drops out?
Which begs one obvious question. Is there anyone that has a realistic chance of beating Corbyn?
He can only be outflanked from the left, and none of them will dare stand in a straight fight for fear of being on the receiving end of Momentum's wrath of he loses.
None of the other candidates available have the force or ability to beat him in a straight fight, as we saw last year.
Therefore it seems most unlikely he will be ousted unless he withdraws. He has no sense, humility, courage or integrity so that seems unlikely.
Therefore, Labour sub-100 seats at the next election is probably a value bet.
I agree. It's very difficult to see how this doesn't end in a formal split. Corbyn is likely to win against Eagle - assuming she stands - or really against anyone else that the Labour mainstream might put up (not that other such putative candidates are falling over themselves to be nominated). If he does, the confidence of Momentum will be sky high and their respect for the norms of party discipline non-existent. Further infiltration from the left will continue, while centrist activists leave, two defeats being one two many. All of that points to deselections, non-selections on new boundaries, resignations and, ultimately, a rival centre-left party.
My friend in Momentum says they are just nice, middle class people who are there to encourage people to make sure they sign up to vote. Oh, and help out with a bit of canvassing. They aren't left wing at all. No. All very fluffy.
Certainly not a group that operates through intimidation and attempts at mob rule. Nothing like that.
Honest, guv!
Mind you, she did used to be a journalist on The Independent
Presumably UAF and ANaL are also peaceable people who collect stamps and collect pressed flowers in their spare time?
Very keen to see May in place. Thinks Leadsom is a total flake. Is content with Norway option.
The mists are beginning to disperse, and a way ahead emerges....
Is that content with Norway option after being given a positive description of it? I suspect people may change their minds when UKIP is heavily covered in the media pointing out that it will barely affect immigration, and we will still be covered by EU courts and EU laws.
Most of the coverage after the referendum has been about the divide in British society it has revealed, between the haves and the have nots. An EEA position would be stating clearly the government is going to put the bankers above the people who have to send their child to schools with majority ESL classrooms.
This is getting very dreary. None of us are going to be negotiating Brexit. Trade is just one consideration. Our EU trade is unevenly distributed. There are some countries who might just as well be on Mars in terms of mutual leverage. Slovenia springs to mind.
Germany's trade surplus with the UK is sectorial. The German economy wouldn't miss us if the UK sank beneath the waves. Their car industry would. Conversely Belgium and Netherlands trade with the UK is a significant portion of their GDP despite the absolute value being lower.
We're just being bar room philosophers at this point. Brexit is going to be fecking complicated.
The next few days are going to be consumed with the legal battle to keep him off the ballot
I suspect that will be futile. My reading of the rules is that the leader would be automatically on. The most reasonable way to interpret 'no vacancy' is that the current leader is being challenged and a challenge must involve a fair and equal fight. However, if a challenger waited until the last moment before submitting a nomination paper, that would give the incumbent no time to organise their own nomination - because until that nomination paper was in, there'd be no notice that an election was even taking place - and hence the leadership could simply be taken on the basis of a minority of MPs playing the timetable.
I agree. I stood for a relatively senior position. Everyone around you from the media, the people who hang around, the opposition, even the men in grey suits in your own party, they are all the vilest scum on the earth. The whole thing was awful. Every conversation was couched in certain language like: 'well, you weren't at Pride, perhaps people will think your bigoted...can you prove you are not?' Or as I was told..'you are killing babies with your anti-refugee position!' I don't have a position..'even worse!'
To be a politician. you need very thick skin, not really care too much, have a massive ego, not listen, and have to at least tell white lies to lots of people. Oh, and utterly humourless (except Prescott, Boris and the Clarkes who somehow got away with it).
The cream cannot rise to the top because any sane person walks away from the whole,shocking circus.
This is an excellent post.
But to turn some of this on its head, I don't mind being represented by a politician with a thick hide coated in teflon armour plating. I want the person out fighting for me to bulletproof. This is why, for instance, even if my views were to align perfectly with hers, I wouldn't want to stick Leadsom out to bat for me. She's not battle-ready. She'd be rubbish. Hence, I wouldn't get what I want. Similarly for those Tories in 2005 who recognised David Davis was not suitable to be their frontman even if he chimed more with the membership - an electoral liability with grandstanding self-destructive tendencies. To some extent I share Sean Fear's admiration for Mandelson - I get a sense that he'd be a man capable of delivering. I suspect a tough, politically sharp bastard like Mandy would have glided through your destruction-testing process with an added dash of panache just to impress upon the suits that he was a cut above them at this game.
I don't think that "the Right Stuff" for being a successful, top-table politician is especially well-correlated with other roles in life. Not motherhood (sorry Andrea). Not with being a political philosopher. Nor a military leader. Ditto businessperson, lawyer, bureaucrat, scientist, journalist, sportsperson, celeb. As such, folk who would be the "cream" in other professions, may well go sour in politics. People with largely undistinguished prior careers can still perform well in politics.
FWIW I imagine some of the best-prepared new MPs are those who were previously union leaders, though that was effectively an extra-parliamentary political career anyway.
This is getting very dreary. None of us are going to be negotiating Brexit. Trade is just one consideration. Our EU trade is unevenly distributed. There are some countries who might just as well be on Mars in terms of mutual leverage. Slovenia springs to mind.
Germany's trade surplus with the UK is sectorial. The German economy wouldn't miss us if the UK sank beneath the waves. Their car industry would. Conversely Belgium and Netherlands trade with the UK is a significant portion of their GDP despite the absolute value being lower.
We're just being bar room philosophers at this point. Brexit is going to be fecking complicated.
Overshadowed by the motherhood comments, Leadsom said also said this in her interview with the Times:
“The size of our economy means we will be the key trading partner for the EU, and we have also have 43 years aligning our goods and services. We start with zero tariffs. All we actually need to do is continue as before.”
Asked about the EU imposing tariffs, Ms Leadsom responded: “Why would they do that?”
There was talk earlier of mass defections to a "cooperative party" of even SDP2 party if Corrbyn is challenged and wins again or even just remains in post. What happens though at constituency level through as sitting MPs could be deselected as the CLP seems much in favour of Corbyn.
We could see the new improved Labour Party out of Parliament pretty quick and Corbyn supporters selected in their place to return as a Labour Party but even more hard left. Lots of ifs there and odd scenarios but we are living in historical times now. In 150 years kids will be at their interplanetary terminals learning about this stuff and going WTF?
Very keen to see May in place. Thinks Leadsom is a total flake. Is content with Norway option.
The mists are beginning to disperse, and a way ahead emerges....
Is that content with Norway option after being given a positive description of it? I suspect people may change their minds when UKIP is heavily covered in the media pointing out that it will barely affect immigration, and we will still be covered by EU courts and EU laws.
Most of the coverage after the referendum has been about the divide in British society it has revealed, between the haves and the have nots. An EEA position would be stating clearly the government is going to put the bankers above the people who have to send their child to schools with majority ESL classrooms.
How many “majority ESL classrooms" are there. Per year group. Really.
This is getting very dreary. None of us are going to be negotiating Brexit. Trade is just one consideration. Our EU trade is unevenly distributed. There are some countries who might just as well be on Mars in terms of mutual leverage. Slovenia springs to mind.
Germany's trade surplus with the UK is sectorial. The German economy wouldn't miss us if the UK sank beneath the waves. Their car industry would. Conversely Belgium and Netherlands trade with the UK is a significant portion of their GDP despite the absolute value being lower.
We're just being bar room philosophers at this point. Brexit is going to be fecking complicated.
Overshadowed by the motherhood comments, Leadsom said also said this in her interview with the Times:
“The size of our economy means we will be the key trading partner for the EU, and we have also have 43 years aligning our goods and services. We start with zero tariffs. All we actually need to do is continue as before.”
Asked about the EU imposing tariffs, Ms Leadsom responded: “Why would they do that?”
Presumably not the only contributing factor, but rather the final straw.
Very interesting. I spent the day at Silverstone with a friend who runs a sheet metal fabrication business and he says things are good and one of his customers was beaming from ear to ear at the weaker pound.
There was talk earlier of mass defections to a "cooperative party" of even SDP2 party if Corrbyn is challenged and wins again or even just remains in post. What happens though at constituency level through as sitting MPs could be deselected as the CLP seems much in favour of Corbyn.
We could see the new improved Labour Party out of Parliament pretty quick and Corbyn supporters selected in their place to return as a Labour Party but even more hard left. Lots of ifs there and odd scenarios but we are living in historical times now. In 150 years kids will be at their interplanetary terminals learning about this stuff and going WTF?
They would be SDP2 MPs, and not Labour MPs. Labour would have to select new PPCs to run against them at the GE.
She must know she cannot possibly win, so what's the point?
Perhaps others come forward "now there's definitely going to be a contest", and she drops out?
Which begs one obvious question. Is there anyone that has a realistic chance of beating Corbyn?
He can only be outflanked from the left, and none of them will dare stand in a straight fight for fear of being on the receiving end of Momentum's wrath of he loses.
None of the other candidates available have the force or ability to beat him in a straight fight, as we saw last year.
Therefore it seems most unlikely he will be ousted unless he withdraws. He has no sense, humility, courage or integrity so that seems unlikely.
Therefore, Labour sub-100 seats at the next election is probably a value bet.
I agree. It's very difficult to see how this doesn't end in a formal split. Corbyn is likely to win against Eagle - assuming she stands - or really against anyone else that the Labour mainstream might put up (not that other such putative candidates are falling over themselves to be nominated). If he does, the confidence of Momentum will be sky high and their respect for the norms of party discipline non-existent. Further infiltration from the left will continue, while centrist activists leave, two defeats being one two many. All of that points to deselections, non-selections on new boundaries, resignations and, ultimately, a rival centre-left party.
My friend in Momentum says they are just nice, middle class people who are there to encourage people to make sure they sign up to vote. Oh, and help out with a bit of canvassing. They aren't left wing at all. No. All very fluffy.
Certainly not a group that operates through intimidation and attempts at mob rule. Nothing like that.
Honest, guv!
Mind you, she did used to be a journalist on The Independent
No doubt Momentum has its useful idiots who only see what they want to see. There are more of them in the Labour mainstream who put all sorts of silly reasons against deposing Corbyn and in so doing, engage in the destruction of their own ideals.
This is getting very dreary. None of us are going to be negotiating Brexit. Trade is just one consideration. Our EU trade is unevenly distributed. There are some countries who might just as well be on Mars in terms of mutual leverage. Slovenia springs to mind.
Germany's trade surplus with the UK is sectorial. The German economy wouldn't miss us if the UK sank beneath the waves. Their car industry would. Conversely Belgium and Netherlands trade with the UK is a significant portion of their GDP despite the absolute value being lower.
We're just being bar room philosophers at this point. Brexit is going to be fecking complicated.
Overshadowed by the motherhood comments, Leadsom said also said this in her interview with the Times:
“The size of our economy means we will be the key trading partner for the EU, and we have also have 43 years aligning our goods and services. We start with zero tariffs. All we actually need to do is continue as before.”
Asked about the EU imposing tariffs, Ms Leadsom responded: “Why would they do that?”
She sets new levels for optimism in my view. And naivety.
By my usual back of the fag packet maths, there are ~15 EU countries that should be reasonably well-disposed towards us, with one of those (France) being conflicted due to its domestic politics and EU dynamics. That's basically our major trading partners plus most of the A8 who want us to help fend off Russia.
She must know she cannot possibly win, so what's the point?
Perhaps others come forward "now there's definitely going to be a contest", and she drops out?
Which begs one obvious question. Is there anyone that has a realistic chance of beating Corbyn?
He can only be outflanked from the left, and none of them will dare stand in a straight fight for fear of being on the receiving end of Momentum's wrath of he loses.
None of the other candidates available have the force or ability to beat him in a straight fight, as we saw last year.
Therefore it seems most unlikely he will be ousted unless he withdraws. He has no sense, humility, courage or integrity so that seems unlikely.
Therefore, Labour sub-100 seats at the next election is probably a value bet.
I agree. It's very difficult to see how this doesn't end in a formal split. Corbyn is likely to win against Eagle - assuming she stands - or really against anyone else that the Labour mainstream might put up (not that other such putative candidates are falling over themselves to be nominated). If he does, the confidence of Momentum will be sky high and their respect for the norms of party discipline non-existent. Further infiltration from the left will continue, while centrist activists leave, two defeats being one two many. All of that points to deselections, non-selections on new boundaries, resignations and, ultimately, a rival centre-left party.
Beginning to resemble the Liberals after 1918
It's far worse than the Liberals in 1918. That was primarily a personal clash; Labour's now is ideological. LG and Asquith were able to reconcile and their factions reunite without too much rancour, albeit at a point when both were staring into the abyss; it'd be far harder for Momentum Labour and an SDP2 to do likewise.
On the other hand, the Liberals were unfortunate in that Labour was ready and waiting to take advantage of the split whereas no-one outside Scotland is in so strong a position to do likewise to Labour.
Very keen to see May in place. Thinks Leadsom is a total flake. Is content with Norway option.
The mists are beginning to disperse, and a way ahead emerges....
Is that content with Norway option after being given a positive description of it? I suspect people may change their minds when UKIP is heavily covered in the media pointing out that it will barely affect immigration, and we will still be covered by EU courts and EU laws.
Most of the coverage after the referendum has been about the divide in British society it has revealed, between the haves and the have nots. An EEA position would be stating clearly the government is going to put the bankers above the people who have to send their child to schools with majority ESL classrooms.
"An EEA position would be stating clearly the government is going to put the bankers"
Shall we have a referendum on this?
Or does the view of - ohhh... - c. 65% of the population not matter any more?
This is getting very dreary. None of us are going to be negotiating Brexit. Trade is just one consideration. Our EU trade is unevenly distributed. There are some countries who might just as well be on Mars in terms of mutual leverage. Slovenia springs to mind.
Germany's trade surplus with the UK is sectorial. The German economy wouldn't miss us if the UK sank beneath the waves. Their car industry would. Conversely Belgium and Netherlands trade with the UK is a significant portion of their GDP despite the absolute value being lower.
We're just being bar room philosophers at this point. Brexit is going to be fecking complicated.
Technical point: We shouldn't include the Netherlands, as it includes a bunch of transshipment stuff...
This is getting very dreary. None of us are going to be negotiating Brexit. Trade is just one consideration. Our EU trade is unevenly distributed. There are some countries who might just as well be on Mars in terms of mutual leverage. Slovenia springs to mind.
Germany's trade surplus with the UK is sectorial. The German economy wouldn't miss us if the UK sank beneath the waves. Their car industry would. Conversely Belgium and Netherlands trade with the UK is a significant portion of their GDP despite the absolute value being lower.
We're just being bar room philosophers at this point. Brexit is going to be fecking complicated.
Overshadowed by the motherhood comments, Leadsom said also said this in her interview with the Times:
“The size of our economy means we will be the key trading partner for the EU, and we have also have 43 years aligning our goods and services. We start with zero tariffs. All we actually need to do is continue as before.”
Asked about the EU imposing tariffs, Ms Leadsom responded: “Why would they do that?”
She sets new levels for optimism in my view. And naivety.
By my usual back of the fag packet maths, there are ~15 EU countries that should be reasonably well-disposed towards us, with one of those (France) being conflicted due to its domestic politics and EU dynamics. That's basically our major trading partners plus most of the A8 who want us to help fend off Russia.
How the others will respond...no clue.
One of the by-products of the smoking ban is that there are far fewer fag packets to do calculations upon. It’s caused a serious decline in the standard of economic forecasting!
This is getting very dreary. None of us are going to be negotiating Brexit. Trade is just one consideration. Our EU trade is unevenly distributed. There are some countries who might just as well be on Mars in terms of mutual leverage. Slovenia springs to mind.
Germany's trade surplus with the UK is sectorial. The German economy wouldn't miss us if the UK sank beneath the waves. Their car industry would. Conversely Belgium and Netherlands trade with the UK is a significant portion of their GDP despite the absolute value being lower.
We're just being bar room philosophers at this point. Brexit is going to be fecking complicated.
Overshadowed by the motherhood comments, Leadsom said also said this in her interview with the Times:
“The size of our economy means we will be the key trading partner for the EU, and we have also have 43 years aligning our goods and services. We start with zero tariffs. All we actually need to do is continue as before.”
Asked about the EU imposing tariffs, Ms Leadsom responded: “Why would they do that?”
She sets new levels for optimism in my view. And naivety.
By my usual back of the fag packet maths, there are ~15 EU countries that should be reasonably well-disposed towards us, with one of those (France) being conflicted due to its domestic politics and EU dynamics. That's basically our major trading partners plus most of the A8 who want us to help fend off Russia.
How the others will respond...no clue.
One of the by-products of the smoking ban is that there are far fewer fag packets to do calculations upon. It’s caused a serious decline in the standard of economic forecasting!
Very keen to see May in place. Thinks Leadsom is a total flake. Is content with Norway option.
The mists are beginning to disperse, and a way ahead emerges....
Is that content with Norway option after being given a positive description of it? I suspect people may change their minds when UKIP is heavily covered in the media pointing out that it will barely affect immigration, and we will still be covered by EU courts and EU laws.
Most of the coverage after the referendum has been about the divide in British society it has revealed, between the haves and the have nots. An EEA position would be stating clearly the government is going to put the bankers above the people who have to send their child to schools with majority ESL classrooms.
"An EEA position would be stating clearly the government is going to put the bankers"
Shall we have a referendum on this?
Or does the view of - ohhh... - c. 65% of the population not matter any more?
The problem with the argument that the EEA would have c. 65% support is that it doesn't matter how many support it today, but how many will support it 5-10 years from now.
The 1975 referendum was absolutely conclusive, until over the years it became seen as illegitimate because 'they didn't tell the truth'. People may be willing to accept the EEA now as a way of avoiding uncertainty, but if current levels of immigration continue, you risk seeing a truly extreme government elected.
Presumably not the only contributing factor, but rather the final straw.
Very interesting. I spent the day at Silverstone with a friend who runs a sheet metal fabrication business and he says things are good and one of his customers was beaming from ear to ear at the weaker pound.
If he uses second hand steel from domestic source, of course he's laughing.
If he's running Port Talbot, he's just been even more cost disadvantaged.
Presumably not the only contributing factor, but rather the final straw.
Very interesting. I spent the day at Silverstone with a friend who runs a sheet metal fabrication business and he says things are good and one of his customers was beaming from ear to ear at the weaker pound.
I expect the economy probably contracted in June. There are always going to be casualties at the margins. I couldn't find current stats, but the ONS quotes 246,000 business failures across 2013/14. It would be remarkable if the combination of an already slowing economy and the shock of Brexit didn't increase the rate of business failure.
This is getting very dreary. None of us are going to be negotiating Brexit. Trade is just one consideration. Our EU trade is unevenly distributed. There are some countries who might just as well be on Mars in terms of mutual leverage. Slovenia springs to mind.
Germany's trade surplus with the UK is sectorial. The German economy wouldn't miss us if the UK sank beneath the waves. Their car industry would. Conversely Belgium and Netherlands trade with the UK is a significant portion of their GDP despite the absolute value being lower.
We're just being bar room philosophers at this point. Brexit is going to be fecking complicated.
Technical point: We shouldn't include the Netherlands, as it includes a bunch of transshipment stuff...
Which along with hamburg rather distorts our EU trade figures as I believe anything exported or imported to RoW via a port in another EU country counts as an import/export to/from said EU country.
The next few days are going to be consumed with the legal battle to keep him off the ballot
I suspect that will be futile. My reading of the rules is that the leader would be automatically on. The most reasonable way to interpret 'no vacancy' is that the current leader is being challenged and a challenge must involve a fair and equal fight. However, if a challenger waited until the last moment before submitting a nomination paper, that would give the incumbent no time to organise their own nomination - because until that nomination paper was in, there'd be no notice that an election was even taking place - and hence the leadership could simply be taken on the basis of a minority of MPs playing the timetable.
There may be very good reasons to get rid of Corbyn but going to the courts to try and keep him off the ballot strikes me as beyond crazy. The system they have is that members choose the leader. So surely it should be up to them to get rid of him. And surely keeping him off the ballot would only lead to enraging the members and an even more radical leader. McDonnell?
This is getting very dreary. None of us are going to be negotiating Brexit. Trade is just one consideration. Our EU trade is unevenly distributed. There are some countries who might just as well be on Mars in terms of mutual leverage. Slovenia springs to mind.
Germany's trade surplus with the UK is sectorial. The German economy wouldn't miss us if the UK sank beneath the waves. Their car industry would. Conversely Belgium and Netherlands trade with the UK is a significant portion of their GDP despite the absolute value being lower.
We're just being bar room philosophers at this point. Brexit is going to be fecking complicated.
Technical point: We shouldn't include the Netherlands, as it includes a bunch of transshipment stuff...
Very good point, and one I should try to remember. It just doesn't tend to stick in my brain for some reason! Old age cometh
This is getting very dreary. None of us are going to be negotiating Brexit. Trade is just one consideration. Our EU trade is unevenly distributed. There are some countries who might just as well be on Mars in terms of mutual leverage. Slovenia springs to mind.
Germany's trade surplus with the UK is sectorial. The German economy wouldn't miss us if the UK sank beneath the waves. Their car industry would. Conversely Belgium and Netherlands trade with the UK is a significant portion of their GDP despite the absolute value being lower.
We're just being bar room philosophers at this point. Brexit is going to be fecking complicated.
Overshadowed by the motherhood comments, Leadsom said also said this in her interview with the Times:
“The size of our economy means we will be the key trading partner for the EU, and we have also have 43 years aligning our goods and services. We start with zero tariffs. All we actually need to do is continue as before.”
Asked about the EU imposing tariffs, Ms Leadsom responded: “Why would they do that?”
She sets new levels for optimism in my view. And naivety.
Possibly but I think there's actually something in what she's arguing. If we start from the working assumption that any imposition of tariffs on either side would be seen as a form of sanction, would anyone dare to deviate from that? The US would certainly use its influence to back our position if that's what it was.
This is getting very dreary. None of us are going to be negotiating Brexit. Trade is just one consideration. Our EU trade is unevenly distributed. There are some countries who might just as well be on Mars in terms of mutual leverage. Slovenia springs to mind.
Germany's trade surplus with the UK is sectorial. The German economy wouldn't miss us if the UK sank beneath the waves. Their car industry would. Conversely Belgium and Netherlands trade with the UK is a significant portion of their GDP despite the absolute value being lower.
We're just being bar room philosophers at this point. Brexit is going to be fecking complicated.
Overshadowed by the motherhood comments, Leadsom said also said this in her interview with the Times:
“The size of our economy means we will be the key trading partner for the EU, and we have also have 43 years aligning our goods and services. We start with zero tariffs. All we actually need to do is continue as before.”
Asked about the EU imposing tariffs, Ms Leadsom responded: “Why would they do that?”
She sets new levels for optimism in my view. And naivety.
By my usual back of the fag packet maths, there are ~15 EU countries that should be reasonably well-disposed towards us, with one of those (France) being conflicted due to its domestic politics and EU dynamics. That's basically our major trading partners plus most of the A8 who want us to help fend off Russia.
How the others will respond...no clue.
One of the by-products of the smoking ban is that there are far fewer fag packets to do calculations upon. It’s caused a serious decline in the standard of economic forecasting!
I assure you that I only use the very finest artisanal hand crafted fag packets .
The next few days are going to be consumed with the legal battle to keep him off the ballot
I suspect that will be futile. My reading of the rules is that the leader would be automatically on. The most reasonable way to interpret 'no vacancy' is that the current leader is being challenged and a challenge must involve a fair and equal fight. However, if a challenger waited until the last moment before submitting a nomination paper, that would give the incumbent no time to organise their own nomination - because until that nomination paper was in, there'd be no notice that an election was even taking place - and hence the leadership could simply be taken on the basis of a minority of MPs playing the timetable.
There may be very good reasons to get rid of Corbyn but going to the courts to try and keep him off the ballot strikes me as beyond crazy. The system they have is that members choose the leader. So surely it should be up to them to get rid of him. And surely keeping him off the ballot would only lead to enraging the members and an even more radical leader. McDonnell?
If the leader is automatically on the ballot, why did Kinnock have to secure nominations when Benn challenged him in the late 80s (with, of course, Corbyn runnng the Benn campaign)?
That is the last time a sitting leader was openly challenged and surely would be seen as a precedent for this situation
Possibly but I think there's actually something in what she's arguing. If we start from the working assumption that any imposition of tariffs on either side would be seen as a form of sanction, would anyone dare to deviate from that? The US would certainly use its influence to back our position if that's what it was.
Err, no.
If you follow the Brexiteer logic, we are about to "sanction" them to the tune of £350m a week.
Why would anybody continue to give us "free" access?
This is getting very dreary. None of us are going to be negotiating Brexit. Trade is just one consideration. Our EU trade is unevenly distributed. There are some countries who might just as well be on Mars in terms of mutual leverage. Slovenia springs to mind.
Germany's trade surplus with the UK is sectorial. The German economy wouldn't miss us if the UK sank beneath the waves. Their car industry would. Conversely Belgium and Netherlands trade with the UK is a significant portion of their GDP despite the absolute value being lower.
We're just being bar room philosophers at this point. Brexit is going to be fecking complicated.
Overshadowed by the motherhood comments, Leadsom said also said this in her interview with the Times:
“The size of our economy means we will be the key trading partner for the EU, and we have also have 43 years aligning our goods and services. We start with zero tariffs. All we actually need to do is continue as before.”
Asked about the EU imposing tariffs, Ms Leadsom responded: “Why would they do that?”
She sets new levels for optimism in my view. And naivety.
Possibly but I think there's actually something in what she's arguing. If we start from the working assumption that any imposition of tariffs on either side would be seen as a form of sanction, would anyone dare to deviate from that? The US would certainly use its influence to back our position if that's what it was.
I'm no expert (as you may have noticed!), but wouldn't that automatically establish a new level of WTO most favoured nation (MFN) tariff levels?
There was one part of the IFS report that dealt with us unilaterally setting all import tariffs to zero, but it didn't follow up with any figures or impacts (apart from a reading-between-the-lines of 'this is a shit idea' ).
In terms of our negotiating stance, I wobble about more than @SeanT, but I do think we would be wise to assume it's going to be WTO MFN and try and work up from there. Hope for the best, plan for the worst etc.
...M ichael Foot, who was the deputy director of banking supervision in Threadneedle Street at the time, said yesterday: ‘During the Barings crisis, the Bank of England’s interface with the leading UK banks was almost wholly at chairman or CEO levels. I’m afraid I would not have seen anything of what went on within banks like Barclays.’ Peter Norris, who was chief executive of Barings, also said he could not remember her playing a role in attempts to rescue the bank. He said: ‘I was there the weekend of Barings’ collapse. I presented to all the banks in a room with Eddie George and I have absolutely no recollection of her at all. She may have had a relationship with Barings but I do not recall her being involved in the collapse that weekend.’
In England, the results of the School Census undertaken each January by the Department for Education are published annually and in January 2013 this showed that one in six primary school pupils in England - 612,160 - do not have English as their first language. In secondary schools the figure stands at 436,150, just over one in eight. Once special schools and pupil referral units are taken into account, the total rises to just over a million at 1,061,010. These figures have more than doubled since 1997.
Numbers must have gone up further since then.
Now, one in six is a large enough proportion that it would have a substantial effect in lots of classrooms.
Even one kid in a class with EAL changes the way a teacher has to teach.
Applying "one in six" to a class of 30, and that's five students. Big enough for parents and kids to notice (even if it's not anywhere near as deleterious to the quality of learning as the parents might think). But in reality that "1 in 6" isn't uniform. Lots of classes will have only 1 or 2 kids in, but in those areas of the country where migration is concentrated (and particularly because migrants tend to be child-bearing age so contribute disproportionately to school numbers) that can rise very sharply.
My sister-in-law taught at a primary school where about 1 in 3 students had EAL and it caused her a great deal of stress - partly the extra workload it created, partly the difficulties of getting them to "passing" standards of English when they did not speak English at home.
I used to lecture an FE course where every single student was Lithuanian, except one lass who was Polish and one lad who was Brazilian. This actually wasn't too problematic, once one changes one's expectations of what one can say/explain and what quality of written work should be produced, but any English kid (and in fact, the couple of kids who'd been in Britain for a few years rather than being recently arrived, hence had developed near-fluent English) would likely have found the whole thing a frustrating experience.
Very keen to see May in place. Thinks Leadsom is a total flake. Is content with Norway option.
The mists are beginning to disperse, and a way ahead emerges....
Is that content with Norway option after being given a positive description of it? I suspect people may change their minds when UKIP is heavily covered in the media pointing out that it will barely affect immigration, and we will still be covered by EU courts and EU laws.
Most of the coverage after the referendum has been about the divide in British society it has revealed, between the haves and the have nots. An EEA position would be stating clearly the government is going to put the bankers above the people who have to send their child to schools with majority ESL classrooms.
"An EEA position would be stating clearly the government is going to put the bankers"
Shall we have a referendum on this?
Or does the view of - ohhh... - c. 65% of the population not matter any more?
Its probably already been discussed but the YouGov poll from the other day:
"Thinking about Britain's future relationship with the European Union now it has voted to Leave, which of the following would you most like to see?
* Britain should leave the EU completely and have no sort of formal deal with the rest of the EU - 7%
* Britain should try to make only a limited deal with the rest of the EU, restricting any deal only to trade - 36%
* Britain should try to make a wider deal with the rest of the EU, giving Britain full trade access to the rest of the EU, in exchange for allowing EU citizens to live and work in Britain -26%
* Britain should try to reverse its decision and stay in the EU - 26%"
EEA wasn't mentioned but if you take the last two answers as those pro EEA and the first two as anti EEA, you get a 45% v 43% split in favour of EEA membership. Having been whipped up into a frenzy about the UK being at breaking point, I don't think its a given that a majority of the country would be in favour of an EEA option and the continuing freedom of movement it requires.
That's before you get to the fact that the other countries of the EU want the UK to be treated harshly in any negotiation.
"European heavy-hitters France and Germany opt for the iron-fisted approach by identical margins of 53% to 27%."
Of course the fact that she is a gormless numpty, is not relevant...
@PickardJE: Great insights into the thinking of local Tories: "I've been all over the valley on my bike..they all want Leadsom." https://t.co/WsZ1Hv6XKu
Surprising from the express who you would think would be pro Leadsom. Looks like no one supports her in the press
The danger here is that she will be able to craft an anti-establishment platform (which is sort of what she is trying to do) - and that helps her gain her own momentum...
...M ichael Foot, who was the deputy director of banking supervision in Threadneedle Street at the time, said yesterday: ‘During the Barings crisis, the Bank of England’s interface with the leading UK banks was almost wholly at chairman or CEO levels. I’m afraid I would not have seen anything of what went on within banks like Barclays.’ Peter Norris, who was chief executive of Barings, also said he could not remember her playing a role in attempts to rescue the bank. He said: ‘I was there the weekend of Barings’ collapse. I presented to all the banks in a room with Eddie George and I have absolutely no recollection of her at all. She may have had a relationship with Barings but I do not recall her being involved in the collapse that weekend.’
Michael Foot? Don't Tory grassroots rather admire a social climber even if they're a little less than honest.
Surprising from the express who you would think would be pro Leadsom. Looks like no one supports her in the press
The danger here is that she will be able to craft an anti-establishment platform (which is sort of what she is trying to do) - and that helps her gain her own momentum...
"helps her gain her own momentum"....? Don't like the sound of that!
This is getting very dreary. None of us are going to be negotiating Brexit. Trade is just one consideration. Our EU trade is unevenly distributed. There are some countries who might just as well be on Mars in terms of mutual leverage. Slovenia springs to mind.
Germany's trade surplus with the UK is sectorial. The German economy wouldn't miss us if the UK sank beneath the waves. Their car industry would. Conversely Belgium and Netherlands trade with the UK is a significant portion of their GDP despite the absolute value being lower.
We're just being bar room philosophers at this point. Brexit is going to be fecking complicated.
Technical point: We shouldn't include the Netherlands, as it includes a bunch of transshipment stuff...
Which along with hamburg rather distorts our EU trade figures as I believe anything exported or imported to RoW via a port in another EU country counts as an import/export to/from said EU country.
Of course the fact that she is a gormless numpty, is not relevant...
@PickardJE: Great insights into the thinking of local Tories: "I've been all over the valley on my bike..they all want Leadsom." https://t.co/WsZ1Hv6XKu
Surprising from the express who you would think would be pro Leadsom. Looks like no one supports her in the press
The danger here is that she will be able to craft an anti-establishment platform (which is sort of what she is trying to do) - and that helps her gain her own momentum...
"helps her gain her own momentum"....? Don't like the sound of that!
Me either - but I can imagine a scenario where it would happen
The next few days are going to be consumed with the legal battle to keep him off the ballot
I suspect that will be futile. My reading of the rules is that the leader would be automatically on. The most reasonable way to interpret 'no vacancy' is that the current leader is being challenged and a challenge must involve a fair and equal fight. However, if a challenger waited until the last moment before submitting a nomination paper, that would give the incumbent no time to organise their own nomination - because until that nomination paper was in, there'd be no notice that an election was even taking place - and hence the leadership could simply be taken on the basis of a minority of MPs playing the timetable.
There may be very good reasons to get rid of Corbyn but going to the courts to try and keep him off the ballot strikes me as beyond crazy. The system they have is that members choose the leader. So surely it should be up to them to get rid of him. And surely keeping him off the ballot would only lead to enraging the members and an even more radical leader. McDonnell?
If the leader is automatically on the ballot, why did Kinnock have to secure nominations when Benn challenged him in the late 80s (with, of course, Corbyn runnng the Benn campaign)?
That is the last time a sitting leader was openly challenged and surely would be seen as a precedent for this situation
The difference with Kinnock is the nature of the election has changed to OMOV and legal advice confirms this.Corbyn will be on the ballot.
Of course the fact that she is a gormless numpty, is not relevant...
@PickardJE: Great insights into the thinking of local Tories: "I've been all over the valley on my bike..they all want Leadsom." https://t.co/WsZ1Hv6XKu
The fact that TWITTER has concluded she is a gormless numpty. Which has shit all to do with anything in the real world.
Of course the fact that she is a gormless numpty, is not relevant...
@PickardJE: Great insights into the thinking of local Tories: "I've been all over the valley on my bike..they all want Leadsom." https://t.co/WsZ1Hv6XKu
Well they voted for Cameron 11 years ago, so lets hope there is still some of that sense about.
"Andrew Burney, 53, who owns a farm and runs a fruit and vegetable stall at the market, said he also liked Mrs Leadsom. “I have read a lot about her being a financial expert. I think she is calm and collected.”
Very keen to see May in place. Thinks Leadsom is a total flake. Is content with Norway option.
The mists are beginning to disperse, and a way ahead emerges....
Is that content with Norway option after being given a positive description of it? I suspect people may change their minds when UKIP is heavily covered in the media pointing out that it will barely affect immigration, and we will still be covered by EU courts and EU laws.
Most of the coverage after the referendum has been about the divide in British society it has revealed, between the haves and the have nots. An EEA position would be stating clearly the government is going to put the bankers above the people who have to send their child to schools with majority ESL classrooms.
"An EEA position would be stating clearly the government is going to put the bankers"
Shall we have a referendum on this?
Or does the view of - ohhh... - c. 65% of the population not matter any more?
The problem with the argument that the EEA would have c. 65% support is that it doesn't matter how many support it today, but how many will support it 5-10 years from now.
The 1975 referendum was absolutely conclusive, until over the years it became seen as illegitimate because 'they didn't tell the truth'. People may be willing to accept the EEA now as a way of avoiding uncertainty, but if current levels of immigration continue, you risk seeing a truly extreme government elected.
That ignores the fact that if we change our mind five years from now, when we're in EFTA, and have trade agreements (negotiated not under the gun of leaving the EU in 18 months) in place with a bunch of countries, then we're in a lot stronger position.
Surprising from the express who you would think would be pro Leadsom. Looks like no one supports her in the press
The Remainstream media will never support the true insurgent...
You're talking about The Express right? The most UKIP supporting, race-hate-inciting, refugee-drowning UK national that still has a nominal daily circulation greater than zero?
Of course the fact that she is a gormless numpty, is not relevant...
@PickardJE: Great insights into the thinking of local Tories: "I've been all over the valley on my bike..they all want Leadsom." https://t.co/WsZ1Hv6XKu
This chap quoted in the FT article is going to be disappointed when he hears that Leadsom has already conceded zero tariff imports of Dutch tomatoes...
Andrew Burney, 53, who owns a farm and runs a fruit and vegetable stall at the market, said he also liked Mrs Leadsom. “I have read a lot about her being a financial expert. I think she is calm and collected.” He hoped leaving the EU would help his tomato-growing business — he has slashed production since the 1970s because of cheap Dutch imports.
The next few days are going to be consumed with the legal battle to keep him off the ballot
I suspect that will be futile. My reading of the rules is that the leader would be automatically on. The most reasonable way to interpret 'no vacancy' is that the current leader is being challenged and a challenge must involve a fair and equal fight. However, if a challenger waited until the last moment before submitting a nomination paper, that would give the incumbent no time to organise their own nomination - because until that nomination paper was in, there'd be no notice that an election was even taking place - and hence the leadership could simply be taken on the basis of a minority of MPs playing the timetable.
There may be very good reasons to get rid of Corbyn but going to the courts to try and keep him off the ballot strikes me as beyond crazy. The system they have is that members choose the leader. So surely it should be up to them to get rid of him. And surely keeping him off the ballot would only lead to enraging the members and an even more radical leader. McDonnell?
If the leader is automatically on the ballot, why did Kinnock have to secure nominations when Benn challenged him in the late 80s (with, of course, Corbyn runnng the Benn campaign)?
That is the last time a sitting leader was openly challenged and surely would be seen as a precedent for this situation
The difference with Kinnock is the nature of the election has changed to OMOV and legal advice confirms this.Corbyn will be on the ballot.
Legal advice means nothing unless it is tested and proven to right on this particular occasion. Different lawyers will give different advice on different days.
This is getting very dreary. None of us are going to be negotiating Brexit. Trade is just one consideration. Our EU trade is unevenly distributed. There are some countries who might just as well be on Mars in terms of mutual leverage. Slovenia springs to mind.
Germany's trade surplus with the UK is sectorial. The German economy wouldn't miss us if the UK sank beneath the waves. Their car industry would. Conversely Belgium and Netherlands trade with the UK is a significant portion of their GDP despite the absolute value being lower.
We're just being bar room philosophers at this point. Brexit is going to be fecking complicated.
Technical point: We shouldn't include the Netherlands, as it includes a bunch of transshipment stuff...
Which along with hamburg rather distorts our EU trade figures as I believe anything exported or imported to RoW via a port in another EU country counts as an import/export to/from said EU country.
It's worth remembering that quote a lot of Apple products go to Ireland, are put in boxes in the Hollyhill factory, and are then shipped from there to the rest of the EU.
I'm sure they're not the only company to play that game.
Very keen to see May in place. Thinks Leadsom is a total flake. Is content with Norway option.
The mists are beginning to disperse, and a way ahead emerges....
Is that content with Norway option after being given a positive description of it? I suspect people may change their minds when UKIP is heavily covered in the media pointing out that it will barely affect immigration, and we will still be covered by EU courts and EU laws.
Most of the coverage after the referendum has been about the divide in British society it has revealed, between the haves and the have nots. An EEA position would be stating clearly the government is going to put the bankers above the people who have to send their child to schools with majority ESL classrooms.
"An EEA position would be stating clearly the government is going to put the bankers"
Shall we have a referendum on this?
Or does the view of - ohhh... - c. 65% of the population not matter any more?
The problem with the argument that the EEA would have c. 65% support is that it doesn't matter how many support it today, but how many will support it 5-10 years from now.
The 1975 referendum was absolutely conclusive, until over the years it became seen as illegitimate because 'they didn't tell the truth'. People may be willing to accept the EEA now as a way of avoiding uncertainty, but if current levels of immigration continue, you risk seeing a truly extreme government elected.
That ignores the fact that if we change our mind five years from now, when we're in EFTA, and have trade agreements (negotiated not under the gun of leaving the EU in 18 months) in place with a bunch of countries, then we're in a lot stronger position.
I think we could just go 'Bye, EU' and still get some kind of result after a heck of a lot of grief for the economy. The WTO route doesn't look too bad in 2030. It's the near term that would be...iffy.
But we should at least _try_ to wean ourselves off gently. Walk before running and so forth.
In England, the results of the School Census undertaken each January by the Department for Education are published annually and in January 2013 this showed that one in six primary school pupils in England - 612,160 - do not have English as their first language. In secondary schools the figure stands at 436,150, just over one in eight. Once special schools and pupil referral units are taken into account, the total rises to just over a million at 1,061,010. These figures have more than doubled since 1997.
Numbers must have gone up further since then.
Now, one in six is a large enough proportion that it would have a substantial effect in lots of classrooms.
Even one kid in a class with EAL changes the way a teacher has to teach.
Applying "one in six" to a class of 30, and that's five students. Big enough for parents and kids to notice (even if it's not anywhere near as deleterious to the quality of learning as the parents might think). But in reality that "1 in 6" isn't uniform. Lots of classes will have only 1 or 2 kids in, but in those areas of the country where migration is concentrated (and particularly because migrants tend to be child-bearing age so contribute disproportionately to school numbers) that can rise very sharply.
My sister-in-law taught at a primary school where about 1 in 3 students had EAL and it caused her a great deal of stress - partly the extra workload it created, partly the difficulties of getting them to "passing" standards of English when they did not speak English at home.
I used to lecture an FE course where every single student was Lithuanian, except one lass who was Polish and one lad who was Brazilian. This actually wasn't too problematic, once one changes one's expectations of what one can say/explain and what quality of written work should be produced, but any English kid (and in fact, the couple of kids who'd been in Britain for a few years rather than being recently arrived, hence had developed near-fluent English) would likely have found the whole thing a frustrating experience.
But somewhat counterintuitive ly it seems that English as first language students may do better when EAL students are present.
Very keen to see May in place. Thinks Leadsom is a total flake. Is content with Norway option.
The mists are beginning to disperse, and a way ahead emerges....
Is that content with Norway option after being given a positive description of it? I suspect people may change their minds when UKIP is heavily covered in the media pointing out that it will barely affect immigration, and we will still be covered by EU courts and EU laws.
Most of the coverage after the referendum has been about the divide in British society it has revealed, between the haves and the have nots. An EEA position would be stating clearly the government is going to put the bankers above the people who have to send their child to schools with majority ESL classrooms.
The EEA is seen as a panacea, but actually has all the features of the EU that people dislike - remote decision making, no control over borders and extra-territorial courts, legislative and regulatory bodies - plus further disadvantages on top. In particular shared sovereignty without influence, which therefore isn't shared sovereignty at all. On the other hand full disengagement from the EU will result serious damage to our economy.
The best option is membership of the EU but that is the only one that has been rejected. It will have to be the EEA despite it being a poor alternative. It's all very stupid.
Some might think that a relatively flattering photograph dominating the front page while your opponent is forgotten about is not bad coverage at all.
Her opponents are really overdoing it at the moment and will pay a price later on in the contest.
Yes, yes. Being brutally slagged off in every national daily as being crass, insensitive, naive and a bit thick is surely the DREAM launch of her campaign she was hoping for.
'Kin hell, Priti Patel says Andrea Leadsom is to divisive to win a general election.
Looks like we can forget all the confident predictions of Tory unity after the referendum.
I think most such predictions if they were made were done so on the expectation that Remain would win and therefore Cameron would Remain.
It is code for when the voting is over. This leadership election is extending the voting period. Once it is over the question is if the party will unite. I think so. Whoever wins will get a honeymoon and then choose a Cabinet and we go from there.
Comments
A convenient Brexit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36754376
At any rate, there are supremely intelligent people who lack other skills that are basic prerequisites for being a politician.
Incidentally, your backgrounds in economics should tell you that people are utility-maximisers, not income-maximisers. That's a classic first-year mistake (as you well know - not accusing you of falling for it). Which explains why there are plenty of people with talent, passion and ability who work in lower income bands than if they had pursued money alone. And plenty of people who could have found a fortune outside parliament are prepared to pay the opportunity costs of becoming an MP instead, because they find greater fulfilment - whether that's from a sense of public duty, a lust for power (and the goodies that come with it), a desire to change their country for the better, or just love being around movers and shakers, to feel they are "someone who is someone"...
I was in Equity Research, where I was the junior analyst looking at (initially) the whole technology space. When we got a second junior person, we split the role and I did the 'soft' side (software and service) and he did the hard (telecoms equipment and semis).
The work fell into three segments: firsthand company and industry research (meeting companies in the sector, industry analysts, going to conferences); in-house work (company modelling, reading 10Ks, conference call transcripts, writing it all up); and marketing (telling investors the conclusions of all your work). I was very lucky: my two bosses trained me up and took me to meetings with the CEOs of the biggest companies in the (tech) world. Other juniors got left live in Excel.
Certainly not a group that operates through intimidation and attempts at mob rule. Nothing like that.
Honest, guv!
Mind you, she did used to be a journalist on The Independent
Germany has an annual 50billion trade benefit (export-import) with the UK.
Second only to the US which is slightly higher.
I think we have negotiating leverage with the most important country in the rEU.
50% of UK imports from the EU come from just 3 countries - Germany, Netherlands, and France.
They'll want to retain favourable trading arrangements, and I would suggest that those particular countries may have a bit of influence.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/andrea-leadsom-told-to-apologise?CMP=twt_a-politics_b-gdnukpolitics
What Germany lets them have.
Most of the coverage after the referendum has been about the divide in British society it has revealed, between the haves and the have nots. An EEA position would be stating clearly the government is going to put the bankers above the people who have to send their child to schools with majority ESL classrooms.
Germany's trade surplus with the UK is sectorial. The German economy wouldn't miss us if the UK sank beneath the waves. Their car industry would. Conversely Belgium and Netherlands trade with the UK is a significant portion of their GDP despite the absolute value being lower.
We're just being bar room philosophers at this point. Brexit is going to be fecking complicated.
But to turn some of this on its head, I don't mind being represented by a politician with a thick hide coated in teflon armour plating. I want the person out fighting for me to bulletproof. This is why, for instance, even if my views were to align perfectly with hers, I wouldn't want to stick Leadsom out to bat for me. She's not battle-ready. She'd be rubbish. Hence, I wouldn't get what I want. Similarly for those Tories in 2005 who recognised David Davis was not suitable to be their frontman even if he chimed more with the membership - an electoral liability with grandstanding self-destructive tendencies. To some extent I share Sean Fear's admiration for Mandelson - I get a sense that he'd be a man capable of delivering. I suspect a tough, politically sharp bastard like Mandy would have glided through your destruction-testing process with an added dash of panache just to impress upon the suits that he was a cut above them at this game.
I don't think that "the Right Stuff" for being a successful, top-table politician is especially well-correlated with other roles in life. Not motherhood (sorry Andrea). Not with being a political philosopher. Nor a military leader. Ditto businessperson, lawyer, bureaucrat, scientist, journalist, sportsperson, celeb. As such, folk who would be the "cream" in other professions, may well go sour in politics. People with largely undistinguished prior careers can still perform well in politics.
FWIW I imagine some of the best-prepared new MPs are those who were previously union leaders, though that was effectively an extra-parliamentary political career anyway.
“The size of our economy means we will be the key trading partner for the EU, and we have also have 43 years aligning our goods and services. We start with zero tariffs. All we actually need to do is continue as before.”
Asked about the EU imposing tariffs, Ms Leadsom responded: “Why would they do that?”
We could see the new improved Labour Party out of Parliament pretty quick and Corbyn supporters selected in their place to return as a Labour Party but even more hard left. Lots of ifs there and odd scenarios but we are living in historical times now. In 150 years kids will be at their interplanetary terminals learning about this stuff and going WTF?
She sets new levels for optimism in my view. And naivety.
By my usual back of the fag packet maths, there are ~15 EU countries that should be reasonably well-disposed towards us, with one of those (France) being conflicted due to its domestic politics and EU dynamics. That's basically our major trading partners plus most of the A8 who want us to help fend off Russia.
How the others will respond...no clue.
Kinnock goes for the jugular. https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2016/jul/08/neil-kinnock-interview-brexit-corbyn-labour
On the other hand, the Liberals were unfortunate in that Labour was ready and waiting to take advantage of the split whereas no-one outside Scotland is in so strong a position to do likewise to Labour.
Shall we have a referendum on this?
Or does the view of - ohhh... - c. 65% of the population not matter any more?
It’s caused a serious decline in the standard of economic forecasting!
The 1975 referendum was absolutely conclusive, until over the years it became seen as illegitimate because 'they didn't tell the truth'. People may be willing to accept the EEA now as a way of avoiding uncertainty, but if current levels of immigration continue, you risk seeing a truly extreme government elected.
If he's running Port Talbot, he's just been even more cost disadvantaged.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/751876088264069120
That is the last time a sitting leader was openly challenged and surely would be seen as a precedent for this situation
If you follow the Brexiteer logic, we are about to "sanction" them to the tune of £350m a week.
Why would anybody continue to give us "free" access?
I'm no expert (as you may have noticed!), but wouldn't that automatically establish a new level of WTO most favoured nation (MFN) tariff levels?
There was one part of the IFS report that dealt with us unilaterally setting all import tariffs to zero, but it didn't follow up with any figures or impacts (apart from a reading-between-the-lines of 'this is a shit idea' ).
In terms of our negotiating stance, I wobble about more than @SeanT, but I do think we would be wise to assume it's going to be WTO MFN and try and work up from there. Hope for the best, plan for the worst etc.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3681715/Did-Andrea-Leadsom-REALLY-help-Bank-England-boss-Barings-crisis-Fresh-doubts-raised-one-Tory-hopeful-s-career.html
...M ichael Foot, who was the deputy director of banking supervision in Threadneedle Street at the time, said yesterday: ‘During the Barings crisis, the Bank of England’s interface with the leading UK banks was almost wholly at chairman or CEO levels. I’m afraid I would not have seen anything of what went on within banks like Barclays.’ Peter Norris, who was chief executive of Barings, also said he could not remember her playing a role in attempts to rescue the bank.
He said: ‘I was there the weekend of Barings’ collapse. I presented to all the banks in a room with Eddie George and I have absolutely no recollection of her at all. She may have had a relationship with Barings but I do not recall her being involved in the collapse that weekend.’
In England, the results of the School Census undertaken each January by the Department for Education are published annually and in January 2013 this showed that one in six primary school pupils in England - 612,160 - do not have English as their first language. In secondary schools the figure stands at 436,150, just over one in eight. Once special schools and pupil referral units are taken into account, the total rises to just over a million at 1,061,010. These figures have more than doubled since 1997.
Numbers must have gone up further since then.
Now, one in six is a large enough proportion that it would have a substantial effect in lots of classrooms.
Even one kid in a class with EAL changes the way a teacher has to teach.
Applying "one in six" to a class of 30, and that's five students. Big enough for parents and kids to notice (even if it's not anywhere near as deleterious to the quality of learning as the parents might think). But in reality that "1 in 6" isn't uniform. Lots of classes will have only 1 or 2 kids in, but in those areas of the country where migration is concentrated (and particularly because migrants tend to be child-bearing age so contribute disproportionately to school numbers) that can rise very sharply.
My sister-in-law taught at a primary school where about 1 in 3 students had EAL and it caused her a great deal of stress - partly the extra workload it created, partly the difficulties of getting them to "passing" standards of English when they did not speak English at home.
I used to lecture an FE course where every single student was Lithuanian, except one lass who was Polish and one lad who was Brazilian. This actually wasn't too problematic, once one changes one's expectations of what one can say/explain and what quality of written work should be produced, but any English kid (and in fact, the couple of kids who'd been in Britain for a few years rather than being recently arrived, hence had developed near-fluent English) would likely have found the whole thing a frustrating experience.
Its probably already been discussed but the YouGov poll from the other day:
"Thinking about Britain's future relationship with the European Union now it has voted to Leave, which of the following would you most like to see?
* Britain should leave the EU completely and have no sort of formal deal with the rest of the EU - 7%
* Britain should try to make only a limited deal with the rest of the EU, restricting any deal only to trade - 36%
* Britain should try to make a wider deal with the rest of the EU, giving Britain full trade access to the rest of the EU, in exchange for allowing EU citizens to live and work in Britain -26%
* Britain should try to reverse its decision and stay in the EU - 26%"
EEA wasn't mentioned but if you take the last two answers as those pro EEA and the first two as anti EEA, you get a 45% v 43% split in favour of EEA membership. Having been whipped up into a frenzy about the UK being at breaking point, I don't think its a given that a majority of the country would be in favour of an EEA option and the continuing freedom of movement it requires.
That's before you get to the fact that the other countries of the EU want the UK to be treated harshly in any negotiation.
"European heavy-hitters France and Germany opt for the iron-fisted approach by identical margins of 53% to 27%."
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/rm136y08iq/Eurotrack_June_Results_WebsiteV1.pdf
@PickardJE: Great insights into the thinking of local Tories: "I've been all over the valley on my bike..they all want Leadsom." https://t.co/WsZ1Hv6XKu
(facepalm)
UK Trade in Goods estimates and the ‘Rotterdam Effect’
https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/751881876709711872
"Andrew Burney, 53, who owns a farm and runs a fruit and vegetable stall at the market, said he also liked Mrs Leadsom. “I have read a lot about her being a financial expert. I think she is calm and collected.”
Her opponents are really overdoing it at the moment and will pay a price later on in the contest.
Andrew Burney, 53, who owns a farm and runs a fruit and vegetable stall at the market, said he also liked Mrs Leadsom. “I have read a lot about her being a financial expert. I think she is calm and collected.” He hoped leaving the EU would help his tomato-growing business — he has slashed production since the 1970s because of cheap Dutch imports.
This will end up before a judge or three
I'm sure they're not the only company to play that game.
But we should at least _try_ to wean ourselves off gently. Walk before running and so forth.
https://twitter.com/skynews/status/751883612577001472
http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/immigration-whats-it-doing-our-schools#.V4Fl1ctDZAg
The best option is membership of the EU but that is the only one that has been rejected. It will have to be the EEA despite it being a poor alternative. It's all very stupid.
It is code for when the voting is over. This leadership election is extending the voting period. Once it is over the question is if the party will unite. I think so. Whoever wins will get a honeymoon and then choose a Cabinet and we go from there.