politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Andy Burnham’s victory in first Gtr Manchester Mayoral Race sh

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Andy Burnham’s victory in first Gtr Manchester Mayoral Race should not be regarded as a foregone conclusion

Manchester Evening News May 19 2016

Read the full story here

tlg86

First like Burnham

Icarus

How many Labour members are there in Greater Manchester. If Richmond is a guide he is unlikely to get that many votes!!

rcs1000

Morning all: regarding trade deals, it is easiest for countries with non-overlapping areas of activity to enter into trade deals. It is difficult where one country exports something that competes with a protected industry in another.

So, Australia should be an easy country for us to enter into an agreement with: they mine commodities, we produce services. That being said, it is worth remembering that Belgium's imports are 50% more than Australia's, and a lot of things we make, and Australia imports, that are unlikely to see a boost (like cars) because the distances make it uneconomic.

I would reckon the easiest countries in the world to do trade deals with would be: the EFTA countries, Canada, Australia, and South Korea. Why?

Canada and South Korea are the two most genuinely free trade medium or large economies in the world. They both have non-overlapping areas of activity with the UK. They have both been active in signing FTAs around the world, and can move relatively quickly. The EFTA countries already have good trade links with the UK and would also want to move quickly.

The issue for the UK, however, is that the EU already has FTAs with three of these four. CETA is the Canada-EU deal, there is a comprehensive South Korea FTA* that has been in place since 2011, and - of course - the EFTA countries have deals with the EU (both the EEA agreement and Switzerland's bilateral deals).

Which means that, of the deals we're likely to sign relatively rapidly following Brexit, only one of them adds a new free trade market.

The big question, then, is the US. And I think some people on this board are unaware of how onerous membership of NAFTA is from a sovereignty basis. Repealing the European Communities Act to sign a deal which made the UK parliament subservient to US ISDS tribunals that met in secret, and which denuded the UK of sovereignty in - for example - intellectual property law would be a betrayal of those who opposed UK membership of the EU for sovereignty reasons.

I would also very much doubt that - even in the most optimistic of scenarios, that the exit of Mexico from NAFTA, and our entrance could be achieved within the next five years. Simply, you can't take the text of the agreement (https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Legal-Texts/North-American-Free-Trade-Agreement) and make the UK a signatory without major changes.

I am not trying to put a downer on the opportunities post Brexit; because the opportunities are there. But I think people tend to be a little naive about the challenges associated with signing complex international agreements. I was amused, for example, to discover that the China-Maldives free trade discussions are now on their fourth round, and the likelihood of a signed deal before 2019 looks remote. Seven years for a country that has exactly two businesses: fish and tourism. We should bear that in mind.

* Which rather bizarrely is not in force for the UK

CarlottaVance

If anyone can lose it for Labour it's Burnham - and while the Scouser thing shouldn't matter, I suspect OGH is right - at the margins, it will...

Sandpit

What do we know about the other candidates? Looking at the 2015 GE results, the Tories should be main challengers to Burnham, but what do we know about their candidate, do they have a local profile?

For a mayoral election, there's always the chance of a well known local independent coming through and changing the dynamics of the race completely as we saw with Ken in 2000. Anyone want to have a word with Alex Ferguson or Noel Gallagher, might half of Manchester vote for one of them as mayor?

Luckyguy1983

rcs1000 said:

Morning all: regarding trade deals, it is easiest for countries with non-overlapping areas of activity to enter into trade deals. It is difficult where one country exports something that competes with a protected industry in another.

So, Australia should be an easy country for us to enter into an agreement with: they mine commodities, we produce services. That being said, it is worth remembering that Belgium's imports are 50% more than Australia's, and a lot of things we make, and Australia imports, that are unlikely to see a boost (like cars) because the distances make it uneconomic.

I would reckon the easiest countries in the world to do trade deals with would be: the EFTA countries, Canada, Australia, and South Korea. Why?

Canada and South Korea are the two most genuinely free trade medium or large economies in the world. They both have non-overlapping areas of activity with the UK. They have both been active in signing FTAs around the world, and can move relatively quickly. The EFTA countries already have good trade links with the UK and would also want to move quickly.

The issue for the UK, however, is that the EU already has FTAs with three of these four. CETA is the Canada-EU deal, there is a comprehensive South Korea FTA* that has been in place since 2011, and - of course - the EFTA countries have deals with the EU (both the EEA agreement and Switzerland's bilateral deals).

Which means that, of the deals we're likely to sign relatively rapidly following Brexit, only one of them adds a new free trade market.

The big question, then, is the US. And I think some people on this board are unaware of how onerous membership of NAFTA is from a sovereignty basis. Repealing the European Communities Act to sign a deal which made the UK parliament subservient to US ISDS tribunals that met in secret, and which denuded the UK of sovereignty in - for example - intellectual property law would be a betrayal of those who opposed UK membership of the EU for sovereignty reasons

Lets not enter into them then. There is no shortcut to economic success.

peter_from_putney

Manchester will only ever vote in a Labour mayor ..... it's simply in their DNA.

Sandpit

@rcs1000 a good point about getting dragged into a NAFTA-type arrangement with the US, that cedes sovereignty to an overly-American ISDS system.

Other commentators have said that as well as specific trade deals with key markets, the UK should also be a strong advocate for tariff and NTB reductions at WTO level.

Sandpit

India v England. If anyone laid the draw at the start, they might wish to reconsider. Lunch on day 4 and still a lot of batting to go on a very flat pitch. India 463/5, 14 runs behind.

DavidL

Sandpit said:

India v England. If anyone laid the draw at the start, they might wish to reconsider. Lunch on day 4 and still a lot of batting to go on a very flat pitch. India 463/5, 14 runs behind.

Yep, only 1 wicket in that morning session but England have really kept the scoring rate down. Unless India can score quicker they should not have enough time to get enough of a lead to bowl England out in the second innings.

Edit. And as I type that Ashwin hits a 6. Going to take a lot more of that though.

DavidL

Anyway on topic Burnham is capable of losing almost anything and is in many ways a bizarre choice by Labour. But if not actually being from greater Manchester is going to be a problem it will need some distinctively Manchester figure to stand against him.

I wonder if Rio Ferdinand could be tempted. He recently gave £500K of toys to the Manchester radio station charity. He has a successful business in the city and the sort of profile that would put Burnham at a real disadvantage. No idea what his politics are.

rcs1000

@Sandpit, absolutely agree. Frankly, the more effective the WTO is, the less need there is for organisations like three EU or NAFTA.

DavidL

rcs1000 said:

@Sandpit, absolutely agree. Frankly, the more effective the WTO is, the less need there is for organisations like three EU or NAFTA.

In fairness I think the government gets that, hence the rhetoric about being champions of free trade etc. But the problem with WTO and the reason for the existence of the EU and NAFTA is the NTBs. The track record of the WTO in that area is not great, hence all the effort put into these interminable treaty negotiations.

rcs1000

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

@Sandpit, absolutely agree. Frankly, the more effective the WTO is, the less need there is for organisations like three EU or NAFTA.

In fairness I think the government gets that, hence the rhetoric about being champions of free trade etc. But the problem with WTO and the reason for the existence of the EU and NAFTA is the NTBs. The track record of the WTO in that area is not great, hence all the effort put into these interminable treaty negotiations.

One person's non tariff barrier is another person's sovereignty.

And there in lies the rub.

The anti-globalisation protestors hate the fact that elected politicians lose the right to make laws as they see fit. Everyone says they support free trade, but what they mean is want other people to open up their markets.

david_herdson

On topic, if the line-up is a straight party fight, Burnham will win, Scouser or not. If there is a strong local independent, he may well not. The voting system will count there: I'd have thought that if it's FPTP, that will favour Burnham above SV, where a strong independent could expect to pick up the bulk of Tory, Lib Dem and UKIP transfers.

But as yet, that putative independent does not exist. I agree with Mike though: 1/6 is no value.

williamglenn

rcs1000 said:

@Sandpit, absolutely agree. Frankly, the more effective the WTO is, the less need there is for organisations like three EU or NAFTA.

The EU is more analogous to the US than to NAFTA, however both comparisons are inadequate.

SirNorfolkPassmore

Burnham has no serious competition. To coin a phrase, "calm down, calm down".

williamglenn

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Burnham has no serious competition. To coin a phrase, "calm down, calm down".

Don't underestimate him. He can still find a way to lose.

DavidL

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

One person's non tariff barrier is another person's sovereignty.

And there in lies the rub.

The anti-globalisation protestors hate the fact that elected politicians lose the right to make laws as they see fit. Everyone says they support free trade, but what they mean is want other people to open up their markets.

And rule out subsidies for their local producers except...well their own local producers where there are compelling social reasons to keep the business going (Port Talbot comes to mind). I have given the example before of Japan claiming that their snow was different and that only the locally made skis were "safe".

The question is whether the trade offs in sovereignty or lack of local control in a NAFTA or an EU, especially an EU, are worth the undoubted gains they can bring. I think the answer being given worldwide is increasingly no and that we may have reached a turning point where an increase in free trade is no longer such a driver of world growth.

rcs1000

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

One person's non tariff barrier is another person's sovereignty.

And there in lies the rub.

The anti-globalisation protestors hate the fact that elected politicians lose the right to make laws as they see fit. Everyone says they support free trade, but what they mean is want other people to open up their markets.

And rule out subsidies for their local producers except...well their own local producers where there are compelling social reasons to keep the business going (Port Talbot comes to mind). I have given the example before of Japan claiming that their snow was different and that only the locally made skis were "safe".

The question is whether the trade offs in sovereignty or lack of local control in a NAFTA or an EU, especially an EU, are worth the undoubted gains they can bring. I think the answer being given worldwide is increasingly no and that we may have reached a turning point where an increase in free trade is no longer such a driver of world growth.

I agree with all of that.

The question is: if the world rows back on free trade as it did in the late 1920s, will it have the same terrible effect on the world economy?

williamglenn

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

One person's non tariff barrier is another person's sovereignty.

And there in lies the rub.

The anti-globalisation protestors hate the fact that elected politicians lose the right to make laws as they see fit. Everyone says they support free trade, but what they mean is want other people to open up their markets.

The question is whether the trade offs in sovereignty or lack of local control in a NAFTA or an EU, especially an EU, are worth the undoubted gains they can bring. I think the answer being given worldwide is increasingly no and that we may have reached a turning point where an increase in free trade is no longer such a driver of world growth.

There would be less national sovereignty, in aggregate, in a Europe without the EU than there is with it for two reasons: the EU provides a means for Europe as a whole to make its weight felt, and the EU provides a framework within which smaller nation states are viable than would otherwise be the case.

Monksfield

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

One person's non tariff barrier is another person's sovereignty.

And there in lies the rub.

The anti-globalisation protestors hate the fact that elected politicians lose the right to make laws as they see fit. Everyone says they support free trade, but what they mean is want other people to open up their markets.

And rule out subsidies for their local producers except...well their own local producers where there are compelling social reasons to keep the business going (Port Talbot comes to mind). I have given the example before of Japan claiming that their snow was different and that only the locally made skis were "safe".

The question is whether the trade offs in sovereignty or lack of local control in a NAFTA or an EU, especially an EU, are worth the undoubted gains they can bring. I think the answer being given worldwide is increasingly no and that we may have reached a turning point where an increase in free trade is no longer such a driver of world growth.

I agree with all of that.

The question is: if the world rows back on free trade as it did in the late 1920s, will it have the same terrible effect on the world economy?

And catastrophic secondary consequences. The difference with the 20s is that national sovereignty and corporate sovereignty are going in different directions. Somehow that circle must be squared.

david_herdson

peter_from_putney said:

Manchester will only ever vote in a Labour mayor ..... it's simply in their DNA.

I don't think that's true. Certainly, Gtr Manchester will not vote in a Tory mayor but there are enough examples of independents winning in what were and ought to be staunchly Labour areas, or of other parties winning when they became an acceptable non-Labour alternative - LDs in Newcastle / Liverpool / Sheffield, SNP in Scotland - to suggest that the right candidate could defeat Burnham, who has few intrinsic merits of his own.

DavidL

Monksfield said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

One person's non tariff barrier is another person's sovereignty.

And there in lies the rub.

The anti-globalisation protestors hate the fact that elected politicians lose the right to make laws as they see fit. Everyone says they support free trade, but what they mean is want other people to open up their markets.

And rule out subsidies for their local producers except...well their own local producers where there are compelling social reasons to keep the business going (Port Talbot comes to mind). I have given the example before of Japan claiming that their snow was different and that only the locally made skis were "safe".

The question is whether the trade offs in sovereignty or lack of local control in a NAFTA or an EU, especially an EU, are worth the undoubted gains they can bring. I think the answer being given worldwide is increasingly no and that we may have reached a turning point where an increase in free trade is no longer such a driver of world growth.

I agree with all of that.

The question is: if the world rows back on free trade as it did in the late 1920s, will it have the same terrible effect on the world economy?

And catastrophic secondary consequences. The difference with the 20s is that national sovereignty and corporate sovereignty are going in different directions. Somehow that circle must be squared.

I think that is an important point. In the 1920s the only truly international corporations were the oil majors. The UK had some large international corporations but they were quite dependent on Imperial preference. Today the Googles, Apples, Starbucks and Amazons of this world are probably our most important bastions for free trade, even if they exploit the opportunities for tax avoidance that it gives them.

foxinsoxuk

williamglenn said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Burnham has no serious competition. To coin a phrase, "calm down, calm down".

Don't underestimate him. He can still find a way to lose.

Nah. He was defeated for Leader twice, but has done well politically elsewhere.

He is no Corbynite, and has already done a reverse ferret over Brexit* coming out in favour of immigration control and protectionism. The circumstances of Frank Dobson vs Ken Livingstone are not going to be repeated, where the Labour selection was stitched up to exclude Ken. Andy is nailed on but no value.

*I mentioned it once but think I got away with it.

rkrkrk

rcs1000 said:

Morning all: regarding trade deals, it is easiest for countries with non-overlapping areas of activity to enter into trade deals. It is difficult where one country exports something that competes with a protected industry in another.

I would reckon the easiest countries in the world to do trade deals with would be: the EFTA countries, Canada, Australia, and South Korea. Why?

Canada and South Korea are the two most genuinely free trade medium or large economies in the world. They both have non-overlapping areas of activity with the UK. They have both been active in signing FTAs around the world, and can move relatively quickly. The EFTA countries already have good trade links with the UK and would also want to move quickly.

The issue for the UK, however, is that the EU already has FTAs with three of these four. CETA is the Canada-EU deal, there is a comprehensive South Korea FTA* that has been in place since 2011, and - of course - the EFTA countries have deals with the EU (both the EEA agreement and Switzerland's bilateral deals).

Which means that, of the deals we're likely to sign relatively rapidly following Brexit, only one of them adds a new free trade market.

The big question, then, is the US. And I think some people on this board are unaware of how onerous membership of NAFTA is from a sovereignty basis. Repealing the European Communities Act to sign a deal which made the UK parliament subservient to US ISDS tribunals that met in secret, and which denuded the UK of sovereignty in - for example - intellectual property law would be a betrayal of those who opposed UK membership of the EU for sovereignty reasons.

I would also very much doubt that - even in the most optimistic of scenarios, that the exit of Mexico from NAFTA, and our entrance could be achieved within the next five years. Simply, you can't take the text of the agreement (https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Legal-Texts/North-American-Free-Trade-Agreement) and make the UK a signatory without major changes.

I am not trying to put a downer on the opportunities post Brexit; because the opportunities are there. But I think people tend to be a little naive about the challenges associated with signing complex international agreements. I was amused, for example, to discover that the China-Maldives free trade discussions are now on their fourth round, and the likelihood of a signed deal before 2019 looks remote. Seven years for a country that has exactly two businesses: fish and tourism. We should bear that in mind.

* Which rather bizarrely is not in force for the UK

Very interesting post. Thanks.
At the moment I think when we leave the EU we will also lose access to all the trade deals they have negotiated. So how long before we could get back to where we currently are?

(Thinking only about non-EU deals for now).

Five + years?

DavidL

There was a lot of praise for Root's 88 and it was undoubtedly stylish. But the fact that 2 pretty unsung Indian batsmen have now gone past 150 on this pitch puts it into perspective. Ali did his best but the English top order just do not bat long enough on these flat pitches to create scoreboard pressure. India have accelerated markedly since lunch and England are being tee'd up for a very difficult final day.

Charles

Luckyguy1983 said:

rcs1000 said:

Morning all: regarding trade deals, it is easiest for countries with non-overlapping areas of activity to enter into trade deals.

Lets not enter into them then. There is no shortcut to economic success.

It's not a shortcut - more opening gates and removing barbed wire from the path.

Economically an FTA is very simpke: an I better offer before or after

Politically it is more difficult to assess. Inevitably there is some sharing of sovereignty. The question is how well defined is that sharing, is it too expensive, and will it be self-expanding over time.

IanB2

I would expect for a mayoral election the system to be either AV or SV, and am not sure why there is what looks like a remarkable delay in deciding?

The 2010 GE result would probably be the better guide in current circumstances, certainly for an election more local than national. But a big Labour lead regardless.

williamglenn

IanB2 said:

I would expect for a mayoral election the system to be either AV or SV, and am not sure why there is what looks like a remarkable delay in deciding?

The 2010 GE result would probably be the better guide in current circumstances, certainly for an election more local than national. But a big Labour lead regardless.

If it's AV that would almost guarantee Burnham loses unless he gets very close to 50% of first preferences.

foxinsoxuk

One advantage of a Burnham win is an interesting byelection in Leigh.

AlastairMeeks

1/6 offers no value, that's for sure. At the moment, however, the north west feels like Labour's most secure area for its support.

IanB2

If the LibDems ran John Leech it could be interesting. Former Manchester MP, the non-Labour councillor on MCC, and an effective campaigner. He was born across the border in Yorkshire but went to school in Manchester, so is (would be, for I have no inside info) a very credible local candidate.

The key would be getting to the sweet spot as the local 'stop Burnham' candidate and obvious front runner as alternative.

foxinsoxuk

williamglenn said:

IanB2 said:

I would expect for a mayoral election the system to be either AV or SV, and am not sure why there is what looks like a remarkable delay in deciding?

The 2010 GE result would probably be the better guide in current circumstances, certainly for an election more local than national. But a big Labour lead regardless.

If it's AV that would almost guarantee Burnham loses unless he gets very close to 50% of first preferences.

Why wouldn't he get transfers from LD, Green, Independents and even Kippers?

Sadiq Khan did alright on transfers.

Sandpit

DavidL said:

There was a lot of praise for Root's 88 and it was undoubtedly stylish. But the fact that 2 pretty unsung Indian batsmen have now gone past 150 on this pitch puts it into perspective. Ali did his best but the English top order just do not bat long enough on these flat pitches to create scoreboard pressure. India have accelerated markedly since lunch and England are being tee'd up for a very difficult final day.

Rahul must have been gutted to go for 199. India piling it on since lunch, they want a lead of say 200 and to give our openers half a dozen overs tonight as the light fades. England now completely out of the match, passing 300 on Betfair. 2/1 India and 1/2 the draw seems about right, but 50 more quick runs and those could switch around.

rcs1000

IanB2 said:

If the LibDems ran John Leech it could be interesting. Former Manchester MP, the non-Labour councillor on MCC, and an effective campaigner. He was born across the border in Yorkshire but went to school in Manchester, so is (would be, for I have no inside info) a very credible local candidate.

The key would be getting to the sweet spot as the local 'stop Burnham' candidate and obvious front runner as alternative.

They are running some lawyer lady who I've never heard of.

foxinsoxuk

rcs1000 said:

IanB2 said:

If the LibDems ran John Leech it could be interesting. Former Manchester MP, the non-Labour councillor on MCC, and an effective campaigner. He was born across the border in Yorkshire but went to school in Manchester, so is (would be, for I have no inside info) a very credible local candidate.

The key would be getting to the sweet spot as the local 'stop Burnham' candidate and obvious front runner as alternative.

They are running some lawyer lady who I've never heard of.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/stalwart-lib-dem-councillor-selected-11894225

Brophy came 5th in the Oldham by election.

Pulpstar

Pakistan almost pulled up the cricket upset of this millenia, and the last !

williamglenn

rcs1000 said:

IanB2 said:

If the LibDems ran John Leech it could be interesting. Former Manchester MP, the non-Labour councillor on MCC, and an effective campaigner. He was born across the border in Yorkshire but went to school in Manchester, so is (would be, for I have no inside info) a very credible local candidate.

The key would be getting to the sweet spot as the local 'stop Burnham' candidate and obvious front runner as alternative.

They are running some lawyer lady who I've never heard of.

https://twitter.com/janebrophyld/status/810092075173691392

rkrkrk

DavidL said:

There was a lot of praise for Root's 88 and it was undoubtedly stylish. But the fact that 2 pretty unsung Indian batsmen have now gone past 150 on this pitch puts it into perspective. Ali did his best but the English top order just do not bat long enough on these flat pitches to create scoreboard pressure. India have accelerated markedly since lunch and England are being tee'd up for a very difficult final day.

Yes I have switched from betting on the draw to betting on an Indian victory. 2-1 seems value.

IanB2

@rcs I should have checked. Jane Brophy is well known in the party, a councillor from Trafford who went up against Meacher in the Oldham by-election. She is capable and has a good local track r cord but not the high profile local recognition (in the big city at least) that Leech would have had.

Nevertheless the key is which, if any, of the alternative candidates emerges as the front-runner. If none of them do, Burnham will walk it. In a transferable vote election where a clear front runner emerges there is always a chance of an upset, although if the Tories are clearly second they will struggle on transfers.

Sandpit

rcs1000 said:

IanB2 said:

If the LibDems ran John Leech it could be interesting. Former Manchester MP, the non-Labour councillor on MCC, and an effective campaigner. He was born across the border in Yorkshire but went to school in Manchester, so is (would be, for I have no inside info) a very credible local candidate.

The key would be getting to the sweet spot as the local 'stop Burnham' candidate and obvious front runner as alternative.

They are running some lawyer lady who I've never heard of.

Do any of the candidates aside from Burnham have any profile at all? Could be a great opportunity for a local indy here.
Can't decide whether to back Burnham or lay him at 1/6.

Edit: Free money for anyone with £50 spare, can lay Burnham at 1.49 on Betfair.

IanB2

I see the Tory candidate is the council leader from the same authority.

IanB2

Trafford seems to comprise all the bits left over when you take out anywhere (non-local) people are likely to have heard of.

TOPPING

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

@Sandpit, absolutely agree. Frankly, the more effective the WTO is, the less need there is for organisations like three EU or NAFTA.

In fairness I think the government gets that, hence the rhetoric about being champions of free trade etc. But the problem with WTO and the reason for the existence of the EU and NAFTA is the NTBs. The track record of the WTO in that area is not great, hence all the effort put into these interminable treaty negotiations.

One person's non tariff barrier is another person's sovereignty.

And there in lies the rub.

The anti-globalisation protestors hate the fact that elected politicians lose the right to make laws as they see fit. Everyone says they support free trade, but what they mean is want other people to open up their markets.

Does that mean I must now call PB Brexiters "anti-globalisation protesters"?

foxinsoxuk

Interesting choice for the Kippers:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4007798.ece

IanB2

Any trade deal with the US will leave their courts arbitrating, and any deal with the EU will be overseen by the European court. And on both cases the American and EU trade standards - already the world's principal recognised standards - will apply. On trade at least it is almost inevitable we will have less sovereignty than before.

david_herdson

DavidL said:

Monksfield said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

One person's non tariff barrier is another person's sovereignty.

And there in lies the rub.

The anti-globalisation protestors hate the fact that elected politicians lose the right to make laws as they see fit. Everyone says they support free trade, but what they mean is want other people to open up their markets.

And rule out subsidies for their local producers except...well their own local producers where there are compelling social reasons to keep the business going (Port Talbot comes to mind). I have given the example before of Japan claiming that their snow was different and that only the locally made skis were "safe".

The question is whether the trade offs in sovereignty or lack of local control in a NAFTA or an EU, especially an EU, are worth the undoubted gains they can bring. I think the answer being given worldwide is increasingly no and that we may have reached a turning point where an increase in free trade is no longer such a driver of world growth.

I agree with all of that.

The question is: if the world rows back on free trade as it did in the late 1920s, will it have the same terrible effect on the world economy?

And catastrophic secondary consequences. The difference with the 20s is that national sovereignty and corporate sovereignty are going in different directions. Somehow that circle must be squared.

I think that is an important point. In the 1920s the only truly international corporations were the oil majors. The UK had some large international corporations but they were quite dependent on Imperial preference. Today the Googles, Apples, Starbucks and Amazons of this world are probably our most important bastions for free trade, even if they exploit the opportunities for tax avoidance that it gives them.

I've had a thread planned for some time on roughly this point. I might do it this weekend assuming there's nothing more immediate that needs comment. Go back pre-WWI and you had some similar political dynamics to those of today, particularly in the US, which gave rise to the Progressive Era but the solutions there could be delivered within one country. The same problems today of inequality, job insecurity, rapid market change (and abuse) and so on, are much harder to control because the governance at the global level at which they operate is much more underdeveloped.

david_herdson

Pulpstar said:

Pakistan almost pulled up the cricket upset of this millenia, and the last !

Millennium, singular.

TheScreamingEagles

foxinsoxuk said:

Interesting choice for the Kippers:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4007798.ece

I've met Shneur and chat to him every so often.

I like him personally and I do have a vote in this election.

Pulpstar

david_herdson said:

Pulpstar said:

Pakistan almost pulled up the cricket upset of this millenia, and the last !

Millennium, singular.

Autocorrect

Torrid time for England in India, good job this one isn't timeless - India could have tried for a thousand runs.

david_herdson

Pulpstar said:

david_herdson said:

Pulpstar said:

Pakistan almost pulled up the cricket upset of this millenia, and the last !

Millennium, singular.

Autocorrect

Torrid time for England in India, good job this one isn't timeless - India could have tried for a thousand runs.

Funnily enough, I was just thinking about that! I don't think they would aim for an absurdly high total: it'd mean tiring the bowlers out too much. 700 or so and then declare ought to be sufficient.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

FPT: Mr. Garner, no problem. Only found out myself the other day and it's quite disturbing. [For those unaware, there appears to be a gang armed with clubs/knives knocking on doors early hours to try and get car keys off homeowners. So, don't answer the door, or at least check through the window first].

SPOTY: astonished no cyclist made the top three. Maybe they split the vote too much. Pretty tough year, though.

On-topic: I wonder if Burnham's fate may help or hinder Corbyn's, or if it's an utter irrelevance.

Pulpstar

david_herdson said:

Pulpstar said:

david_herdson said:

Pulpstar said:

Pakistan almost pulled up the cricket upset of this millenia, and the last !

Millennium, singular.

Autocorrect

Torrid time for England in India, good job this one isn't timeless - India could have tried for a thousand runs.

Funnily enough, I was just thinking about that! I don't think they would aim for an absurdly high total: it'd mean tiring the bowlers out too much. 700 or so and then declare ought to be sufficient.

They have 34 overs left. It is time to get 700, and stick England in for a few tricky overs at the end of the day.

They can always get "extra" runs tommorow in the 4th innings if they need to chase say 50.

Sandpit

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

FPT: Mr. Garner, no problem. Only found out myself the other day and it's quite disturbing. [For those unaware, there appears to be a gang armed with clubs/knives knocking on doors early hours to try and get car keys off homeowners. So, don't answer the door, or at least check through the window first].
.

That's an unintended consequence of improvements in car security over the past decade or so - most high end cars are now impossible to start without the key, but the thieves aren't going away and so resort to breaking into homes and/or mugging the owners for their keys.

Make sure not to leave the log book in the car and make sure it's got a tracker fitted if you want any hope of seeing it again - most of the modern ones have a 3G connection which will show last known location to your phone and the boys in blue.

TOPPING

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

FPT: Mr. Garner, no problem. Only found out myself the other day and it's quite disturbing. [For those unaware, there appears to be a gang armed with clubs/knives knocking on doors early hours to try and get car keys off homeowners. So, don't answer the door, or at least check through the window first].

SPOTY: astonished no cyclist made the top three. Maybe they split the vote too much. Pretty tough year, though.

On-topic: I wonder if Burnham's fate may help or hinder Corbyn's, or if it's an utter irrelevance.

I think there is a huge question mark hanging over cycling atm.

There is a cycle shop near me with a flash bike in the window in Union Jack colours and the word "Wiggo" on it. I would have thought that would put people off right now.

Scott_P

IanB2 said:

Any trade deal with the US will leave their courts arbitrating, and any deal with the EU will be overseen by the European court. And on both cases the American and EU trade standards - already the world's principal recognised standards - will apply. On trade at least it is almost inevitable we will have less sovereignty than before.

Assuming we are still members of the relevant standards bodies...

vast swaths of the U.K. economy are currently regulated by EU bodies, an arrangement that serves most sectors well. If the U.K. were to cease to be a member of these regulatory bodies, then the authorizations they provide would lapse, raising questions about the ability of U.K. firms to continue trading. If the U.K. quit the European Air Safety Association, for instance, who would certify that U.K. aircraft were safe to fly? Excluded from the European Medicines Agency, who would provide the certification to let British-manufactured drugs be traded. Similar concerns apply across multiple industries, including food and drink, chemicals, transport and cross-border data flows.

To walk away from the EU without a deal, the U.K. would need to have replicated all these regulatory functions at the national level and have secured the bilateral recognition for its new agencies from all its trading partners.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-weighs-the-cost-of-the-brexit-nuclear-option-1482089742

TheScreamingEagles

As a Liverpool fan who works and lived in Manchester I have to say Burnham's Scouse roots aren't much of an issue, if he was a Liverpool fan instead of an Everton fan he'd be finishing last in this race.

CD13

Mr Eagles,

I tend to agree.

Everton fans seem to be excused their Liverpool roots to some extent. But not totally.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Topping, I hadn't considered that, but you could well be right.

Mr. Sandpit, cheers for the advice.

dr_spyn

Burnham's knocking copy of Manchester re infrastructure may not go down well with those councillors who managed to secure funds for the Metrolink works.

Innocent_Abroad

O/T

What is Saqib Javid going to do when the Shadow Cabinet refuses to sign his "loyalty oath"? Ban the Labour Party?

JosiasJessop

Is there really any question where the answer is: "Andy Burnham" ?

Still, having him as Manchester mayor will prevent him from harming the rest of the country.

TheScreamingEagles

CD13 said:

Mr Eagles,

I tend to agree.

Everton fans seem to be excused their Liverpool roots to some extent. But not totally.

I could engage in some dissing of Everton but it's the Merseyside derby tonight and I don't want to tempt fate, especially as I'm going.

JosiasJessop

Innocent_Abroad said:

O/T

What is Saqib Javid going to do when the Shadow Cabinet refuses to sign his "loyalty oath"? Ban the Labour Party?

I'd like to know what problem the loyalty oath is supposed to be fixing.

TheScreamingEagles

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

O/T

What is Saqib Javid going to do when the Shadow Cabinet refuses to sign his "loyalty oath"? Ban the Labour Party?

I'd like to know what problem the loyalty oath is supposed to be fixing.

Hush you. A loyalty oath would have stopped Kim Philby et al spying for The Soviets.

Sandpit

Pulpstar said:

david_herdson said:

Pulpstar said:

david_herdson said:

Pulpstar said:

Pakistan almost pulled up the cricket upset of this millenia, and the last !

Millennium, singular.

Autocorrect

Torrid time for England in India, good job this one isn't timeless - India could have tried for a thousand runs.

Funnily enough, I was just thinking about that! I don't think they would aim for an absurdly high total: it'd mean tiring the bowlers out too much. 700 or so and then declare ought to be sufficient.

They have 34 overs left. It is time to get 700, and stick England in for a few tricky overs at the end of the day.

They can always get "extra" runs tommorow in the 4th innings if they need to chase say 50.

700 is unfortunately (for England) looking quite achievable for the hosts, maybe even 750 if they want to give our openers half an hour tonight.

FF43

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

One person's non tariff barrier is another person's sovereignty.

And there in lies the rub.

The anti-globalisation protestors hate the fact that elected politicians lose the right to make laws as they see fit. Everyone says they support free trade, but what they mean is want other people to open up their markets.

And rule out subsidies for their local producers except...well their own local producers where there are compelling social reasons to keep the business going (Port Talbot comes to mind). I have given the example before of Japan claiming that their snow was different and that only the locally made skis were "safe".

The question is whether the trade offs in sovereignty or lack of local control in a NAFTA or an EU, especially an EU, are worth the undoubted gains they can bring. I think the answer being given worldwide is increasingly no and that we may have reached a turning point where an increase in free trade is no longer such a driver of world growth.

Deutsche Bank produced this set of charts that show countries have stopped doing preferential trade deals (a big issue for us as we try to go alone outside the EU system) and also world trade is no longer increasing, as it has been since WW2

JosiasJessop

TheScreamingEagles said:

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

O/T

What is Saqib Javid going to do when the Shadow Cabinet refuses to sign his "loyalty oath"? Ban the Labour Party?

I'd like to know what problem the loyalty oath is supposed to be fixing.

Hush you. A loyalty oath would have stopped Kim Philby et al spying for The Soviets.

Yes, apologies. That was silly of me ...

(There was a good docu on BBC 4 about George Blake on a week or do ago)

AlastairMeeks

In support of @isam who voiced this theory a few days ago and got some flak for it:

https://twitter.com/ralphascott/status/810457352696688640
https://twitter.com/ralphascott/status/810457910694318082

For what it's worth, I think there's something in his theory.

Yorkcity

Will the loyalty oath to Britain fix the SNP .?

JonathanD

FF43 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

One person's non tariff barrier is another person's sovereignty.

And there in lies the rub.

The anti-globalisation protestors hate the fact that elected politicians lose the right to make laws as they see fit. Everyone says they support free trade, but what they mean is want other people to open up their markets.

And rule out subsidies for their local producers except...well their own local producers where there are compelling social reasons to keep the business going (Port Talbot comes to mind). I have given the example before of Japan claiming that their snow was different and that only the locally made skis were "safe".

The question is whether the trade offs in sovereignty or lack of local control in a NAFTA or an EU, especially an EU, are worth the undoubted gains they can bring. I think the answer being given worldwide is increasingly no and that we may have reached a turning point where an increase in free trade is no longer such a driver of world growth.

Deutsche Bank produced this set of charts that show countries have stopped doing preferential trade deals (a big issue for us as we try to go alone outside the EU system) and also world trade is no longer increasing, as it has been since WW2

The idea that the UK was going to turn into some free trade power house once we were freed of the shackles of Brussels was always one of Leave's more fanciful notions.

Wulfrun_Phil

It's time to stop the routine disparaging of Andy Burnham on this site. He has led from day one in taking exactly the post referendum stance on Brexit that is necessary to help to firm up what was once Labour's core working class vote and has the opportunity to push that message over the GM area for the next six months such that any potential Labour supporter considering voting UKIP won't fail to hear it. He's taking full advantage of the mayoral system to push a message at odds with the party leadership on open borders within the EU, although the party leadership increasingly seems to be in a minority in its stance. The "jellyfish" tag that he earned during the 2015 leadership contest is hardly appropriate anymore for someone taking such an unequivocal stance - he seems to have learned the lesson.

The other feature of mayoral elections is that the focus on an individual mayoral candidate minimises the impact that the malign influnce of a party leader can have on the result. No-one in Greater Manchester is going to be under any illusion that they'll get Corbyn by voting for Burnham.

So odds of 1/6 seem pretty well on the ball to me. No real value, but not unreasonably short either.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Meeks, I wonder if it's expressing the city versus countryside sentiment in a different way.

For example: when people move for work, it's typically from a smaller settlement to a larger one. Therefore, populations of cities will have relatively more 'immigrants' (in an intra-national sense) than villages, and a bit more than towns too. So, the larger the settlement the more pro-Remain it was, on average (worth noting Leeds was almost exactly 50/50).

Smaller towns and villages, meanwhile, tend to have more static populations because people don't move there for work reasons.

Innocent_Abroad

Yorkcity said:



Will the loyalty oath to Britain fix the SNP .?

Why do they need fixing?

AlastairMeeks

Jimmy Nothing never went 2 school
They made him pledge allegiance
He said it wasn't cool
Nothing made Jimmy proud
Now Jimmy lives on a mushroom cloud

TheScreamingEagles

Talking of Kim Philby, I see The Russians are once again targeting the finest university in the world.

Cambridge spy seminars hit by whispers of Russian links as three intelligence experts resign

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/16/intelligence-experts-cut-ties-cambridge-spy-seminars-amid-claims/

CD13

The Loyalty Oath is just childish politicking, like the 24 hours to save the NHS nonsense. It gives the Guardian a chance to whinge.

Cyclefree

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

One person's non tariff barrier is another person's sovereignty.

And there in lies the rub.

The anti-globalisation protestors hate the fact that elected politicians lose the right to make laws as they see fit. Everyone says they support free trade, but what they mean is want other people to open up their markets.

And rule out subsidies for their local producers except...well their own local producers where there are compelling social reasons to keep the business going (Port Talbot comes to mind). I have given the example before of Japan claiming that their snow was different and that only the locally made skis were "safe".

The question is whether the trade offs in sovereignty or lack of local control in a NAFTA or an EU, especially an EU, are worth the undoubted gains they can bring. I think the answer being given worldwide is increasingly no and that we may have reached a turning point where an increase in free trade is no longer such a driver of world growth.

I agree with all of that.

The question is: if the world rows back on free trade as it did in the late 1920s, will it have the same terrible effect on the world economy?

Doesn't that rather depend on whether you accept the Kantian analysis i.e. that liberal democracies are the ones least likely to go to war with each other? What was missing in the 1930s was enough strongly based liberal democracies, certainly in Europe. The pressures of economic downturn were strong enough to uproot such recently created democracies as existed, with relatively rare exceptions.

The interesting question to my mind is whether liberal democracy is sufficiently entrenched now to withstand whatever economic / political storms are coming our way. I wish I were more confident on this point. There is a good article on this very point in the current issue of Standpoint magazine, for anyone interested.

Monksfield

JosiasJessop said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

O/T

What is Saqib Javid going to do when the Shadow Cabinet refuses to sign his "loyalty oath"? Ban the Labour Party?

I'd like to know what problem the loyalty oath is supposed to be fixing.

Brexit means Brexit

PlatoSaid

OT Fascinating video intro re dominance of the Left in journalism - and why its become an alternative clerical career.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sNe-4jwrtk

JonathanD

JosiasJessop said:

O/T

What is Saqib Javid going to do when the Shadow Cabinet refuses to sign his "loyalty oath"? Ban the Labour Party?

I'd like to know what problem the loyalty oath is supposed to be fixing.

Innocent_Abroad said:

O/T

What is Saqib Javid going to do when the Shadow Cabinet refuses to sign his "loyalty oath"? Ban the Labour Party?

I'd like to know what problem the loyalty oath is supposed to be fixing.

Javid's Times article is fairly clear. It's about public officials setting an example of the cultural values the UK believes are important, eg freedom of expression, openness , tolerance.

It's not going to stop anyone from misbehaving but it does might help to change the culture and makes it easier to say to new immigrants that these are the values they need to agree to if they want to come here.

MaxPB

JonathanD said:

Javid's Times article is fairly clear. It's about public officials setting an example of the cultural values the UK believes are important, eg freedom of expression, openness , tolerance.

It's not going to stop anyone from misbehaving but it does might help to change the culture and makes it easier to say to new immigrants that these are the values they need to agree to if they want to come here.

It's also easy politics when people like Diane Abbot and Jez refuse to take the new oath. They are already close to being seen as traitors, refusal of a new oath would just reinforce that. This is the real reason for it, a very cheap political shot at Labour's front bench of questionable patriotism.

Pulpstar

Wulfrun_Phil said:

It's time to stop the routine disparaging of Andy Burnham on this site. He has led from day one in taking exactly the post referendum stance on Brexit that is necessary to help to firm up what was once Labour's core working class vote and has the opportunity to push that message over the GM area for the next six months such that any potential Labour supporter considering voting UKIP won't fail to hear it. He's taking full advantage of the mayoral system to push a message at odds with the party leadership on open borders within the EU, although the party leadership increasingly seems to be in a minority in its stance. The "jellyfish" tag that he earned during the 2015 leadership contest is hardly appropriate anymore for someone taking such an unequivocal stance - he seems to have learned the lesson.

The other feature of mayoral elections is that the focus on an individual mayoral candidate minimises the impact that the malign influnce of a party leader can have on the result. No-one in Greater Manchester is going to be under any illusion that they'll get Corbyn by voting for Burnham.

So odds of 1/6 seem pretty well on the ball to me. No real value, but not unreasonably short either.

Yes, I certainly won't be rushing to back the "next best"/lay Burnham in this contest.

He's been consistently voted in in Leigh, where I assume they know he's from Liverpool too - not sure where this idea that people from Manchester will struggle to vote for a scouser is from...

Dura_Ace

Morris_Dancer said:

SPOTY: astonished no cyclist made the top three. Maybe they split the vote too much. Pretty tough year, though.

Giving it to any cyclist is creating a hostage to fortune given that sport's propensity to produce fallen heros.

AndyJS

"Pakistan almost pulled up the cricket upset of this millenia, and the last!"

Highlights:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWcUrWewzp0

Morris_Dancer

Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of this, spending half of all flood defence money in London won't go down well everywhere else:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38343063

Monksfield

MaxPB said:

JonathanD said:

Javid's Times article is fairly clear. It's about public officials setting an example of the cultural values the UK believes are important, eg freedom of expression, openness , tolerance.

It's not going to stop anyone from misbehaving but it does might help to change the culture and makes it easier to say to new immigrants that these are the values they need to agree to if they want to come here.

It's also easy politics when people like Diane Abbot and Jez refuse to take the new oath. They are already close to being seen as traitors, refusal of a new oath would just reinforce that. This is the real reason for it, a very cheap political shot at Labour's front bench of questionable patriotism.

Yes, we have massive problems in this country and all Tories are interested in is reducing politics to flagwaving. Sums up in one paragraph why I'll never vote for them.

Yorkcity

The loyalty oath reminds me of Blairs dragging them to cash points policy.lasted a Sunday afternoon.When they have nothing sensible to say, why don't they just shut the f up.,Was surprised Osborne on Marr thought it was a good idea.Thought he had more nous than that.Politicians are certainly a different breed with no common sense sometimes.

Casino_Royale

Cyclefree said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

DavidL said:

rcs1000 said:

One person's non tariff barrier is another person's sovereignty.

And there in lies the rub.

The anti-globalisation protestors hate the fact that elected politicians lose the right to make laws as they see fit. Everyone says they support free trade, but what they mean is want other people to open up their markets.

And rule out subsidies for their local producers except...well their own local producers where there are compelling social reasons to keep the business going (Port Talbot comes to mind). I have given the example before of Japan claiming that their snow was different and that only the locally made skis were "safe".

The question is whether the trade offs in sovereignty or lack of local control in a NAFTA or an EU, especially an EU, are worth the undoubted gains they can bring. I think the answer being given worldwide is increasingly no and that we may have reached a turning point where an increase in free trade is no longer such a driver of world growth.

I agree with all of that.

The question is: if the world rows back on free trade as it did in the late 1920s, will it have the same terrible effect on the world economy?

Doesn't that rather depend on whether you accept the Kantian analysis i.e. that liberal democracies are the ones least likely to go to war with each other? What was missing in the 1930s was enough strongly based liberal democracies, certainly in Europe. The pressures of economic downturn were strong enough to uproot such recently created democracies as existed, with relatively rare exceptions.

The interesting question to my mind is whether liberal democracy is sufficiently entrenched now to withstand whatever economic / political storms are coming our way. I wish I were more confident on this point. There is a good article on this very point in the current issue of Standpoint magazine, for anyone interested.

Do you have a link to the article?

I also worry about whether or not liberal democracy will last. Not least because the centre of economic gravity is likely to shift over the coming decades to countries that are not.

Theuniondivvie

There's a first time for everything.

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/810667959337320449

Much heartfelt, many sincerity.

Morris_Dancer

Everyday sexism:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38343186

Report on suicides uses entirely gender neutral language, but around three men kill themselves for every woman (interestingly, more women than men *attempt* suicide, but they tend to do it in ways that enable them to either be caught and stopped or have it reversed, whereas men tend to go for more certain methods).

Consider how domestic violence, which has perhaps 35-45% male victims is portrayed. It's still got the old stigma of men as perpetrators, never victims. Likewise funding for shelters. And we've actually got a bill going through Parliament about violence against women when it'd be perfectly simple to just make it gender neutral (but it's as if hitting someone who's a woman is more serious than hitting someone who's a man).

*sighs*

Edited extra bit: to clarify, the methods part is a memory from when I looked at this, briefly, at university, so it's possible that's changed, though I'd be surprised.

dr_spyn

Ladbrookes have posted odds on Andy Burnham, on top on 1/6. Looks as if the donkey with the red rosette would have had good odds as well.

PlatoSaid

Morris_Dancer said:

Everyday sexism:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38343186

Report on suicides uses entirely gender neutral language, but around three men kill themselves for every woman (interestingly, more women than men *attempt* suicide, but they tend to do it in ways that enable them to either be caught and stopped or have it reversed, whereas men tend to go for more certain methods).

Consider how domestic violence, which has perhaps 35-45% male victims is portrayed. It's still got the old stigma of men as perpetrators, never victims. Likewise funding for shelters. And we've actually got a bill going through Parliament about violence against women when it'd be perfectly simple to just make it gender neutral (but it's as if hitting someone who's a woman is more serious than hitting someone who's a man).

*sighs*

Edited extra bit: to clarify, the methods part is a memory from when I looked at this, briefly, at university, so it's possible that's changed, though I'd be surprised.

Totally agree. Martin Daubney is well worth reading/following on Twitter here.

PlatoSaid

We mentioned the RNLI a few threads ago.

Thought this would be of interest

Western Morning News
Remembering the heroes of the Penlee Lifeboat Disaster
https://t.co/TDtwPPbYsW

"Defying roaring 100mph winds and 60ft high waves, the eight crewmen set out for the stricken cargo ship as it was swept towards the rocky coast of Cornwall, and the cliffs and rocks near Tater Dhu lighthouse.

But that night 30 years ago every man perished as the little wooden lifeboat was dashed to pieces by the worst storm in living memory.

And the name Penlee became known the world over as a byword for courage and ­sacrifice.

Cyclefree

Monksfield said:

MaxPB said:

JonathanD said:

Javid's Times article is fairly clear. It's about public officials setting an example of the cultural values the UK believes are important, eg freedom of expression, openness , tolerance.

It's not going to stop anyone from misbehaving but it does might help to change the culture and makes it easier to say to new immigrants that these are the values they need to agree to if they want to come here.

It's also easy politics when people like Diane Abbot and Jez refuse to take the new oath. They are already close to being seen as traitors, refusal of a new oath would just reinforce that. This is the real reason for it, a very cheap political shot at Labour's front bench of questionable patriotism.

Yes, we have massive problems in this country and all Tories are interested in is reducing politics to flagwaving. Sums up in one paragraph why I'll never vote for them.

One of those problems is integration of certain minorities. So I don't agree with your assumption that this should not be dealt with. Whether this is the right way to go about it is another matter, of course. But the US has an oath of allegiance and, presumably, people don't recoil in horror. So maybe something similar is needed here given the level of immigration we have had over recent years and which is likely to continue.

It is no point bemoaning the lack of integration when this manifests itself in some horrible way and also attacking all and every step suggested to deal with it, which is too often the default position of some. (This is not a personal point addressed to you BTW.)

isam

Monksfield said:

MaxPB said:

JonathanD said:

Javid's Times article is fairly clear. It's about public officials setting an example of the cultural values the UK believes are important, eg freedom of expression, openness , tolerance.

It's not going to stop anyone from misbehaving but it does might help to change the culture and makes it easier to say to new immigrants that these are the values they need to agree to if they want to come here.

It's also easy politics when people like Diane Abbot and Jez refuse to take the new oath. They are already close to being seen as traitors, refusal of a new oath would just reinforce that. This is the real reason for it, a very cheap political shot at Labour's front bench of questionable patriotism.

Yes, we have massive problems in this country and all Tories are interested in is reducing politics to flagwaving. Sums up in one paragraph why I'll never vote for them.

The fact that anyone is seriously suggesting making people take a British values oath is as near an admission that we have had too immigration as we are going to get.

Won't work.

AndyJS

"Christmas strikes will turn public against you, Labour MP tells unions"

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/christmas-strikes-will-turn-public-against-you-labour-mp-tells-unions-htglwhmpn

isam

AlastairMeeks said:

In support of @isam who voiced this theory a few days ago and got some flak for it:

https://twitter.com/ralphascott/status/810457352696688640
https://twitter.com/ralphascott/status/810457910694318082

For what it's worth, I think there's something in his theory.

How lovely, a theory inspired by observation backed by data!

Innocent_Abroad

Morris Dancer said:
Regardless of the merits or lack thereof of this, spending half of all flood defence money in London won't go down well everywhere else:

Spending any tax money in London won't go down well anyywhere else...