When I pointed that out a week or two ago, I was more or less told I was being a hysterical remoaner
Good luck to the first UK politician who claims it will be "too expensive" to leave the EU. They'll enjoy explaining to the voters how they got us to that point....
And unless these are penalty payments which would not be payable if we stayed in (which is not a claim anyone is making) it becomes very very difficult to simultaneously rubbish 350m a week claims and endorse 60bn ones.
So a reasonably likely and perfectly acceptable outcome is for us to leave with no deal, revert to WTO tariffs - and no money from us to them.
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
It's a pretty dull roller coaster that only has ups. Putting that to one side the Lib Dems are weaker in local government than they have been for a couple of generations and have a lot of room to recover from the calamity of the Coalition.
Awww bless. The Liberals salivating over local council by elections again. Next there'll be threads predicting GE landlsides. Tim Farron as PM. Bless.
Well quite.
What I don't understand is - what is the end point of the local government base strategy?
It never translates into securing anything like a parliamentary majority. With the SNP in situ it won't even be likely to see a LD 3rd party in the near future.
The only thing I would agree with from any of the Liberal commentators here is that Norman Lamb would be a 100% improvement on the ridiculous Tim Farron. He does at least come across as being a grown up.
Don't agree. Lamb may be the more credible minister, but that isn't really relevant right now. Of the people available Farron was clearly the right choice for the task at hand.
Cometh the time to jump up and down like a puppy, making excitable noises...cometh the man.
Appropos of nothing, I have discovered LGBT terminology has changed once again. The Green Party manifesto was the first place I ever saw LGBTIQ used, and didn't see it many times since them, but on a work circular I discover the proper term is now LGBTIQA.
Definitely becoming an unwieldy acronym, and it was unpronounceable already, which was ok when sounding out 4 letters.
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer, but what does the "A" stand for ?
I still don't understand who gets to use Queer and who doesn't....
I thought people might be amused by this quote. Can anyone guess (without googling!) who said it and when?
No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense
Experts, eh!
Sounds sort of Churchillian. Inter-war years?
Just checked. B*gger, I was wrong (although not a terrible guess, it transpires).
Another, equally pertinent, quote from the same sage:
"One of the nuisances of the ballot is that when the oracle has spoken you never know what it means".
It's a pretty dull roller coaster that only has ups.
Putting that to one side the Lib Dems are weaker in local government than they have been for a couple of generations and have a lot of room to recover from the calamity of the Coalition.
Calamity of the coalition ?
It was the one of the best governments we'll ever have - & I've concluded that the Lib Dems played a massive part in that.
Resulting in an 86% drop in the number of LD seats, I think they could understandably see that as a disaster
Mr. Pulpstar, do you think the Lib Dems made a mistake in the way they approached public relations during the Coalition? There seemed to be an emphasis on preventing the Conservatives from wickedness rather than claiming credit for good policies.
I dont think the whole "opposition in government" washed with the voters, who mostly seemed to take the view that if you are in government (in whatever form) you carry the can for its actions. They probably would have got more mileage with the voters by bigging up their successes in government, but it would have gone down very badly with an activist base somewhat to the left of the parliamentary party.
It is also forgotten how unpopular what Clegg got up to in government was with a lot of LibDem activists - many of whom resigned. I guess they are coming back now.
Not being a LD personally I thought Clegg made some major errors but onthe whole had a crappy situation which he played in a way which seemed reasonable at the time.
That the LDs don't want anything to do with what they managed in the coalition, Labour are entirely focused on their navels, UKIP imploding, the Greens, well, the Greens, and the Tories keen to focus on the right, no party seems very interested in those who broadly favoured the coalition years, on balance. Those weirdos votes can get stuffed now.
It was the wrong move. Bercow was a prat and could have done the same thing without being so provocative toward the government, he was wrong to do so, but an immediate ousting didn't seem proportionate in response given while Bercow behaved improperly the thrust of his point was generally acceptable to most.
Appropos of nothing, I have discovered LGBT terminology has changed once again. The Green Party manifesto was the first place I ever saw LGBTIQ used, and didn't see it many times since them, but on a work circular I discover the proper term is now LGBTIQA.
Definitely becoming an unwieldy acronym, and it was unpronounceable already, which was ok when sounding out 4 letters.
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer, but what does the "A" stand for ?
Asexual. Although given that is a lack of interest or desire in sex (and I would guess gender identities, but could not say) it doesn't seem to fit with the others quite so much.
Appropos of nothing, I have discovered LGBT terminology has changed once again. The Green Party manifesto was the first place I ever saw LGBTIQ used, and didn't see it many times since them, but on a work circular I discover the proper term is now LGBTIQA.
Definitely becoming an unwieldy acronym, and it was unpronounceable already, which was ok when sounding out 4 letters.
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer, but what does the "A" stand for ?
Asexual. Although given that is a lack of interest or desire in sex (and I would guess gender identities, but could not say) it doesn't seem to fit with the others quite so much.
Transgender and e.g. Lesbian is already a category error. I think it's time to move away from the acronym which only serves to divide people into cisgender heterosexuals on the one hand and everyone else on the other, which may have outlasted its utility.
Over playing the significance of the LD revival is a thing. But downplaying it as of no significance whatsoever is also surely unreasonable and churlish to boot.
It's a pretty dull roller coaster that only has ups.
Putting that to one side the Lib Dems are weaker in local government than they have been for a couple of generations and have a lot of room to recover from the calamity of the Coalition.
Calamity of the coalition ?
It was the one of the best governments we'll ever have - & I've concluded that the Lib Dems played a massive part in that.
Resulting in an 86% drop in the number of LD seats, I think they could understandably see that as a disaster
Mr. Pulpstar, do you think the Lib Dems made a mistake in the way they approached public relations during the Coalition? There seemed to be an emphasis on preventing the Conservatives from wickedness rather than claiming credit for good policies.
I dont think the whole "opposition in government" washed with the voters, who mostly seemed to take the view that if you are in government (in whatever form) you carry the can for its actions. They probably would have got more mileage with the voters by bigging up their successes in government, but it would have gone down very badly with an activist base somewhat to the left of the parliamentary party.
It is also forgotten how unpopular what Clegg got up to in government was with a lot of LibDem activists - many of whom resigned. I guess they are coming back now.
Not being a LD personally I thought Clegg made some major errors but onthe whole had a crappy situation which he played in a way which seemed reasonable at the time.
That the LDs don't want anything to do with what they managed in the coalition, Labour are entirely focused on their navels, UKIP imploding, the Greens, well, the Greens, and the Tories keen to focus on the right, no party seems very interested in those who broadly favoured the coalition years, on balance. Those weirdos votes can get stuffed now.
As a (generally) LD voter I thought Clegg did quite well, but that, overall, underestimated Cameron and Osborne’s low cunning.
The whole house gets to vote? Unusual. I was hoping for another Lord Avebury situation - 7 candidates, 3 voters, who all voted for one candidate.
It frustrates me so much, we could have got rid of a decent proportion of hereditary peers just by not replacing them, not promises broken, no esteemed people kicked out, nothing.
Do these By-elections suggest that Tories are not on 45% ?
And libdems on more than 8%. Guess we will see in May locals. Have a feeling they are able to send all of their activists to one ward and bombard it whereas won't be abe to do that with all out local elections.
I'll be addressing that very question in my thread tomorrow.
The whole house gets to vote? Unusual. I was hoping for another Lord Avebury situation - 7 candidates, 3 voters, who all voted for one candidate.
It frustrates me so much, we could have got rid of a decent proportion of hereditary peers just by not replacing them, not promises broken, no esteemed people kicked out, nothing.
Well rather than a considered approach some people are advocating throwing toys out the pram and abolishing in one go at the merest hint of parliamentary ping pong over brexit, so it would indeed have been nice if this and other issues had been sorted in the what, almost 20 years since the changes were first mooted.
It's a pretty dull roller coaster that only has ups. Putting that to one side the Lib Dems are weaker in local government than they have been for a couple of generations and have a lot of room to recover from the calamity of the Coalition.
1820 councillors is 21% of the Tory total. Surely they would want to improve that ratio substantially, especially in areas where they lost Parliamentary seats.
Do these By-elections suggest that Tories are not on 45% ?
And libdems on more than 8%. Guess we will see in May locals. Have a feeling they are able to send all of their activists to one ward and bombard it whereas won't be abe to do that with all out local elections.
I'll be addressing that very question in my thread tomorrow.
My recollection is they didn't do too terribly in by-elections last parliament, but at the annuals they were slaughtered - was that the case do you know?
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
One has to hand it to our EU friends, they've come up with a humdinger of an argument, namely that, because we approved the EU budget for the next few years, we're liable for our share of the total budget even if we leave.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
The whole house gets to vote? Unusual. I was hoping for another Lord Avebury situation - 7 candidates, 3 voters, who all voted for one candidate.
It frustrates me so much, we could have got rid of a decent proportion of hereditary peers just by not replacing them, not promises broken, no esteemed people kicked out, nothing.
Well rather than a considered approach some people are advocating throwing toys out the pram and abolishing in one go at the merest hint of parliamentary ping pong over brexit, so it would indeed have been nice if this and other issues had been sorted in the what, almost 20 years since the changes were first mooted.
20??? Major proposals from 1911 are still supposedly under consideration. The Reform Act of that year provided:
"...whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation"
Sir Humphrey's granddad is probably still smug about the understatement in the last part of that sentence.
A surge may not even help the LDs in all areas if they are like Wiltshire for instance - they dropped voted massively (partly by not standing in many areas - sometimes to not go against former LDs standing as Indy) but actually gained seats. Now, it may be they can surge and pick up a whole bunch of others, but it may be just that they did surprisingly well in 2013 in some places and a surge would only make safer a bunch of tight contests last time.
The Pointing At Pot-holes party having their moment in the sun. Let's see how things stack up after a couple of Parliamentary by-elections...
Indeed, Mr Mark. What are the potholes like in Devon at this time of the year? You Tories are onto a loser, I think!
We fill them with LibDem leafletters....
Oh,no you don`t! People wound notice that!
Your problem is that your Conservative councillors go round telling everybody how dreadful Devon County Council is, and then turn up at Shire Hall and vote through whatever cuts Mr Hart has thought up. So people in Devon believe them on the first point, and blame them on the second. Your team is going to be massacred in May, Mr Mark, unless if comes up with some really good lies.
The whole house gets to vote? Unusual. I was hoping for another Lord Avebury situation - 7 candidates, 3 voters, who all voted for one candidate.
It frustrates me so much, we could have got rid of a decent proportion of hereditary peers just by not replacing them, not promises broken, no esteemed people kicked out, nothing.
Well rather than a considered approach some people are advocating throwing toys out the pram and abolishing in one go at the merest hint of parliamentary ping pong over brexit, so it would indeed have been nice if this and other issues had been sorted in the what, almost 20 years since the changes were first mooted.
20??? Major proposals from 1911 are still supposedly under consideration. The Reform Act of that year provided:
"...whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation"
Sir Humphrey's granddad is probably still smug about the understatement in the last part of that sentence.
So corrected. 20 years since the last major push that had some impact.
The whole house gets to vote? Unusual. I was hoping for another Lord Avebury situation - 7 candidates, 3 voters, who all voted for one candidate.
It frustrates me so much, we could have got rid of a decent proportion of hereditary peers just by not replacing them, not promises broken, no esteemed people kicked out, nothing.
The whole house gets to vote? Unusual. I was hoping for another Lord Avebury situation - 7 candidates, 3 voters, who all voted for one candidate.
It frustrates me so much, we could have got rid of a decent proportion of hereditary peers just by not replacing them, not promises broken, no esteemed people kicked out, nothing.
The whole house gets to vote because the peer who died was one of those willing to act as a deputy speaker. However the hereditary peer who replaces him won't be expected to be a deputy speaker if they don't wish to. I see that these elections use the AV voting system, perhaps they will allow us to use that system to elect HoL members when it's eventually reformed.
Appropos of nothing, I have discovered LGBT terminology has changed once again. The Green Party manifesto was the first place I ever saw LGBTIQ used, and didn't see it many times since them, but on a work circular I discover the proper term is now LGBTIQA.
Definitely becoming an unwieldy acronym, and it was unpronounceable already, which was ok when sounding out 4 letters.
Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer, but what does the "A" stand for ?
Asexual. Although given that is a lack of interest or desire in sex (and I would guess gender identities, but could not say) it doesn't seem to fit with the others quite so much.
Transgender and e.g. Lesbian is already a category error. I think it's time to move away from the acronym which only serves to divide people into cisgender heterosexuals on the one hand and everyone else on the other, which may have outlasted its utility.
I thought "A" stood for agoraphobic. Must keep up.
I thought people might be amused by this quote. Can anyone guess (without googling!) who said it and when?
No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense
Experts, eh!
LOL. That Goveism was a hyper accurate moron detector.
This chap was most definitely not a moron. He's actually become something of a proverb!
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
One has to hand it to our EU friends, they've come up with a humdinger of an argument, namely that, because we approved the EU budget for the next few years, we're liable for our share of the total budget even if we leave.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
Awww bless. The Liberals salivating over local council by elections again. Next there'll be threads predicting GE landlsides. Tim Farron as PM. Bless.
Well quite.
What I don't understand is - what is the end point of the local government base strategy?
It never translates into securing anything like a parliamentary majority. With the SNP in situ it won't even be likely to see a LD 3rd party in the near future.
"... what is the end point of the local government base strategy?" Is there such a thing? If there's an election surely the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power - at whatever level that may be. If there's a Parliamentary by-election going fight that too. Haven't the Lib Dems been doing well in those also?
No, the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future.
There are many ways of doing that but the Lib Dems' makes no sense. At best, it'll deliver a re-run of 2010.
The Lib Dems' approach to elections is much the same as a cat chasing a laser pointer - and with about as much thought given to where it'll take them.
UKIP's electoral strategy has been far less successful in winning seats but much more successful in delivering policy - and ultimately, that is the prize.
The whole house gets to vote? Unusual. I was hoping for another Lord Avebury situation - 7 candidates, 3 voters, who all voted for one candidate.
It frustrates me so much, we could have got rid of a decent proportion of hereditary peers just by not replacing them, not promises broken, no esteemed people kicked out, nothing.
Well rather than a considered approach some people are advocating throwing toys out the pram and abolishing in one go at the merest hint of parliamentary ping pong over brexit, so it would indeed have been nice if this and other issues had been sorted in the what, almost 20 years since the changes were first mooted.
20??? Major proposals from 1911 are still supposedly under consideration. The Reform Act of that year provided:
"...whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation"
Sir Humphrey's granddad is probably still smug about the understatement in the last part of that sentence.
So corrected. 20 years since the last major push that had some impact.
Personally I have given up on reform and moved to abolition.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
Well, it depends how bad. A deal involving payment of £60bn would certainly be worse than no deal, so I'm not sure their over-egging of the pudding to such a laughable degree would be terribly clever, were they to mean it. However, I'm sure the UK government don't believe they mean it.
The key point here is that no deal is worse than a good deal for both sides. I hope that our EU friends aren't making the humongous error of thinking they've got nothing to lose if negotiations go sour. The risk isn't that in a zero-sum game one party does better than the other, it's that both parties do very badly.
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
One has to hand it to our EU friends, they've come up with a humdinger of an argument, namely that, because we approved the EU budget for the next few years, we're liable for our share of the total budget even if we leave.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the case. And she has to mean it and show she means it. Otherwise she has no negotiating position.
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
One has to hand it to our EU friends, they've come up with a humdinger of an argument, namely that, because we approved the EU budget for the next few years, we're liable for our share of the total budget even if we leave.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the central irony of the situation: the more the EU27 believe that Mrs May is so unhinged (from their point of view) as to be willing to walk away without a deal, the better the chances of a deal.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
Well, it depends how bad. A deal involving payment of £60bn would certainly be worse than no deal, so I'm not sure their over-egging of the pudding to such a laughable degree would be terribly clever, were they to mean it. However, I'm sure the UK government don't believe they mean it.
The key point here is that no deal is worse than a good deal for both sides. I hope that our EU friends aren't making the humongous error of thinking they've got nothing to lose if negotiations go sour. The risk isn't that in a zero-sum game one party does better than the other, it's that both parties do very badly.
£60bn is, I'm fairly sure, a figure that has been alighted upon simply to produce some wriggle room. The FT estimated the figure at €20bn in October (and I imagine that they were looking for an eye-catching number too):
God asks Bush: "What do you believe in ?" Bush replies: "I believe in a free economy, a strong America, The American nation and so on..." God is impressed by Bush and tells him: ... "Great , come sit in the chair on my right" God goes to Obama and ask: "What do you believe in ?" Obama replies: "I believe in democracy, helping the poor, world peace, etc. .... ". God is really impressed by Obama and tells him: 'Well done , come sit in the chair on my left" Finally God asks Trump : " What do you believe in ? " Trump replied: "I believe you're sitting in my chair !”
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
Well, it depends how bad. A deal involving payment of £60bn would certainly be worse than no deal, so I'm not sure their over-egging of the pudding to such a laughable degree would be terribly clever, were they to mean it. However, I'm sure the UK government don't believe they mean it.
The key point here is that no deal is worse than a good deal for both sides. I hope that our EU friends aren't making the humongous error of thinking they've got nothing to lose if negotiations go sour. The risk isn't that in a zero-sum game one party does better than the other, it's that both parties do very badly.
£60bn is, I'm fairly sure, a figure that has been alighted upon simply to produce some wriggle room. The FT estimated the figure at €20bn in October (and I imagine that they were looking for an eye-catching number too):
Awww bless. The Liberals salivating over local council by elections again. Next there'll be threads predicting GE landlsides. Tim Farron as PM. Bless.
Well quite.
What I don't understand is - what is the end point of the local government base strategy?
It never translates into securing anything like a parliamentary majority. With the SNP in situ it won't even be likely to see a LD 3rd party in the near future.
"... what is the end point of the local government base strategy?" Is there such a thing? If there's an election surely the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power - at whatever level that may be. If there's a Parliamentary by-election going fight that too. Haven't the Lib Dems been doing well in those also?
No, the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future.
There are many ways of doing that but the Lib Dems' makes no sense. At best, it'll deliver a re-run of 2010.
The Lib Dems' approach to elections is much the same as a cat chasing a laser pointer - and with about as much thought given to where it'll take them.
UKIP's electoral strategy has been far less successful in winning seats but much more successful in delivering policy - and ultimately, that is the prize.
My impression (which comes from knowing a number of councillors) is that many of the active members see local government success as an end in itself and not a means to a different end. MPs of course will have a different view.
Given the period 2010 to 2015 saw the worst Liberal election performances since 1970, the only way was up. However if you asked them in 2015 whether they would trade losing power at Westminster for gaining a few more places on council planning and refuse committees not sure they would have agreed!
I think Tories are being mighty complacent right now, we are still in a phony-war situation at the moment and Brexit is still what each individual hopes or fears it will be. If Brexit goes tits up economically the Lib Dems will cause them real damage and they will be smirking on the other side of their faces.
With all this "will of the People" guff I think Brexiters have convinced themselves that they won by far more than they did - 48% opposed it and if the Lib Dems can tap that vote they will do very nicely indeed both at the local and national level. I think this particularly holds true now that May has chosen to embrace a form of Brexit that ditches the Single Market.
This shows American voters (not just trump ones) have become so partisan that......er actually I'm not sure where that leaves the U.S. Worrying times for them especially in a country that has divided government built in.
Personally I have given up on reform and moved to abolition.
A new parliament act could mute the Lord further in the short term, by removing the ping-pong element, so they can propose amendments, which the Commons can accept or reject, but only get one bite at the cherry, after the Commons have accepted/rejected those amendments the bill moves on to the next stage.
This would then facilitate the second stage of just letting the Lords gracefully wither on the vine by not allowing any new Lords to be presented. Sure, let Bishops and Senior Judges keep their courtesy titles, but when they are replaced the next incumbent doesn't get to sit in the Lords. The number and influence of people in the Lords will dwindle and in a decade or two it can be gently put out to pasture with out much of a murmur. Pension off the remaining members with a generous... erm, pension, turn off the lights, and lock the doors.
Any imbalance in the interim period between the political parties will be irrelevant as the Lords will be unable to block the elected government, it will be a true revising chamber as it was meant to be.
UK economic growth accelerates to 0.7% – Niesr The British economy picked up speed at the start of the year, according to the latest estimates from respected think-tank the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
UK GDP expanded by 0.7 per cent in the three months to the end of January, up from a 0.6 per cent pace in the previous quarter, Niesr estimates show – providing a useful gauge of Britain’s official growth statistics.
(Edit to add, October was a weak month, so this mostly the base effect of stripping that out. Still, good news. Except for my bet with DavidL.)
It's a pretty dull roller coaster that only has ups.
Putting that to one side the Lib Dems are weaker in local government than they have been for a couple of generations and have a lot of room to recover from the calamity of the Coalition.
Calamity of the coalition ?
It was the one of the best governments we'll ever have - & I've concluded that the Lib Dems played a massive part in that.
Resulting in an 86% drop in the number of LD seats, I think they could understandably see that as a disaster
Mr. Pulpstar, do you think the Lib Dems made a mistake in the way they approached public relations during the Coalition? There seemed to be an emphasis on preventing the Conservatives from wickedness rather than claiming credit for good policies.
I dont think the whole "opposition in government" washed with the voters, who mostly seemed to take the view that if you are in government (in whatever form) you carry the can for its actions. They probably would have got more mileage with the voters by bigging up their successes in government, but it would have gone down very badly with an activist base somewhat to the left of the parliamentary party.
It is also forgotten how unpopular what Clegg got up to in government was with a lot of LibDem activists - many of whom resigned. I guess they are coming back now.
I think tuition fees have definitely been put into perspective by Brexit frankly.
Agreed. Having said never again I now find myself in the Lib Dem camp again, at least until such times as Labour finds a credible leader.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
Well, it depends how bad. A deal involving payment of £60bn would certainly be worse than no deal, so I'm not sure their over-egging of the pudding to such a laughable degree would be terribly clever, were they to mean it. However, I'm sure the UK government don't believe they mean it.
The key point here is that no deal is worse than a good deal for both sides. I hope that our EU friends aren't making the humongous error of thinking they've got nothing to lose if negotiations go sour. The risk isn't that in a zero-sum game one party does better than the other, it's that both parties do very badly.
£60bn is, I'm fairly sure, a figure that has been alighted upon simply to produce some wriggle room. The FT estimated the figure at €20bn in October (and I imagine that they were looking for an eye-catching number too):
I assume this is the amount they pay us for our share of assets we have already paid for.
From that FT article:
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, according to EU accounts. It is a legacy of joint financial obligations stretching back decades — from pension pledges and multi-annual contracts to commitments to fund infrastructure projects — that Brussels will insist the UK must honour.
The sheer size of the upper estimate, which some EU-27 officials reckon is too low, threatens to poison the politics of the break-up and derail a Brexit transition and trade deal, according to several senior European figures involved in the process.
The €20bn upper estimate covers Britain’s share of continuing multiyear liabilities, including unpaid budget appropriations of €241bn, pensions liabilities of €63.8bn and future contractual and other spending commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
If its power is to be hobbled to be entirely revising (eg it cannot block at all, with no need for the parliament act to pass) then I see no reason why we cannot continue to allow former judges, senior military officers and the like have seats in the chamber as a matter of course. Non-democratic, but without the ability block that's not an issue at all, and retains the usefulness of having those people in the first place.
UK economic growth accelerates to 0.7% – Niesr The British economy picked up speed at the start of the year, according to the latest estimates from respected think-tank the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
UK GDP expanded by 0.7 per cent in the three months to the end of January, up from a 0.6 per cent pace in the previous quarter, Niesr estimates show – providing a useful gauge of Britain’s official growth statistics.
(Edit to add, October was a weak month, so this mostly the base effect of stripping that out. Still, good news. Except for my bet with DavidL.)
"A 44-year-old man from Hertfordshire has been arrested at Gatwick Airport on suspicion of preparing terrorist acts.
Officers from the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command stopped the man after he disembarked from a flight from Iraq on Thursday...
It comes after a 31-year-old man arrested on Thursday in Norfolk on suspicion of fundraising for the purposes of terrorism and encouraging support for a banned terror group was bailed.
Awww bless. The Liberals salivating over local council by elections again. Next there'll be threads predicting GE landlsides. Tim Farron as PM. Bless.
Well quite.
What I don't understand is - what is the end point of the local government base strategy?
It never translates into securing anything like a parliamentary majority. With the SNP in situ it won't even be likely to see a LD 3rd party in the near future.
"... what is the end point of the local government base strategy?" Is there such a thing? If there's an election surely the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power - at whatever level that may be. If there's a Parliamentary by-election going fight that too. Haven't the Lib Dems been doing well in those also?
No, the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future.
There are many ways of doing that but the Lib Dems' makes no sense. At best, it'll deliver a re-run of 2010.
The Lib Dems' approach to elections is much the same as a cat chasing a laser pointer - and with about as much thought given to where it'll take them.
UKIP's electoral strategy has been far less successful in winning seats but much more successful in delivering policy - and ultimately, that is the prize.
You said "the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future." I said "the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power". Pretty similar. You are looking at politics as though Westminster is all that matters, local government is less glamorous but still worthwhile. UKIP did help to deliver policy, but they were bit players. If Boris and Gove had been for Remain things may well have been different.
It's a pretty dull roller coaster that only has ups.
Putting that to one side the Lib Dems are weaker in local government than they have been for a couple of generations and have a lot of room to recover from the calamity of the Coalition.
Calamity of the coalition ?
It was the one of the best governments we'll ever have - & I've concluded that the Lib Dems played a massive part in that.
Resulting in an 86% drop in the number of LD seats, I think they could understandably see that as a disaster
Mr. Pulpstar, do you think the Lib Dems made a mistake in the way they approached public relations during the Coalition? There seemed to be an emphasis on preventing the Conservatives from wickedness rather than claiming credit for good policies.
I dont think the whole "opposition in government" washed with the voters, who mostly seemed to take the view that if you are in government (in whatever form) you carry the can for its actions. They probably would have got more mileage with the voters by bigging up their successes in government, but it would have gone down very badly with an activist base somewhat to the left of the parliamentary party.
It is also forgotten how unpopular what Clegg got up to in government was with a lot of LibDem activists - many of whom resigned. I guess they are coming back now.
I think tuition fees have definitely been put into perspective by Brexit frankly.
Agreed. Having said never again I now find myself in the Lib Dem camp again, at least until such times as Labour finds a credible leader.
That ther LDs may be the port of call for dispirited persons who would prefer Labour if it were not being crapily led, is a help in the short term but not much of a long term strategy. It's borrowed votes all over again.
There is more delivery, voter contact and general staying in touch by the Lib Dems than any other party.
Saying WHAT, precisely? Ooooh, look, a pot-hole outside 18, Acacia Avenue. We could fill that if we had some councillors!
Name a policy the public currently associates with the LibDems, apart from ignoring the democratic mandate to leave the EU.
Continue to condescend - the Lib Dems are currently attractive to the 48% of Remainers and could do well on that basis. Being opposed to Brexit may not look such a bad position to have taken in a few years - a bit like opposition to the Iraq war.
This shows American voters (not just trump ones) have become so partisan that......er actually I'm not sure where that leaves the U.S. Worrying times for them especially in a country that has divided government built in.
TBF you could probably get a similar response from any country's voters even without the presidential spokesperson making stuff up.
What is it as a percentage of seats held. That would be a more relevant analysis. Suspect UKIP and Labour doing worse on that basis (although the LibDems still doing well).
I would like to see the average number of people it takes to elect a Tory councillor compared to a Labour one or Libdem. Are rural wards huge with the same number of electors as a city ward?
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
One has to hand it to our EU friends, they've come up with a humdinger of an argument, namely that, because we approved the EU budget for the next few years, we're liable for our share of the total budget even if we leave.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the case. And she has to mean it and show she means it. Otherwise she has no negotiating position.
In order for a negotiating position to work it has to be credible. Liierally no one in any EU member government believes that May can walk away with out the kind of meltdown that would destroy her government. Bravado is not a credible position. She has no negotiating position.
... "Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
'Nuff said, I think. In the old days it was the Brexiteers who were trying to have their cake and eat it*!
* Or, in an equivalent but more colourful phrase from Venezuela, 'wanting to have the girl drunk and the wine bottle still full'
Personally I have given up on reform and moved to abolition.
A new parliament act could mute the Lord further in the short term, by removing the ping-pong element, so they can propose amendments, which the Commons can accept or reject, but only get one bite at the cherry, after the Commons have accepted/rejected those amendments the bill moves on to the next stage.
This would then facilitate the second stage of just letting the Lords gracefully wither on the vine by not allowing any new Lords to be presented. Sure, let Bishops and Senior Judges keep their courtesy titles, but when they are replaced the next incumbent doesn't get to sit in the Lords. The number and influence of people in the Lords will dwindle and in a decade or two it can be gently put out to pasture with out much of a murmur. Pension off the remaining members with a generous... erm, pension, turn off the lights, and lock the doors.
Any imbalance in the interim period between the political parties will be irrelevant as the Lords will be unable to block the elected government, it will be a true revising chamber as it was meant to be.
Not the worst idea. But the key is going to be that as the role of the Lords as a revising chamber falls away the role of committees reviewing legislation in the Commons must increase to stop rubbish becoming law. The Scottish Parliament has had some interesting innovations in this area although they worked better when there was no overall majority than when there was.
This shows American voters (not just trump ones) have become so partisan that......er actually I'm not sure where that leaves the U.S. Worrying times for them especially in a country that has divided government built in.
These are the some of the people that you can fool all of the time.
UK economic growth accelerates to 0.7% – Niesr The British economy picked up speed at the start of the year, according to the latest estimates from respected think-tank the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
UK GDP expanded by 0.7 per cent in the three months to the end of January, up from a 0.6 per cent pace in the previous quarter, Niesr estimates show – providing a useful gauge of Britain’s official growth statistics.
(Edit to add, October was a weak month, so this mostly the base effect of stripping that out. Still, good news. Except for my bet with DavidL.)
You missed out...Despite Brexit...leaves before but we haven't left....yes but, no but...
God asks Bush: "What do you believe in ?" Bush replies: "I believe in a free economy, a strong America, The American nation and so on..." God is impressed by Bush and tells him: ... "Great , come sit in the chair on my right" God goes to Obama and ask: "What do you believe in ?" Obama replies: "I believe in democracy, helping the poor, world peace, etc. .... ". God is really impressed by Obama and tells him: 'Well done , come sit in the chair on my left" Finally God asks Trump : " What do you believe in ? " Trump replied: "I believe you're sitting in my chair !”
This shows American voters (not just trump ones) have become so partisan that......er actually I'm not sure where that leaves the U.S. Worrying times for them especially in a country that has divided government built in.
Makes sense. In a country where 40-odd % believe in creationism, why not support policies to stop an imaginary massacre.
What is it as a percentage of seats held. That would be a more relevant analysis. Suspect UKIP and Labour doing worse on that basis (although the LibDems still doing well).
I would like to see the average number of people it takes to elect a Tory councillor compared to a Labour one or Libdem. Are rural wards huge with the same number of electors as a city ward?
I had thought all wards were roughly 5-6000, give or take 5% or something like that, but now you mention it I don't know if that works with really big population areas.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
Well, it depends how bad. A deal involving payment of £60bn would certainly be worse than no deal, so I'm not sure their over-egging of the pudding to such a laughable degree would be terribly clever, were they to mean it. However, I'm sure the UK government don't believe they mean it.
The key point here is that no deal is worse than a good deal for both sides. I hope that our EU friends aren't making the humongous error of thinking they've got nothing to lose if negotiations go sour. The risk isn't that in a zero-sum game one party does better than the other, it's that both parties do very badly.
£60bn is, I'm fairly sure, a figure that has been alighted upon simply to produce some wriggle room. The FT estimated the figure at €20bn in October (and I imagine that they were looking for an eye-catching number too):
I assume this is the amount they pay us for our share of assets we have already paid for.
From that FT article:
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, according to EU accounts. It is a legacy of joint financial obligations stretching back decades — from pension pledges and multi-annual contracts to commitments to fund infrastructure projects — that Brussels will insist the UK must honour.
The sheer size of the upper estimate, which some EU-27 officials reckon is too low, threatens to poison the politics of the break-up and derail a Brexit transition and trade deal, according to several senior European figures involved in the process.
The €20bn upper estimate covers Britain’s share of continuing multiyear liabilities, including unpaid budget appropriations of €241bn, pensions liabilities of €63.8bn and future contractual and other spending commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
While we continue to have liabilities, surely we must continue to enjoy benefits.
If its power is to be hobbled to be entirely revising (eg it cannot block at all, with no need for the parliament act to pass) then I see no reason why we cannot continue to allow former judges, senior military officers and the like have seats in the chamber as a matter of course. Non-democratic, but without the ability block that's not an issue at all, and retains the usefulness of having those people in the first place.
I guess that is fair enough. It seems the simplest solution. When the Lords has no ability to block legislation, people will become much less exercised about how it is constituted, it just becomes a selection of The Great And The Good that are in effect offering sage advice, which the government of the day is free to ignore by simple majority.
There is the issue of expense, so its seems fair in the medium term to whittle down the list, I would assume by letting the remaining hereditaries die off without presenting any new ones, and setting a retirement age for the rest, possibly around 70 ?
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
One has to hand it to our EU friends, they've come up with a humdinger of an argument, namely that, because we approved the EU budget for the next few years, we're liable for our share of the total budget even if we leave.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the case. And she has to mean it and show she means it. Otherwise she has no negotiating position.
In order for a negotiating position to work it has to be credible. Liierally no one in any EU member government believes that May can walk away with out the kind of meltdown that would destroy her government. Bravado is not a credible position. She has no negotiating position.
You seem to think that the EU is popular in this country. If we get to the 'no deal' point and May walks I think you'll find it is the intransigent EU that is the fall guy politically. The government would not meltdown. The Daily MAil would be jubilant. I think Minor Fart's head might explode and David Lammy's teddy has an appointment with the corner. Remoaners just don't see walking as a credible option. Leavers do. Many would welcome it.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
Well, it depends how bad. A deal involving payment of £60bn would certainly be worse than no deal, so I'm not sure their over-egging of the pudding to such a laughable degree would be terribly clever, were they to mean it. However, I'm sure the UK government don't believe they mean it.
The key point here is that no deal is worse than a good deal for both sides. I hope that our EU friends aren't making the humongous error of thinking they've got nothing to lose if negotiations go sour. The risk isn't that in a zero-sum game one party does better than the other, it's that both parties do very badly.
£60bn is, I'm fairly sure, a figure that has been alighted upon simply to produce some wriggle room. The FT estimated the figure at €20bn in October (and I imagine that they were looking for an eye-catching number too):
I assume this is the amount they pay us for our share of assets we have already paid for.
From that FT article:
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, according to EU accounts. It is a legacy of joint financial obligations stretching back decades — from pension pledges and multi-annual contracts to commitments to fund infrastructure projects — that Brussels will insist the UK must honour.
The sheer size of the upper estimate, which some EU-27 officials reckon is too low, threatens to poison the politics of the break-up and derail a Brexit transition and trade deal, according to several senior European figures involved in the process.
The €20bn upper estimate covers Britain’s share of continuing multiyear liabilities, including unpaid budget appropriations of €241bn, pensions liabilities of €63.8bn and future contractual and other spending commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
While we continue to have liabilities, surely we must continue to enjoy benefits.
There aren't many cases in negotiations where laughter is a productive response but there are occasions.
While we continue to have liabilities, surely we must continue to enjoy benefits.
If the liabilities have already been incurred, why should Britain expect new benefits for paying for what's already owed?
There are plenty of employers out there who must continue to prop up pension schemes which are offering no new benefits to employees.
If Britain were able to leave the EU without funding past pension obligations, then in theory the EU27 could also leave one by one, leaving their pension obligations behind, like a Farewell Symphony, until plucky Malta remained alone, on the hook for paying the full bill.
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
One has to hand it to our EU friends, they've come up with a humdinger of an argument, namely that, because we approved the EU budget for the next few years, we're liable for our share of the total budget even if we leave.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the case. And she has to mean it and show she means it. Otherwise she has no negotiating position.
In order for a negotiating position to work it has to be credible. Liierally no one in any EU member government believes that May can walk away with out the kind of meltdown that would destroy her government. Bravado is not a credible position. She has no negotiating position.
She isn't in a coalition so she has to keep her MPs happy not the benches opposite. A genuinely bad deal would bring her government down but no deal can be achieved just from the passage of time.
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
One has to hand it to our EU friends, they've come up with a humdinger of an argument, namely that, because we approved the EU budget for the next few years, we're liable for our share of the total budget even if we leave.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the case. And she has to mean it and show she means it. Otherwise she has no negotiating position.
In order for a negotiating position to work it has to be credible. Liierally no one in any EU member government believes that May can walk away with out the kind of meltdown that would destroy her government. Bravado is not a credible position. She has no negotiating position.
You seem to think that the EU is popular in this country. If we get to the 'no deal' point and May walks I think you'll find it is the intransigent EU that is the fall guy politically. The government would not meltdown. The Daily MAil would be jubilant. I think Minor Fart's head might explode and David Lammy's teddy has an appointment with the corner. Remoaners just don't see walking as a credible option. Leavers do. Many would welcome it.
I saw an international lawyer on this earlier this week, and he said "The UK has ongoing liabilities as regards pensions that it would not be able to rid itself of simply by leaving the EU. If we were to leave without an agreement, the EU would simply sue us in the International Court of Justice, and they would win."
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
One has to hand it to our EU friends, they've come up with a humdinger of an argument, namely that, because we approved the EU budget for the next few years, we're liable for our share of the total budget even if we leave.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the case. And she has to mean it and show she means it. Otherwise she has no negotiating position.
In order for a negotiating position to work it has to be credible. Liierally no one in any EU member government believes that May can walk away with out the kind of meltdown that would destroy her government. Bravado is not a credible position. She has no negotiating position.
You seem to think that the EU is popular in this country. If we get to the 'no deal' point and May walks I think you'll find it is the intransigent EU that is the fall guy politically. The government would not meltdown. The Daily MAil would be jubilant. I think Minor Fart's head might explode and David Lammy's teddy has an appointment with the corner. Remoaners just don't see walking as a credible option. Leavers do. Many would welcome it.
I saw an international lawyer on this earlier this week, and he said "The UK has ongoing liabilities as regards pensions that it would not be able to rid itself of simply by leaving the EU. If we were to leave without an agreement, the EU would simply sue us in the International Court of Justice, and they would win."
Yet pension liability make up less than a sixth of the claimed costs and the UK's share of assets provide a similar amount to be taken into account. Being realistic we can have no deal and still pay pensions to our own retirees it is the other claimed costs that wouldn't happen.
You seem to think that the EU is popular in this country. If we get to the 'no deal' point and May walks I think you'll find it is the intransigent EU that is the fall guy politically.
Never mind the politics, what is "... popular in this country ..." is affordable prices, jobs and a decent economy. If we screw up our biggest and most accessible market then people will object when the economics impacts them adversely.
If its power is to be hobbled to be entirely revising (eg it cannot block at all, with no need for the parliament act to pass) then I see no reason why we cannot continue to allow former judges, senior military officers and the like have seats in the chamber as a matter of course. Non-democratic, but without the ability block that's not an issue at all, and retains the usefulness of having those people in the first place.
I guess that is fair enough. It seems the simplest solution. When the Lords has no ability to block legislation, people will become much less exercised about how it is constituted, it just becomes a selection of The Great And The Good that are in effect offering sage advice, which the government of the day is free to ignore by simple majority.
There is the issue of expense, so its seems fair in the medium term to whittle down the list, I would assume by letting the remaining hereditaries die off without presenting any new ones, and setting a retirement age for the rest, possibly around 70 ?
I'm not actually opposed to the Lords retaining the ability to block (with the Parliament Act in the back pocket for when they are intractable), but if it is a revising chamber perhaps 75 as a retirement age - not a fan of gerontocracies, but people are living longer and if it remains an appointed rather than elected body then odds are most of those appointed will have had full careers in some field or another, so some leeway for that.
Heritaries being whittled off by not replacing seems a no brainier - some are no doubt excellent, but they can be MPs now if they want, as several have been, so they aren't prevented from the opportunity to serve in the legislature.
Yet pension liability make up less than a sixth of the claimed costs and the UK's share of assets provide a similar amount to be taken into account. Being realistic we can have no deal and still pay pensions to our own retirees it is the other claimed costs that wouldn't happen.
I would have thought that the easiest way to get the headline number down would be to agree to transfer pension liabilities of UK nationals to the UK government.
I saw an international lawyer on this earlier this week, and he said "The UK has ongoing liabilities as regards pensions that it would not be able to rid itself of simply by leaving the EU. If we were to leave without an agreement, the EU would simply sue us in the International Court of Justice, and they would win."
But that part of the alleged bill is (relatively speaking) peanuts. The total pension liability across the whole EU28 is something like €63bn, capitalised as at today. So either we buy out our share for a few billion, or (much more likely) we continue to pay a few hundred million a year over the next 30 years. Not a big deal.
Never mind the politics, what is "... popular in this country ..." is affordable prices, jobs and a decent economy. If we screw up our biggest and most accessible market then people will object when the economics impacts them adversely.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the case. And she has to mean it and show she means it. Otherwise she has no negotiating position.
In order for a negotiating position to work it has to be credible. Liierally no one in any EU member government believes that May can walk away with out the kind of meltdown that would destroy her government. Bravado is not a credible position. She has no negotiating position.
You seem to think that the EU is popular in this country. If we get to the 'no deal' point and May walks I think you'll find it is the intransigent EU that is the fall guy politically. The government would not meltdown. The Daily MAil would be jubilant. I think Minor Fart's head might explode and David Lammy's teddy has an appointment with the corner. Remoaners just don't see walking as a credible option. Leavers do. Many would welcome it.
I saw an international lawyer on this earlier this week, and he said "The UK has ongoing liabilities as regards pensions that it would not be able to rid itself of simply by leaving the EU. If we were to leave without an agreement, the EU would simply sue us in the International Court of Justice, and they would win."
I can see us having to accept liability for payment of the pensions of UK nationals who worked in the EU, especially those who were seconded from the civil service. I suspect that indemnification of the EU's liability to them in exchange for indemnification by the EU of other national's pensions would be a sensible way to go.
"no money from us to them" is unlikely, for the reasons I've already given.
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
One has to hand it to our EU friends, they've come up with a humdinger of an argument, namely that, because we approved the EU budget for the next few years, we're liable for our share of the total budget even if we leave.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the case. And she has to mean it and show she means it. Otherwise she has no negotiating position.
In order for a negotiating position to work it has to be credible. Liierally no one in any EU member government believes that May can walk away with out the kind of meltdown that would destroy her government. Bravado is not a credible position. She has no negotiating position.
You seem to think that the EU is popular in this country. If we get to the 'no deal' point and May walks I think you'll find it is the intransigent EU that is the fall guy politically. The government would not meltdown. The Daily MAil would be jubilant. I think Minor Fart's head might explode and David Lammy's teddy has an appointment with the corner. Remoaners just don't see walking as a credible option. Leavers do. Many would welcome it.
I saw an international lawyer on this earlier this week, and he said "The UK has ongoing liabilities as regards pensions that it would not be able to rid itself of simply by leaving the EU. If we were to leave without an agreement, the EU would simply sue us in the International Court of Justice, and they would win."
... eventually.
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
As an aside, leaving the EU (like Trump's policies) can only be meaningfully judged in retrospect.
If in 20 years time, the Eurozone is flying, and we're sinking, it will be adjudged a terrible mistake. And vice-versa.
Likewise, if Trump's policies narrow the wage gap and bring gainful employment to millions of forgotten Americans in the rust belt, then he will again and be deservedly regarded as a great president. But if he cannot do this, and especially if his policies worsen their plight, then he will be considered a failure.
Yet pension liability make up less than a sixth of the claimed costs and the UK's share of assets provide a similar amount to be taken into account. Being realistic we can have no deal and still pay pensions to our own retirees it is the other claimed costs that wouldn't happen.
I would have thought that the easiest way to get the headline number down would be to agree to transfer pension liabilities of UK nationals to the UK government.
It is the only practical way of sorting out this issue and leads to a net payment to the EU of zero pounds on this topic as far as our spin is concerned, while ensuring we pay a share of the EU's costs as far as theirs is concerned.
Very interesting article in Atlantic on decline in faith in democracy - involving three factors. This factoid stood out for me on the Trump win.
"The third vector, Mounk believes, is growing economic inequality between urban centers and rural hinterlands. The United States in 2016 offered a particularly vivid example: Hillary Clinton carried only 472 counties, out of more than 3,000, but those 472 were predominantly urban and accounted for nearly two-thirds of the country’s total economic output. “No election in decades has revealed as sharp a political divide between the densest economic centers and the rest of the country,” write Brookings’s Mark Muro and Sifan Liu, who reported the data."
Awww bless. The Liberals salivating over local council by elections again. Next there'll be threads predicting GE landlsides. Tim Farron as PM. Bless.
Well quite.
What I don't understand is - what is the end point of the local government base strategy?
It never translates into securing anything like a parliamentary majority. With the SNP in situ it won't even be likely to see a LD 3rd party in the near future.
"... what is the end point of the local government base strategy?" Is there such a thing? If there's an election surely the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power - at whatever level that may be. If there's a Parliamentary by-election going fight that too. Haven't the Lib Dems been doing well in those also?
No, the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future.
There are many ways of doing that but the Lib Dems' makes no sense. At best, it'll deliver a re-run of 2010.
The Lib Dems' approach to elections is much the same as a cat chasing a laser pointer - and with about as much thought given to where it'll take them.
UKIP's electoral strategy has been far less successful in winning seats but much more successful in delivering policy - and ultimately, that is the prize.
You said "the purpose of elections is to gain power, or to form a base from which to do so in the future." I said "the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power". Pretty similar. You are looking at politics as though Westminster is all that matters, local government is less glamorous but still worthwhile. UKIP did help to deliver policy, but they were bit players. If Boris and Gove had been for Remain things may well have been different.
Yeah if UKIP can follow the Lib Dems example, they might get a solid base of local councillors in a decade or so, from then they can get MPs to lobby for a referendum. then the skys the limit!
Your last point is the one to focus on. Is it really the case for Britain that no deal is better than a bad deal? That's the Prime Minister's position. I doubt the EU27 believe she means it.
It is the case. And she has to mean it and show she means it. Otherwise she has no negotiating position.
In order for a negotiating position to work it has to be credible. Liierally no one in any EU member government believes that May can walk away with out the kind of meltdown that would destroy her government. Bravado is not a credible position. She has no negotiating position.
You seem to think that the EU is popular in this country. If we get to the 'no deal' point and May walks I think you'll find it is the intransigent EU that is the fall guy politically. The government would not meltdown. The Daily MAil would be jubilant. I think Minor Fart's head might explode and David Lammy's teddy has an appointment with the corner. Remoaners just don't see walking as a credible option. Leavers do. Many would welcome it.
I saw an international lawyer on this earlier this week, and he said "The UK has ongoing liabilities as regards pensions that it would not be able to rid itself of simply by leaving the EU. If we were to leave without an agreement, the EU would simply sue us in the International Court of Justice, and they would win."
I can see us having to accept liability for payment of the pensions of UK nationals who worked in the EU, especially those who were seconded from the civil service. I suspect that indemnification of the EU's liability to them in exchange for indemnification by the EU of other national's pensions would be a sensible way to go.
I assume the argument goes that which we were members the French judges in the ECJ partly worked for us, as did the executive officer counting cows in German farm yards, so we should pay a proportion of their pensions, but this could only reasonable apply to pension rights accrued while they were employed by the EU and while we were member, and would be horrifically difficult to calculate.
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
I think it's quite a complex area, not least because most British EU civil servants are former UK civil servants, and therefore they will have rights regarding future contract variation. Even under UK law, I suspect the UK taxpayer has obligations under TUPE in certain cases, such as if a UK civil servant transfers to an EU body in the UK.
Very interesting article in Atlantic on decline in faith in democracy - involving three factors. This factoid stood out for me on the Trump win.
"The third vector, Mounk believes, is growing economic inequality between urban centers and rural hinterlands. The United States in 2016 offered a particularly vivid example: Hillary Clinton carried only 472 counties, out of more than 3,000, but those 472 were predominantly urban and accounted for nearly two-thirds of the country’s total economic output. “No election in decades has revealed as sharp a political divide between the densest economic centers and the rest of the country,” write Brookings’s Mark Muro and Sifan Liu, who reported the data."
Next weeks council byes should give a better pointer to the LD’s situation. There are six by-elections, three of them in LD seats.
It will be interesting but not typical.
Nothing about scattered by-elections is ‘typical’! And you can spin results in all sorts of ways.
As we have seen!
No spinning here, I just reported the facts straight from Britain Elects. The graphic at the top of this page is based on 196 contests since May, so should be quite even statistically, certainly more so than one week. Asserting that next weeks elections where one small party is defending half the seats "should give a better pointer to the LD’s situation" is much more like 'spinning'.
As an aside, leaving the EU (like Trump's policies) can only be meaningfully judged in retrospect.
If in 20 years time, the Eurozone is flying, and we're sinking, it will be adjudged a terrible mistake. And vice-versa.
I think it it almost certain that other things will have a greater effect on the UK and EU economies over that period of time, and the further ahead we look the less significant leaving the EU will be. The whole Bregret scenario is more or less contingent of a sharp and immediate contraction, not arguing about infinitesimal economic effects decades into the future. Right now it's so far, so good.
Comments
I am highly sceptical about the 60 billion figure, mind.
Another, equally pertinent, quote from the same sage:
"One of the nuisances of the ballot is that when the oracle has spoken you never know what it means".
Shrewd man.
That the LDs don't want anything to do with what they managed in the coalition, Labour are entirely focused on their navels, UKIP imploding, the Greens, well, the Greens, and the Tories keen to focus on the right, no party seems very interested in those who broadly favoured the coalition years, on balance. Those weirdos votes can get stuffed now.
Back on Feb 20.
1820 councillors is 21% of the Tory total. Surely they would want to improve that ratio substantially, especially in areas where they lost Parliamentary seats.
Presumably they haven't yet quite noticed the corollary, which is that, if you accept that argument, you've just argued yourself into concluding that the UK should continue to get EU payments after it has left the EU.
I'd say the half-life of their negotiating position once negotiations start is about three minutes.
As for what happens if we don't reach agreement on terminating payments, clearly the advantage is overwhelmingly with the UK. Sure, they can take us to an international court to decide on it. In a few years' time, they might get a settlement.
"...whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation"
Sir Humphrey's granddad is probably still smug about the understatement in the last part of that sentence.
Your problem is that your Conservative councillors go round telling everybody how dreadful Devon County Council is, and then turn up at Shire Hall and vote through whatever cuts Mr Hart has thought up. So people in Devon believe them on the first point, and blame them on the second. Your team is going to be massacred in May, Mr Mark, unless if comes up with some really good lies.
However the hereditary peer who replaces him won't be expected to be a deputy speaker if they don't wish to.
I see that these elections use the AV voting system, perhaps they will allow us to use that system to elect HoL members when it's eventually reformed.
There are many ways of doing that but the Lib Dems' makes no sense. At best, it'll deliver a re-run of 2010.
The Lib Dems' approach to elections is much the same as a cat chasing a laser pointer - and with about as much thought given to where it'll take them.
UKIP's electoral strategy has been far less successful in winning seats but much more successful in delivering policy - and ultimately, that is the prize.
The key point here is that no deal is worse than a good deal for both sides. I hope that our EU friends aren't making the humongous error of thinking they've got nothing to lose if negotiations go sour. The risk isn't that in a zero-sum game one party does better than the other, it's that both parties do very badly.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/gallery/2017/feb/10/rios-olympic-venues-six-months-on-in-pictures
Maybe she needs to take up Tweeting.
https://www.ft.com/content/3c1eb988-9081-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78
God asks Bush:
"What do you believe in ?"
Bush replies:
"I believe in a free economy, a strong America, The American nation and so on..."
God is impressed by Bush and tells him: ...
"Great , come sit in the chair on my right"
God goes to Obama and ask:
"What do you believe in ?"
Obama replies:
"I believe in democracy, helping the poor, world peace, etc. .... ".
God is really impressed by Obama and tells him:
'Well done , come sit in the chair on my left"
Finally God asks Trump :
" What do you believe in ? "
Trump replied:
"I believe you're sitting in my chair !”
With all this "will of the People" guff I think Brexiters have convinced themselves that they won by far more than they did - 48% opposed it and if the Lib Dems can tap that vote they will do very nicely indeed both at the local and national level. I think this particularly holds true now that May has chosen to embrace a form of Brexit that ditches the Single Market.
As we have seen!
This would then facilitate the second stage of just letting the Lords gracefully wither on the vine by not allowing any new Lords to be presented. Sure, let Bishops and Senior Judges keep their courtesy titles, but when they are replaced the next incumbent doesn't get to sit in the Lords. The number and influence of people in the Lords will dwindle and in a decade or two it can be gently put out to pasture with out much of a murmur. Pension off the remaining members with a generous... erm, pension, turn off the lights, and lock the doors.
Any imbalance in the interim period between the political parties will be irrelevant as the Lords will be unable to block the elected government, it will be a true revising chamber as it was meant to be.
UK economic growth accelerates to 0.7% – Niesr
The British economy picked up speed at the start of the year, according to the latest estimates from respected think-tank the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
UK GDP expanded by 0.7 per cent in the three months to the end of January, up from a 0.6 per cent pace in the previous quarter, Niesr estimates show – providing a useful gauge of Britain’s official growth statistics.
(Edit to add, October was a weak month, so this mostly the base effect of stripping that out. Still, good news. Except for my bet with DavidL.)
"More than €300bn of shared payment liabilities will need to be settled in the divorce reckoning, according to EU accounts. It is a legacy of joint financial obligations stretching back decades — from pension pledges and multi-annual contracts to commitments to fund infrastructure projects — that Brussels will insist the UK must honour.
The sheer size of the upper estimate, which some EU-27 officials reckon is too low, threatens to poison the politics of the break-up and derail a Brexit transition and trade deal, according to several senior European figures involved in the process.
The €20bn upper estimate covers Britain’s share of continuing multiyear liabilities, including unpaid budget appropriations of €241bn, pensions liabilities of €63.8bn and future contractual and other spending commitments totalling about €32bn."
"Britain’s €20bn reckoning would cover only spending already approved on projects within the EU-27, not the future shortfall created after 2019 by Britain’s withdrawal from the long-term EU budget.
It also excludes EU spending on UK organisations."
Officers from the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command stopped the man after he disembarked from a flight from Iraq on Thursday...
It comes after a 31-year-old man arrested on Thursday in Norfolk on suspicion of fundraising for the purposes of terrorism and encouraging support for a banned terror group was bailed.
http://news.sky.com/story/man-held-at-gatwick-airport-on-suspicion-of-preparing-terrorist-act-10762455
I said "the thing for a political party to do is to fight it, win it and wield power".
Pretty similar.
You are looking at politics as though Westminster is all that matters, local government is less glamorous but still worthwhile.
UKIP did help to deliver policy, but they were bit players. If Boris and Gove had been for Remain things may well have been different.
Who would have thunk it.
Continue to condescend - the Lib Dems are currently attractive to the 48% of Remainers and could do well on that basis. Being opposed to Brexit may not look such a bad position to have taken in a few years - a bit like opposition to the Iraq war.
* Or, in an equivalent but more colourful phrase from Venezuela, 'wanting to have the girl drunk and the wine bottle still full'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/10/dambusters-logbook-thief-jailed-two-years/
As they say, only in America kid...
There is the issue of expense, so its seems fair in the medium term to whittle down the list, I would assume by letting the remaining hereditaries die off without presenting any new ones, and setting a retirement age for the rest, possibly around 70 ?
There are plenty of employers out there who must continue to prop up pension schemes which are offering no new benefits to employees.
If Britain were able to leave the EU without funding past pension obligations, then in theory the EU27 could also leave one by one, leaving their pension obligations behind, like a Farewell Symphony, until plucky Malta remained alone, on the hook for paying the full bill.
Heritaries being whittled off by not replacing seems a no brainier - some are no doubt excellent, but they can be MPs now if they want, as several have been, so they aren't prevented from the opportunity to serve in the legislature.
... and pensions for whom. There are about 45,000 employees of the EU. I can understand liabilities for pension worth up until the day of leaving, after that those 45,000 are doing no work for the UK, any additional pension accruing after that shouldnt be anything to do with us.
If in 20 years time, the Eurozone is flying, and we're sinking, it will be adjudged a terrible mistake. And vice-versa.
Likewise, if Trump's policies narrow the wage gap and bring gainful employment to millions of forgotten Americans in the rust belt, then he will again and be deservedly regarded as a great president. But if he cannot do this, and especially if his policies worsen their plight, then he will be considered a failure.
Get that "like" button back please.....
"The third vector, Mounk believes, is growing economic inequality between urban centers and rural hinterlands. The United States in 2016 offered a particularly vivid example: Hillary Clinton carried only 472 counties, out of more than 3,000, but those 472 were predominantly urban and accounted for nearly two-thirds of the country’s total economic output. “No election in decades has revealed as sharp a political divide between the densest economic centers and the rest of the country,” write Brookings’s Mark Muro and Sifan Liu, who reported the data."
loads more stuff at:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/containing-trump/513854/
While that may be less than a sixth of the total counties I suspect it a lot more of a share of the population than that.
The graphic at the top of this page is based on 196 contests since May, so should be quite even statistically, certainly more so than one week.
Asserting that next weeks elections where one small party is defending half the seats "should give a better pointer to the LD’s situation" is much more like 'spinning'.