I like Hillary for most of the reasons that Don cites, though I think favouring Britain getting involved in the Syrian civil war was a mistake and I'm incredulous that anyone still thinks it would have been a good idea. Still, it's an honest disagreement and I can live with that.
But this quote is immediately relevant:
'The New Statesman’s Stephen Bush in his indispensable daily newsletter counsels caution. He ssays “Corbyn would never voluntarily hand back control of the party to his opponents, so until there is a rule change(so that fewer MPs are needed to nominate a leadership contender), any talk that he has planned his retirement should be treated with extreme scepticism.”"'
Well, quite.That's why the current effort by Labour First and Progress (cf. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/12/labour-jeremy-corbyn-critics-organise-locally-leadership-election) to block the rule change is so stupid, another attempt to regain control by cunning wheezes ("let's make sure that people we don't like aren't on the ballot") rather than winning arguments ("let's persuade members we need a change"). Do they want Labour to, in their terms, move on or not?
A very depressing post. If someone as sound as Nick believes that Labour is now owned by Momentum to the extent that they are entitled to ensure that their choice is on the ballot whatever their MP's representing 10 million voters think then Labour are on the way to oblivion.
As it's clear no one is able to stick their arm into the U-bend and remove the blockage* the best hope is that a new charismatic leader emerges to lead a new centre left party probably through the Lib Dems and manages to attract those Labour MPs who realize their party is disintegrating
I agree with IA that 100 seats at the next election with Corbyn or anyone acceptable to him sounds about right.
Indeed. There is so many politicians out there with no experience outside politics at all, it misses the point entirely to pick holes in her rather impressive story.
PS note to self. I agree with Plato on something.
This "real job outside politics" stuff is overdone and comes worryingly close to collapsing into a cult of amateurism. What Plato (the real one) would have said is: if you need brain surgery you tend to look for someone with a lifetime experience of brain surgery behind him, not someone who was doing other, "real world" jobs till the age of 40, and politics is the same. Add to that that most white collar jobs, including politics, are much of a muchness these days; same old excel graphs in powerpoint presentations, all that changes are the labels on the axes. Law in particular has very little of the real world about it, given that you get your fees whatever happens provided you fill out your time sheet correctly, so it lacks the nitty-gritty of "OMG I don't know if we are going to make payroll this month", as well as being protected by bullet proof cartel arrangements from being undercut by the Chinese or by seasonal Estonians. All that is of course less true than it was 40 years ago, what with licensed conveyancing and no-win no-fee arrangements, but it's still pretty true
I'm not a fan of lawyers in politics, as it happens. Too much knowledge about how things currently stand and not enough insight into how things might be.
But it's not true that you get your fees whatever happens provided you fill out your time sheet correctly - law firms are a business like any other, and can and do go bust. A large firm went into administration only last month:
"in my view, too many in the party are trapped in a simple “Stop the War” mentality whereas building peace around the globe is a complex task."
Stop the War is not about stopping war. They'd love it if Israel got nuked or if someone assassinated Trump for example. Stop the War is really Stop the West. What they really hate is our free market capitalist system, because what socialists crave above all else is to control you and the 'free' bit of free markets precludes that. I believe StW was founded by a certain J Corbyn esq. A man not 100% hostile to liaison with terrorists.
Indeed. There is so many politicians out there with no experience outside politics at all, it misses the point entirely to pick holes in her rather impressive story.
PS note to self. I agree with Plato on something.
This "real job outside politics" stuff is overdone and comes worryingly close to collapsing into a cult of amateurism. What Plato (the real one) would have said is: if you need brain surgery you tend to look for someone with a lifetime experience of brain surgery behind him, not someone who was doing other, "real world" jobs till the age of 40, and politics is the same. Add to that that most white collar jobs, including politics, are much of a muchness these days; same old excel graphs in powerpoint presentations, all that changes are the labels on the axes. Law in particular has very little of the real world about it, given that you get your fees whatever happens provided you fill out your time sheet correctly, so it lacks the nitty-gritty of "OMG I don't know if we are going to make payroll this month", as well as being protected by bullet proof cartel arrangements from being undercut by the Chinese or by seasonal Estonians. All that is of course less true than it was 40 years ago, what with licensed conveyancing and no-win no-fee arrangements, but it's still pretty true
I don't like the profilferation of lawyers myself - it's too often clever dickery/debate society and traffic warden nit-picking. I don't pay any more attention to their personal views than anyone else.
Getting ones hands dirty in the literal sense is a great leveller for desk jockeys.
Can you guess - without Googling - who it was who said this?
"A surfeit of lawyers is a sign of a civilization in decline."
(It was written in the card I got from a boyfriend the day I passed my Bar exams. He didn't last. )
Keeping a greenish book on Lab leadership is an f**** nightmare!
As others have said, it's easy if you generally lay rather than generally back.
I'm fascinated who these people are who continue to back David Miliband. He's not in Parliament, not even in the country and has evinced not the slightest interest in the job. Yet as of this morning he was last matched at 22. I'd have thought adding a zero on the end of that would still be no bargain.
David Miliband has just applied for a new position as Administrator of the UNDP (United Nations Development Programme, 8000 staff, £3.6bn budget etc) working out of UN Building in New York. That should kill stone dead any thoughts that he is interested in a return to UK politics.
Labour's problem is not Jeremy Corbyn. Jeremy Corbyn is a symptom. Labour's problem is that the centre left is out of ideas. It has spent all of the last 18 months focusing on the (undoubted) people problems at the top of the Labour party and none of it rethinking what it means to be on the centre left in the 2010s and beyond. The one man who tried to do this is leaving Parliament.
The one woman who seems to be trying is Lisa Nandy. So I would opt for her.
Labour cannot begin solving any of its more deep-seated problems until Jeremy Corbyn goes. So, for now, he is Labour's problem. And he is one that will take another 18 months or so to solve, unless the unions get involved.
I like Hillary for most of the reasons that Don cites, though I think favouring Britain getting involved in the Syrian civil war was a mistake and I'm incredulous that anyone still thinks it would have been a good idea. Still, it's an honest disagreement and I can live with that.
[snip]
If Britain had voted for action when Miliband played shamefully played politics with the issue, then it's quite possible that the Civil War would now have been over for several years, with Assad out of power and some non-ultra government (or governments) now in office. Britain's vote prompted similar opposition in the US, which meant that Assad rightly concluded that the West wasn't going to intervene, meaning that he stood a chance.
Of course, it could all have gone wrong too, but I doubt it could have gone much more wrong than it did in reality.
The key fact in terms of the consequences of parliament's decision was not military, it was political.
No: wrong country and about 1800 years too early. (Though the idea that lawyers are not universally loved has been around probably for ever. You're all very ungrateful, I must say.)
Can you guess - without Googling - who it was who said this?
"A surfeit of lawyers is a sign of a civilization in decline."
(It was written in the card I got from a boyfriend the day I passed my Bar exams. He didn't last. )
I have no idea who said it, but I know Churchill said "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war".
Lawyers may be prone to producing reams of paper covered in unreadable gobble-de-gook but surely that is a better way of settling things than beating each other senseless ...
He is committed - a good thing. Some of his policies are very popular, so he should be on to a winner. He's right-on, which is popular with many. But ... there's the lurking suspicion that sentiment will always trump reality.
We'll be shouting slogans as we descend into chaos and starvation. At the back of even the most loyal Corbynite is that chilling thought.
Benn Jr and some of the Northern MPs realised that long ago.
French odds: Fillon's odds have lengthened for the first time in a fortnight or so, from 4 to 5 on Ladbrokes.
If he dropped out or his ratings collapsed before the first round, cui bono? Hamon?
Highly unlikely Hamon would benefit greatly from a Fillon withdrawal. Can't see many votes going from the Right wing Fillon to the hard left Hamon.
If he withdraws before the closing date for presidential nominations in about a month's time, then there would be replacement chosen by his Party who would probably take most of his support, but other than that, his support is more likely to go to either Le Pen on the far right or to Macron who is more centralist.
I like Hillary for most of the reasons that Don cites, though I think favouring Britain getting involved in the Syrian civil war was a mistake and I'm incredulous that anyone still thinks it would have been a good idea. Still, it's an honest disagreement and I can live with that.
But this quote is immediately relevant:
'The New Statesman’s Stephen Bush in his indispensable daily newsletter counsels caution. He ssays “Corbyn would never voluntarily hand back control of the party to his opponents, so until there is a rule change(so that fewer MPs are needed to nominate a leadership contender), any talk that he has planned his retirement should be treated with extreme scepticism.”"'
Well, quite.That's why the current effort by Labour First and Progress (cf. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/12/labour-jeremy-corbyn-critics-organise-locally-leadership-election) to block the rule change is so stupid, another attempt to regain control by cunning wheezes ("let's make sure that people we don't like aren't on the ballot") rather than winning arguments ("let's persuade members we need a change"). Do they want Labour to, in their terms, move on or not?
Yes, they want Labour to move on, and so they should. Corbyn is leading Labour to disaster and the time for niceties is long over. If Labour MPs still don't get the message that it's futile attempting to compromise with people who've never compromised on anything in their lives, then frankly, they don't deserve to be MPs.
The "let's make sure that people we don't like aren't on the ballot" rule is there for a reason, the rationale for which has been amply demonstrated these last 18 months. Labour is currently an irrelevance. It is fortunate for them that no party in England or Wales is yet in a position to capitalise on that fact as the SNP have in Scotland (except the Tories, if May finesses a Spring election - but that'd be a temporary advantage: a centre-right party can't displace a centre-left one from the field). They can't rely on that continuing indefinitely.
"in my view, too many in the party are trapped in a simple “Stop the War” mentality whereas building peace around the globe is a complex task."
Stop the War is not about stopping war. They'd love it if Israel got nuked or if someone assassinated Trump for example. Stop the War is really Stop the West. What they really hate is our free market capitalist system, because what socialists crave above all else is to control you and the 'free' bit of free markets precludes that. I believe StW was founded by a certain J Corbyn esq. A man not 100% hostile to liaison with terrorists.
Just when you think you better get used to not having a left of centre party ever again you read this from Patrick and realize that isn't an option.
However bonkers Corbyn and his cronies are they hardly scratch the surface of the bonkersness of the right-wing fruitcakes
I like Hillary for most of the reasons that Don cites, though I think favouring Britain getting involved in the Syrian civil war was a mistake and I'm incredulous that anyone still thinks it would have been a good idea. Still, it's an honest disagreement and I can live with that.
But this quote is immediately relevant:
'The New Statesman’s Stephen Bush in his indispensable daily newsletter counsels caution. He ssays “Corbyn would never voluntarily hand back control of the party to his opponents, so until there is a rule change(so that fewer MPs are needed to nominate a leadership contender), any talk that he has planned his retirement should be treated with extreme scepticism.”"'
Well, quite.That's why the current effort by Labour First and Progress (cf. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/12/labour-jeremy-corbyn-critics-organise-locally-leadership-election) to block the rule change is so stupid, another attempt to regain control by cunning wheezes ("let's make sure that people we don't like aren't on the ballot") rather than winning arguments ("let's persuade members we need a change"). Do they want Labour to, in their terms, move on or not?
The current rule was not imposed by the parliamentary Labour party or by Progress - it was agreed by the party as a whole. The people seeking to rig things are those who are not capable of doing what the current rules say. A parliamentary party needs to be led by someone who enjoys the support of a large number of its MPs. If it isn't you get the total chaos that we have seen for the last 18 months.
Conference will get its vote in October. Progress is not seeking to stop that. It is seeking to ensure that conference says No. What is your problem with that, Nick? It's called democracy. If the far left can get Corbyn keyboard supporters to actively engage in CLP meetings, then the McDonnell amendment will pass, you will be happy and the Tories will continue to face an incoherent, useless opposition that gives them free licence to do whatever they want.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
London voted very strongly to remain though !
That promotional poster writes itself doesn't it: "The UK may not want you here, but London is different, honest."
If I was applying for a job in New York or Washington DC, I'd know it is a different sort of place to Jackson Mississippi... As is the US state I'm most likely to visit for work purpose is Ohio in the future.
Given how many here read social media, this is rather disturbing. I've read other stuff re manipulation by Facebook and published by them as deliberate audience emotion shaping.
The answer to many of the problems are obvious. We have an ageing population with growing care needs.. and lots of fit OAPs who could help.
Join up the dots.
We have lots of asset rich OAPs who are cash poor. We need more housing and financing of such building.
Join up the dots.
And so on.
Just needs someone to work out a program to make it happen.
As Labour has lots of MPs who have never had to run anything in their lives, it is unreasonable to expect they are going to think through what needs to be done..
The problem with "obvious" solutions is that they're probably not as obvious as you think and in terms of politics not always as easy to achieve (in terms of people willing to vote for them). In a dictatorship, it would be so much easier.
Are you suggesting compelling people who have already retired to come out of retirement and work as carers ? I'd argue if you paid carers £100k per annum you wouldn't be short of carers but who pays those wages - local authorities can't, the private sector won't.
Equity release already exists though the terms aren't terribly advantageous for the home owner I'm told and the new annuity system means older people can release more of their pension pot in cash to buy that Ferrari they've always wanted or the collection of S K Tremayne books they've always dreamed of passing on to their children ?
The central question remains - how do we ensure we create a society where growing old isn't seen as a curse and older people can live with dignity and as part of an integrated society to which they can contribute (other than by voting Tory at every opportunity) ?
Remember a week is a long time in politics and McMillans phrase, "events dear boy events". You do not know what is round the corner, the Conservatives lack of real electoral popularity may become a landslide of angst against them. Anything can happen. Corbyn may well defy those who basically wish him ill.
Remember a week is a long time in politics and McMillans phrase, "events dear boy events". You do not know what is round the corner, the Conservatives lack of real electoral popularity may become a landslide of angst against them. Anything can happen. Corbyn may well defy those who basically wish him ill.
Anything can happen. But as long as Labour is led by Corbyn it won't.
Remember a week is a long time in politics and McMillans phrase, "events dear boy events". You do not know what is round the corner, the Conservatives lack of real electoral popularity may become a landslide of angst against them. Anything can happen. Corbyn may well defy those who basically wish him ill.
There has been some absolutely shocking spelling of politicians' names on here in the last 24 hours. We've had Stella CreasEy from the usually precise Richard N, while Nick P granted Hilary Benn an additional L in his given name.
"in my view, too many in the party are trapped in a simple “Stop the War” mentality whereas building peace around the globe is a complex task."
Stop the War is not about stopping war. They'd love it if Israel got nuked or if someone assassinated Trump for example. Stop the War is really Stop the West. What they really hate is our free market capitalist system, because what socialists crave above all else is to control you and the 'free' bit of free markets precludes that. I believe StW was founded by a certain J Corbyn esq. A man not 100% hostile to liaison with terrorists.
Just when you think you better get used to not having a left of centre party ever again you read this from Patrick and realize that isn't an option.
However bonkers Corbyn and his cronies are they hardly scratch the surface of the bonkersness of the right-wing fruitcakes
What was wrong with what Patrick said? Stop The War explicitly aren't opposed to all wars just western involvement. That's not to say that opposing war is a bad thing but Stop The War don't simply do that.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
London voted very strongly to remain though !
Crazy idea but hear me out, maybe we could educate and train people in the UK to fill these "vital" jobs in London?
Who and on what timescale?
In the long term, the "throw the doors wide open" fix was rejected back on June 23rd as you may recall. If we have a shortage of highly skilled people, and I would in part suggest that we are doing a lousy job of putting the right people in the right careers, then we need to educate and train them. That's the real fix, not the Ponzi scheme of endless immigration.
Can you guess - without Googling - who it was who said this?
"A surfeit of lawyers is a sign of a civilization in decline."
(It was written in the card I got from a boyfriend the day I passed my Bar exams. He didn't last. )
I have no idea who said it, but I know Churchill said "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war".
Lawyers may be prone to producing reams of paper covered in unreadable gobble-de-gook but surely that is a better way of settling things than beating each other senseless ...
I think there are a few of us who, at the end of complex litigations, might prefer the old fashioned way.
I would nonetheless take issue with the suggestion that the Commons does not benefit from having a goodly number of lawyers in it. As a legislature, good legal minds seem to me to be a key component, regardless of the skill of any advisors available.
Where it doesn't help is in the creation of an effective Executive. But then neither does being a professional politician, whose skill set revolves principally around getting elected (and in particular winning the support of their party machinery). This is where a successful career outside politics matters: it is indicative (though no guarantee) of the professional skills required to run a large organisation well and possibly even get things done.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
London voted very strongly to remain though !
Crazy idea but hear me out, maybe we could educate and train people in the UK to fill these "vital" jobs in London?
Who and on what timescale?
In the long term, the "throw the doors wide open" fix was rejected back on June 23rd as you may recall. If we have a shortage of highly skilled people, and I would in part suggest that we are doing a lousy job of putting the right people in the right careers, then we need to educate and train them. That's the real fix, not the Ponzi scheme of endless immigration.
Remember a week is a long time in politics and McMillans phrase, "events dear boy events". You do not know what is round the corner, the Conservatives lack of real electoral popularity may become a landslide of angst against them. Anything can happen. Corbyn may well defy those who basically wish him ill.
That's simply wishful thinking. Both the Conservative brand and Theresa May as a leader poll better - much better in May's case - than their opposite numbers in the Red Team. That's the case both with their own supporters, meaning a differential in motivation, and among third-party voters in UKIP and the Lib Dems, meaning those votes could be squeezed. Sure, 'events' could change that but not to Corbyn's advantage. If things go ill for the Tories with Corbyn still in post, it'd just lead to a grudging Con win rather than an enthusiastic one.
"in my view, too many in the party are trapped in a simple “Stop the War” mentality whereas building peace around the globe is a complex task."
Stop the War is not about stopping war. They'd love it if Israel got nuked or if someone assassinated Trump for example. Stop the War is really Stop the West. What they really hate is our free market capitalist system, because what socialists crave above all else is to control you and the 'free' bit of free markets precludes that. I believe StW was founded by a certain J Corbyn esq. A man not 100% hostile to liaison with terrorists.
Just when you think you better get used to not having a left of centre party ever again you read this from Patrick and realize that isn't an option.
However bonkers Corbyn and his cronies are they hardly scratch the surface of the bonkersness of the right-wing fruitcakes
What was wrong with what Patrick said? Stop The War explicitly aren't opposed to all wars just western involvement. That's not to say that opposing war is a bad thing but Stop The War don't simply do that.
It's the sneering arrogance of right-wingery. The certainty that there are two opinions 'mine and the wrong one'.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
London voted very strongly to remain though !
Crazy idea but hear me out, maybe we could educate and train people in the UK to fill these "vital" jobs in London?
Who and on what timescale?
In the long term, the "throw the doors wide open" fix was rejected back on June 23rd as you may recall. If we have a shortage of highly skilled people, and I would in part suggest that we are doing a lousy job of putting the right people in the right careers, then we need to educate and train them. That's the real fix, not the Ponzi scheme of endless immigration.
We did not vote to end immigration on 23rd June.
There is this wonderful invention. I beleive its called a visa. No one stopped them being issued on 23rd June. There will be immigration. It wont be open ended. It will be controlled by a parliament elected by the British people. If we are short of people to do a job, we will issue visas for it just as we currently do for countries outside the EU. There, wasn't hard really.
No: wrong country and about 1800 years too early. (Though the idea that lawyers are not universally loved has been around probably for ever. You're all very ungrateful, I must say.)
Lawyers can be useful creatures. But they are all too often their own worst enemy. A good lawyer is a marvel and when you encounter him or her you will be on your knees nightly thanking your God for or hugging yourself with glee at your great good fortune.
Unfortunately, there are not that many of us around. The world - or at least that bit of London I work in - is full of indifferent, self-regarding lawyers who make my inner Jack Cade come to the surface.
Law is the equivalent of plumbing for the middle classes - a mystery to the uninitated, not that difficult to understand if you put the work in, necessary, expensive and leaves shit in its wake when it all goes wrong.
What was wrong with what Patrick said? Stop The War explicitly aren't opposed to all wars just western involvement. That's not to say that opposing war is a bad thing but Stop The War don't simply do that.
It's the sneering arrogance of right-wingery. The certainty that there are two opinions 'mine and the wrong one'.
Possibly rather than crying about it, you could point to some evidence to refute his position. If you don't mind though, I would rather not hold my breath while I wait.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
London voted very strongly to remain though !
Crazy idea but hear me out, maybe we could educate and train people in the UK to fill these "vital" jobs in London?
Who and on what timescale?
In the long term, the "throw the doors wide open" fix was rejected back on June 23rd as you may recall. If we have a shortage of highly skilled people, and I would in part suggest that we are doing a lousy job of putting the right people in the right careers, then we need to educate and train them. That's the real fix, not the Ponzi scheme of endless immigration.
We did not vote to end immigration on 23rd June.
There is this wonderful invention. I beleive its called a visa. No one stopped them being issued on 23rd June. There will be immigration. It wont be open ended. It will be controlled by a parliament elected by the British people. If we are short of people to do a job, we will issue visas for it just as we currently do for countries outside the EU. There, wasn't hard really.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
London voted very strongly to remain though !
Crazy idea but hear me out, maybe we could educate and train people in the UK to fill these "vital" jobs in London?
Who and on what timescale?
In the long term, the "throw the doors wide open" fix was rejected back on June 23rd as you may recall. If we have a shortage of highly skilled people, and I would in part suggest that we are doing a lousy job of putting the right people in the right careers, then we need to educate and train them. That's the real fix, not the Ponzi scheme of endless immigration.
We did not vote to end immigration on 23rd June.
There is this wonderful invention. I beleive its called a visa. No one stopped them being issued on 23rd June. There will be immigration. It wont be open ended. It will be controlled by a parliament elected by the British people. If we are short of people to do a job, we will issue visas for it just as we currently do for countries outside the EU. There, wasn't hard really.
We can make visas available, but they are not much use if people do not want to use them. What the original story states is that right now, with the immigration rules that we have, high fliers are less interested in coming to the UK than they were previously.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
London voted very strongly to remain though !
Crazy idea but hear me out, maybe we could educate and train people in the UK to fill these "vital" jobs in London?
Who and on what timescale?
In the long term, the "throw the doors wide open" fix was rejected back on June 23rd as you may recall. If we have a shortage of highly skilled people, and I would in part suggest that we are doing a lousy job of putting the right people in the right careers, then we need to educate and train them. That's the real fix, not the Ponzi scheme of endless immigration.
We did not vote to end immigration on 23rd June.
There is this wonderful invention. I beleive its called a visa. No one stopped them being issued on 23rd June. There will be immigration. It wont be open ended. It will be controlled by a parliament elected by the British people. If we are short of people to do a job, we will issue visas for it just as we currently do for countries outside the EU. There, wasn't hard really.
Not if the people we want still don't come.
They will. The package has to look attractive. I am sure even you are going to suggest its going to be harder to get people to a BrExit London that Dubai ? The comparison is fatuous anyway, New York is drowning in talent, and yet strangely there are no open borders into the USA, and everyone requires a visa.
Beside which, you miss the key point. If it doesn't work, the British people will vote for something else to happen.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
Yes, that's worrying. I was briefly heartened after the Brexit vote when Boris appeared and proclaimed that this didn't mean we'd be hauling up the drawbridge to become inward-looking xenophobes. But then came Trump and the British Right's zeal to copy his every move like adoring children. Perhaps we'll just have to accept that the dream of British internationalism is dead.
It was a big part of the campaign that immigration was out of our control, and May acknowledged that when she took over as PM. The rules after we leave the EU will be tougher, and businesses and government will have to adapt, and that means education and training need to improve. I do not for a moment believe that the only solution is to recruit overseas or rely on immigrants tipping up in London.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
London voted very strongly to remain though !
Crazy idea but hear me out, maybe we could educate and train people in the UK to fill these "vital" jobs in London?
Who and on what timescale?
In the long term, the "throw the doors wide open" fix was rejected back on June 23rd as you may recall. If we have a shortage of highly skilled people, and I would in part suggest that we are doing a lousy job of putting the right people in the right careers, then we need to educate and train them. That's the real fix, not the Ponzi scheme of endless immigration.
We did not vote to end immigration on 23rd June.
There is this wonderful invention. I beleive its called a visa. No one stopped them being issued on 23rd June. There will be immigration. It wont be open ended. It will be controlled by a parliament elected by the British people. If we are short of people to do a job, we will issue visas for it just as we currently do for countries outside the EU. There, wasn't hard really.
We can make visas available, but they are not much use if people do not want to use them. What the original story states is that right now, with the immigration rules that we have, high fliers are less interested in coming to the UK than they were previously.
The most recent immigrant to my company is most definitely a brexiteer. He thinks it is the best thing since sliced bread, happens to be South Africa
I have no idea whether Hilary Benn wants the the job or even whether he would get it if he went for it.
But he's one of the few Labour politicians who impressed me when he made his speech last year. This is what I wrote then on PB the day after the Syria debate. Regardless of whether you agree with intervention in Syria and, on the whole, I think staying out of the whole Middle Eastern quagmire is probably sensible until people there come to their senses, I still stand by what I then wrote.
" It was a fantastic speech not so much because it made the case for bombing but because it made the moral case for Labour, for a decent Labour, for an outward looking Labour, for a Labour that understands that you fight fascists, you don't justify them or appease them or invite them to tea and call them friends, for Labour as a moral crusade, for a Labour that remembers its history, for a Labour on the side of liberal democracy not on the side of its enemies, for a Labour that is prepared to call out evil for what it is and to do so clearly and unequivocally without endless whataboutery.
The section where he describes the contempt which IS has for everyone in the chamber, for our values, freedoms and our democracy was very powerful and contrasts with the weaselly and contemptible justification by the likes of Livingstone of suicide bombers as some sort of martyrs."
Benn is at least as useless at the rest of teh nohopers, cowardly and back stabber all rolled into one. He wimped off because he did not like Jeremy but was scared to oppose him. One for the dustbin of history.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
London voted very strongly to remain though !
Crazy idea but hear me out, maybe we could educate and train people in the UK to fill these "vital" jobs in London?
Who and on what timescale?
In the long term, the "throw the doors wide open" fix was rejected back on June 23rd as you may recall. If we have a shortage of highly skilled people, and I would in part suggest that we are doing a lousy job of putting the right people in the right careers, then we need to educate and train them. That's the real fix, not the Ponzi scheme of endless immigration.
We did not vote to end immigration on 23rd June.
There is this wonderful invention. I beleive its called a visa. No one stopped them being issued on 23rd June. There will be immigration. It wont be open ended. It will be controlled by a parliament elected by the British people. If we are short of people to do a job, we will issue visas for it just as we currently do for countries outside the EU. There, wasn't hard really.
Not if the people we want still don't come.
They will. The package has to look attractive. I am sure even you are going to suggest its going to be harder to get people to a BrExit London that Dubai ? The comparison is fatuous anyway, New York is drowning in talent, and yet strangely there are no open borders into the USA, and everyone requires a visa.
Beside which, you miss the key point. If it doesn't work, the British people will vote for something else to happen.
When a balloon has gone bang, voting to inflate it again is a forlorn move.
Christ on a bike. Back to the same old remoaning again. Pie was correct in his video last night liberals in this country really dont like this democracy business. I really cant be bothered with another round of arguments we have rehearsed a thousand times before. The people voted to leave the EU, and we are. Get over it.
Remember a week is a long time in politics and McMillans phrase, "events dear boy events". You do not know what is round the corner, the Conservatives lack of real electoral popularity may become a landslide of angst against them. Anything can happen. Corbyn may well defy those who basically wish him ill.
That's simply wishful thinking. Both the Conservative brand and Theresa May as a leader poll better - much better in May's case - than their opposite numbers in the Red Team. That's the case both with their own supporters, meaning a differential in motivation, and among third-party voters in UKIP and the Lib Dems, meaning those votes could be squeezed. Sure, 'events' could change that but not to Corbyn's advantage. If things go ill for the Tories with Corbyn still in post, it'd just lead to a grudging Con win rather than an enthusiastic one.
Mr. Jonathan, a problem is that Brown culled a lot of potential leaders and old heads who might not have been leader but could've been a useful adviser or lieutenant.
It was the opposite approach taken by Edward III or Alexander the Great. Or King Arthur. If it had been King Gordon, he would've been sat at the round table by himself.
There's a common theme - after a long period in office, parties go mad or rather they begin to believe they are immortal and act accordingly. That is what will happen to the Conservatives probably around 2025 - they will implode under May's successor and go down to a huge defeat because, as night follows day, as one party begins to go mad, the other starts to become sane.
Christ on a bike. Back to the same old remoaning again. Pie was correct in his video last night liberals in this country really dont like this democracy business. I really cant be bothered with another round of arguments we have rehearsed a thousand times before. The people voted to leave the EU, and we are. Get over it.
{Snipped Pie vid}
Tom Walker has definitely caught something of the zeitgeist with his creation.
Christ on a bike. Back to the same old remoaning again. Pie was correct in his video last night liberals in this country really dont like this democracy business. I really cant be bothered with another round of arguments we have rehearsed a thousand times before. The people voted to leave the EU, and we are. Get over it.
Why is saying that it is important we continue to attract world class talent to the UK - and it is worrying that we may already be less attractive than we were - remoaning? Is it not possible to accept that we are leaving the EU, while also pointing out that there are downsides which have to be managed?
Christ on a bike. Back to the same old remoaning again. Pie was correct in his video last night liberals in this country really dont like this democracy business. I really cant be bothered with another round of arguments we have rehearsed a thousand times before. The people voted to leave the EU, and we are. Get over it.
Yes, Britain is leaving the EU (something I have accepted from the day of the vote). Evidence like the LinkedIn survey suggests that it may well not be a roaring success.
I don't have to like the moral disaster and you don't have to get so upset that your cherished dream might turn out to be a shitshow.
Remember a week is a long time in politics and McMillans phrase, "events dear boy events". You do not know what is round the corner, the Conservatives lack of real electoral popularity may become a landslide of angst against them. Anything can happen. Corbyn may well defy those who basically wish him ill.
The Tories are not deeply popular in the country and a landslide in 2020 depends on 2 conditions - Corbyn being in place and Brexit looking successful.
Remove one and things get tighter for the Tories, remove both and I suspect they are out.
Indeed. There is so many politicians out there with no experience outside politics at all, it misses the point entirely to pick holes in her rather impressive story.
PS note to self. I agree with Plato on something.
This "real job outside politics" stuff is overdone and comes worryingly close to collapsing into a cult of amateurism. What Plato (the real one) would have said is: if you need brain surgery you tend to look for someone with a lifetime experience of brain surgery behind him, not someone who was doing other, "real world" jobs till the age of 40, and politics is the same. Add to that that most white collar jobs, including politics, are much of a muchness these days; same old excel graphs in powerpoint presentations, all that changes are the labels on the axes. Law in particular has very little of the real world about it, given that you get your fees whatever happens provided you fill out your time sheet correctly, so it lacks the nitty-gritty of "OMG I don't know if we are going to make payroll this month", as well as being protected by bullet proof cartel arrangements from being undercut by the Chinese or by seasonal Estonians. All that is of course less true than it was 40 years ago, what with licensed conveyancing and no-win no-fee arrangements, but it's still pretty true
I'm not a fan of lawyers in politics, as it happens. Too much knowledge about how things currently stand and not enough insight into how things might be.
But it's not true that you get your fees whatever happens provided you fill out your time sheet correctly - law firms are a business like any other, and can and do go bust. A large firm went into administration only last month:
Sure, anyone can go bust: the benchmark is that company which did nothing but collect monthly payments as Christmas savings, and then pay them back at Christmas time with a virtually invisible amount of interest on top. But solicitors have it easier than most.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
Yes, that's worrying. I was briefly heartened after the Brexit vote when Boris appeared and proclaimed that this didn't mean we'd be hauling up the drawbridge to become inward-looking xenophobes. But then came Trump and the British Right's zeal to copy his every move like adoring children. Perhaps we'll just have to accept that the dream of British internationalism is dead.
No - we are an international country and have been for 150 years. The Tory right just have to wean themselves off Trump and see what an opportunity he may be creating for us as the second biggest English speaking country in the developed world to attract world class talent across any number of disciplines.
In the gossip, Magnussen reckons there'll be more overtaking due to regulation changes. Whilst that is what they're meant to create, we'll see.
Also, a few days ago Vettel had a crash (nothing major, it seems) whilst testing Pirelli's wet tyres. They do need drastically improving from last year, as does the namby-pamby use of the safety car at every opportunity in the wet, which also means the wet tyres have, over recent years, hardly ever been used in anger.
I'll pay attention to the testing mood music but would reiterate that the times really should not be taken seriously. The tyre, fuel load and climatic variance means the times can be (and usually are) very misleading.
Early vague predictions: Mercedes fastest Red Bull clear 2nd Haas to continue to struggle Sauber to have a small improvement Renault to improve a little (probably more than Sauber, relatively) Ferrari to go backwards (losing Allison was not smart) McLaren to be solid midfield Toro Rosso likewise
Williams are interesting because they're a bit rubbish at aero (may change with Lowe there, but obviously it'll take time). If they can mend that, they'd be pretty quick.
Force India are hard to tell. They don't have much cash but develop well, and Ocon for Hulkenberg will cost them performance at least early on.
Also, remember that McLaren are tasty in Oz. So, don't take their performance at race one to be indicative of the season.
I've seen this change in tactics over the last 6 months. It seems to be gaining traction on the Right
"...And it’s awesome. Because, finally, the Right has taken Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and shoved it up where #TheResistance don’t shine...
Alinsky’s Rules are relatively simple, and they make sense when you are fighting a conventional opponent with an interest in maintaining the status quo. The Rules are terrific for dealing with an old-school conservative guy who drives a Buick, enjoys gardening, and doesn’t want any trouble. They aren’t so effective against conservative brawlers who like to punch, and who aren’t too fussy about whether it’s with tweets
The Rules are not some magic incantation; they are simply some tactical principles that work in certain kinds of fights against certain kinds of opponents – particularly ones willing to unilaterally disarm in the face of an unprincipled enemy. But once the secret is out, it’s relatively easy to turn them around on an enemy that is so stupid it thinks it’s going to gain widespread acceptance among normal Americans by dressing up as genitalia. That’s why the thirteen classic Alinsky Rules are playing out right now in a way the Left did not expect.
Lawyers can be useful creatures. But they are all too often their own worst enemy. A good lawyer is a marvel and when you encounter him or her you will be on your knees nightly thanking your God for or hugging yourself with glee at your great good fortune.
Unfortunately, there are not that many of us around. The world - or at least that bit of London I work in - is full of indifferent, self-regarding lawyers who make my inner Jack Cade come to the surface.
Law is the equivalent of plumbing for the middle classes - a mystery to the uninitated, not that difficult to understand if you put the work in, necessary, expensive and leaves shit in its wake when it all goes wrong.
My father who was a lawyer was invited to head a committee whose job it was to decide who could or couldn't join the profession. At the first meeting he asked the chairman 'What is the criteria for choosing who can or can't join the profession?" to which he got the reply " Good heavens man. You either like a chap or you don't"
Why is saying that it is important we continue to attract world class talent to the UK - and it is worrying that we may already be less attractive than we were - remoaning? Is it not possible to accept that we are leaving the EU, while also pointing out that there are downsides which have to be managed?
They will be. By issuing visas, and where necessary making the compensation package more attractive just like every major city outside the EU does.
It was a big part of the campaign that immigration was out of our control, and May acknowledged that when she took over as PM. The rules after we leave the EU will be tougher, and businesses and government will have to adapt, and that means education and training need to improve. I do not for a moment believe that the only solution is to recruit overseas or rely on immigrants tipping up in London.
more anti-facts. We are forever being told that the vote was only a decision to leave the EU and that no particular policy was endorsed (£350m/week for the NHS, say). But selectively, Leavers seem to want it to have meant supporting their particular hobby horse, in this case immigration. We could leave the EU and keep freedom of movement and the 23rd June vote will have been honoured in full.
Why is saying that it is important we continue to attract world class talent to the UK - and it is worrying that we may already be less attractive than we were - remoaning? Is it not possible to accept that we are leaving the EU, while also pointing out that there are downsides which have to be managed?
They will be. By issuing visas, and where necessary making the compensation package more attractive just like every major city outside the EU does.
But with visa-free access and high salaries, the UK is already becoming a less popular destination for high fliers from the EU. And, just as important, it looks like more British-born high-fliers are seeking opportunities abroad. Is the solution to make the visa rules for non-EU citizens more liberal than they are currently?
Remember a week is a long time in politics and McMillans phrase, "events dear boy events". You do not know what is round the corner, the Conservatives lack of real electoral popularity may become a landslide of angst against them. Anything can happen. Corbyn may well defy those who basically wish him ill.
The Tories are not deeply popular in the country and a landslide in 2020 depends on 2 conditions - Corbyn being in place and Brexit looking successful.
Remove one and things get tighter for the Tories, remove both and I suspect they are out.
Disagree. If Labour is led by Corbyn the Tories win whatever happens.
more anti-facts. We are forever being told that the vote was only a decision to leave the EU and that no particular policy was endorsed (£350m/week for the NHS, say). But selectively, Leavers seem to want it to have meant supporting their particular hobby horse, in this case immigration. We could leave the EU and keep freedom of movement and the 23rd June vote will have been honoured in full.
What a silly post.
Try not to lump what I've said with leavers in general when responding in future, or better still don't respond.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
London voted very strongly to remain though !
Crazy idea but hear me out, maybe we could educate and train people in the UK to fill these "vital" jobs in London?
Who and on what timescale?
In the long term, the "throw the doors wide open" fix was rejected back on June 23rd as you may recall. If we have a shortage of highly skilled people, and I would in part suggest that we are doing a lousy job of putting the right people in the right careers, then we need to educate and train them. That's the real fix, not the Ponzi scheme of endless immigration.
We did not vote to end immigration on 23rd June.
There is this wonderful invention. I beleive its called a visa. No one stopped them being issued on 23rd June. There will be immigration. It wont be open ended. It will be controlled by a parliament elected by the British people. If we are short of people to do a job, we will issue visas for it just as we currently do for countries outside the EU. There, wasn't hard really.
The flaw in this plan is that the "we" doing the issuing is a government bureaucracy far removed from the "we" that's trying to hire people to get actual work done. Their idea of who is needed is at best the shadow of reality on a cave wall, and their idea of which people should be allowed to do it is the shadow on a cave wall viewed through a foggy window. By a half-blind, crazy person.
"in my view, too many in the party are trapped in a simple “Stop the War” mentality whereas building peace around the globe is a complex task."
Stop the War is not about stopping war. They'd love it if Israel got nuked or if someone assassinated Trump for example. Stop the War is really Stop the West. What they really hate is our free market capitalist system, because what socialists crave above all else is to control you and the 'free' bit of free markets precludes that. I believe StW was founded by a certain J Corbyn esq. A man not 100% hostile to liaison with terrorists.
Just when you think you better get used to not having a left of centre party ever again you read this from Patrick and realize that isn't an option.
However bonkers Corbyn and his cronies are they hardly scratch the surface of the bonkersness of the right-wing fruitcakes
What was wrong with what Patrick said? Stop The War explicitly aren't opposed to all wars just western involvement. That's not to say that opposing war is a bad thing but Stop The War don't simply do that.
It's the sneering arrogance of right-wingery. The certainty that there are two opinions 'mine and the wrong one'.
Fair dinkum - if you're a lefty. But the left seems utterly lost these days. What is the shining city on a hill that you can point to? Is there a deeply socialist country anywhere (or anywhen) that isn't a repressive cesspit? What is Labour for? Are you able to answer? Is anyone? We know pretty much what policy measures produce what outcomes. The outcomes that nearly all people desire demand the policies that produce them. But those policies don't accord with lefty theory. The very French objecton of 'yes I know it works in practice but does it work in thoery' is an absolute obstacle to progress. It makes the NHS unreformable for example. I accept that you think this makes the right arrogant. I think the converse makes the left fanatical. You become like Islam - you know your religion fails but can't bring yourself to accept a better reality. So the policy of the left always reverts to 'more eggs and ham'. Einstein's theory of insanity applies.
Can you guess - without Googling - who it was who said this?
"A surfeit of lawyers is a sign of a civilization in decline."
(It was written in the card I got from a boyfriend the day I passed my Bar exams. He didn't last. )
I have no idea who said it, but I know Churchill said "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war".
Lawyers may be prone to producing reams of paper covered in unreadable gobble-de-gook but surely that is a better way of settling things than beating each other senseless ...
Actually - he didn't!
Winston Churchill's official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert, speaking of this quote, noted that Churchill actually said, 'Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.' Four years later, during a visit to Australia, Harold Macmillan said the words usually—and wrongly—attributed to Churchill: “Jaw, jaw is better than war, war.” Credit: Harold Macmillan.
But with visa-free access and high salaries, the UK is already becoming a less popular destination for high fliers from the EU. And, just as important, it looks like more British-born high-fliers are seeking opportunities abroad. Is the solution to make the visa rules for non-EU citizens more liberal than they are currently?
The solution is to ask why there is a skills shortage and what can be done to fix it. We have stagnant incomes, relatively low productivity, somewhat poor educational outcomes, and sluggish growth, all of which suggests that the UK itself is doing a poor job of producing high fliers. Immigration doesn't fix the problem, it merely treats the symptoms.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
London voted very strongly to remain though !
Crazy idea but hear me out, maybe we could educate and train people in the UK to fill these "vital" jobs in London?
Who and on what timescale?
In the long term, the "throw the doors wide open" fix was rejected back on June 23rd as you may recall. If we have a shortage of highly skilled people, and I would in part suggest that we are doing a lousy job of putting the right people in the right careers, then we need to educate and train them. That's the real fix, not the Ponzi scheme of endless immigration.
We did not vote to end immigration on 23rd June.
We voted to take back control - so UK voters can in future decide what level of immigration from the EU they want.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
Yes, that's worrying. I was briefly heartened after the Brexit vote when Boris appeared and proclaimed that this didn't mean we'd be hauling up the drawbridge to become inward-looking xenophobes. But then came Trump and the British Right's zeal to copy his every move like adoring children. Perhaps we'll just have to accept that the dream of British internationalism is dead.
Trump's election seems to have had as big an effect on the critical analysis faculties of many on the left-of-centre in Britain as in the US.
Can you name a single British policy that's been affected by his election? To clarify, I mean a policy that wasn't in place before November that's subsequently been introduced and which mirrors Trump's, or which has been modified to match, or which has been scrapped.
I see no evidence whatsoever of a 'love-in' and it's simply wishful thinking to believe that there is one.
more anti-facts. We are forever being told that the vote was only a decision to leave the EU and that no particular policy was endorsed (£350m/week for the NHS, say). But selectively, Leavers seem to want it to have meant supporting their particular hobby horse, in this case immigration. We could leave the EU and keep freedom of movement and the 23rd June vote will have been honoured in full.
What a silly post.
Try not to lump what I've said with leavers in general when responding in future, or better still don't respond.
Would be quite an interesting internet chat room if no one responded to posts for one reason or another.
And if you think I can distinguish what you, the great and noble @glw says vs anyone else on here, then you have a hugely inflated idea of how important your posts are.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
London voted very strongly to remain though !
Crazy idea but hear me out, maybe we could educate and train people in the UK to fill these "vital" jobs in London?
Who and on what timescale?
In the long term, the "throw the doors wide open" fix was rejected back on June 23rd as you may recall. If we have a shortage of highly skilled people, and I would in part suggest that we are doing a lousy job of putting the right people in the right careers, then we need to educate and train them. That's the real fix, not the Ponzi scheme of endless immigration.
We did not vote to end immigration on 23rd June.
We voted to take back control - so UK voters can in future decide what level of immigration from the EU they want.
We didn't vote to take back control. We voted to leave the EU.
But with visa-free access and high salaries, the UK is already becoming a less popular destination for high fliers from the EU. And, just as important, it looks like more British-born high-fliers are seeking opportunities abroad. Is the solution to make the visa rules for non-EU citizens more liberal than they are currently?
The solution is to ask why there is a skills shortage and what can be done to fix it. We have stagnant incomes, relatively low productivity, somewhat poor educational outcomes, and sluggish growth, all of which suggests that the UK itself is doing a poor job of producing high fliers. Immigration doesn't fix the problem, it merely treats the symptoms.
If I may be allowed to comment on your post, this is yet another example of PB Leavers wanting Brexit to solve all the other problems the UK faces in terms of skills shortage, productivity, education, etc, etc, blah blah.
Of course we need to address those things, but poor old Brexit is being loaded with such unrealistic expecations that it is bound to disappoint.
But with visa-free access and high salaries, the UK is already becoming a less popular destination for high fliers from the EU. And, just as important, it looks like more British-born high-fliers are seeking opportunities abroad. Is the solution to make the visa rules for non-EU citizens more liberal than they are currently?
The solution is to ask why there is a skills shortage and what can be done to fix it. We have stagnant incomes, relatively low productivity, somewhat poor educational outcomes, and sluggish growth, all of which suggests that the UK itself is doing a poor job of producing high fliers. Immigration doesn't fix the problem, it merely treats the symptoms.
If you are competing with the world you need the best in the world. These are not coffee shop or lorry driving jobs, but highly-skilled positions in critically important, high tax revenue sectors. Of course, we need better training and better rates of productivity - and are issues that have dogged the UK for decades - but we only compound challenges if we become less attractive to the kind of people, local and foreign, who pay high taxes and build businesses.
Christ on a bike. Back to the same old remoaning again. Pie was correct in his video last night liberals in this country really dont like this democracy business. I really cant be bothered with another round of arguments we have rehearsed a thousand times before. The people voted to leave the EU, and we are. Get over it.
{Snipped Pie vid}
Tom Walker has definitely caught something of the zeitgeist with his creation.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
Yes, that's worrying. I was briefly heartened after the Brexit vote when Boris appeared and proclaimed that this didn't mean we'd be hauling up the drawbridge to become inward-looking xenophobes. But then came Trump and the British Right's zeal to copy his every move like adoring children. Perhaps we'll just have to accept that the dream of British internationalism is dead.
Trump's election seems to have had as big an effect on the critical analysis faculties of many on the left-of-centre in Britain as in the US.
Can you name a single British policy that's been affected by his election? To clarify, I mean a policy that wasn't in place before November that's subsequently been introduced and which mirrors Trump's, or which has been modified to match, or which has been scrapped.
I see no evidence whatsoever of a 'love-in' and it's simply wishful thinking to believe that there is one.
Arguably, the bringing to an end of the child refugee scheme.
Would be quite an interesting internet chat room if no one responded to posts for one reason or another.
And if you think I can distinguish what you, the great and noble @glw says vs anyone else on here, then you have a hugely inflated idea of how important your posts are.
I merely object to you putting what Leavers in general might say into my mouth. I know some people say "it had nothing to do with X" where X is every vaguely controversial issue, but I'm very much in the "it had to do with many, many different things" camp, and immigration was certainly a major factor.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
Yes, that's worrying. I was briefly heartened after the Brexit vote when Boris appeared and proclaimed that this didn't mean we'd be hauling up the drawbridge to become inward-looking xenophobes. But then came Trump and the British Right's zeal to copy his every move like adoring children. Perhaps we'll just have to accept that the dream of British internationalism is dead.
Trump's election seems to have had as big an effect on the critical analysis faculties of many on the left-of-centre in Britain as in the US.
Can you name a single British policy that's been affected by his election? To clarify, I mean a policy that wasn't in place before November that's subsequently been introduced and which mirrors Trump's, or which has been modified to match, or which has been scrapped.
I see no evidence whatsoever of a 'love-in' and it's simply wishful thinking to believe that there is one.
It's not just policies, it's mood music. People abroad see the news reports and they hear what politicians say. Whether rightly or wrongly, that affects perceptions. We need to be aware of that. Slogans and statements designed for domestic consumption are also heard overseas.
There is not one tiny aspect of those YouGov figures that is anything other than utterly appalling for Labour.
Do you think Copeland could go blue ?
I mean I don't think it is the 1-2 shot that it does that the rest of Betfair does.
But it may well be a classic 'Labour ought to be 1-7, in reality they are more like 5-6, Betfair reckons they're 2-1' with the rest of the market for the Tories.
Labour cannot begin solving any of its more deep-seated problems until Jeremy Corbyn goes. So, for now, he is Labour's problem. And he is one that will take another 18 months or so to solve, unless the unions get involved.
Whilst that's true, it's also true that a botched, divisive change of leader, especially one which catapults a novice into the top position and which does not address the strategic issues, won't help. In fact it would probably make things worse.
Would be quite an interesting internet chat room if no one responded to posts for one reason or another.
And if you think I can distinguish what you, the great and noble @glw says vs anyone else on here, then you have a hugely inflated idea of how important your posts are.
I merely object to you putting what Leavers in general might say into my mouth. I know some people say "it had nothing to do with X" where X is every vaguely controversial issue, but I'm very much in the "it had to do with many, many different things" camp, and immigration was certainly a major factor.
You said:
"It was a big part of the campaign that immigration was out of our control, and May acknowledged that when she took over as PM."
My point was that an extra £350m/week for the NHS was "a big part of the campaign" also, and hence your emphasis on this one particular "big part of the campaign" is irrelevant and mimics what the PB Leavers' braintrust (of which you are in no way a part) want which is that any one particular, and their preferred element of those many different things should override all else.
Can you guess - without Googling - who it was who said this?
"A surfeit of lawyers is a sign of a civilization in decline."
(It was written in the card I got from a boyfriend the day I passed my Bar exams. He didn't last. )
I have no idea who said it, but I know Churchill said "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war".
Lawyers may be prone to producing reams of paper covered in unreadable gobble-de-gook but surely that is a better way of settling things than beating each other senseless ...
Actually - he didn't!
Winston Churchill's official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert, speaking of this quote, noted that Churchill actually said, 'Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.' Four years later, during a visit to Australia, Harold Macmillan said the words usually—and wrongly—attributed to Churchill: “Jaw, jaw is better than war, war.” Credit: Harold Macmillan.
I don't have to like the moral disaster and you don't have to get so upset that your cherished dream might turn out to be a shitshow.
I am upset that we keep rehashing the same arguments around in circles without actually making any progress. There are two groups of people standing opposite each other with their fingers in their ears yelling at the tops of their voices. It doesnt matter if one side or the other comes up with a new bit of evidence, their opponents just brush it off as fake news, and carry on yelling, its futile.
Can you guess - without Googling - who it was who said this?
"A surfeit of lawyers is a sign of a civilization in decline."
(It was written in the card I got from a boyfriend the day I passed my Bar exams. He didn't last. )
I have no idea who said it, but I know Churchill said "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war".
Lawyers may be prone to producing reams of paper covered in unreadable gobble-de-gook but surely that is a better way of settling things than beating each other senseless ...
could we have a compromise and just beat lawyers senseless ?
"in my view, too many in the party are trapped in a simple “Stop the War” mentality whereas building peace around the globe is a complex task."
Stop the War is not about stopping war. They'd love it if Israel got nuked or if someone assassinated Trump for example. Stop the War is really Stop the West. What they really hate is our free market capitalist system, because what socialists crave above all else is to control you and the 'free' bit of free markets precludes that. I believe StW was founded by a certain J Corbyn esq. A man not 100% hostile to liaison with terrorists.
Just when you think you better get used to not having a left of centre party ever again you read this from Patrick and realize that isn't an option.
However bonkers Corbyn and his cronies are they hardly scratch the surface of the bonkersness of the right-wing fruitcakes
What was wrong with what Patrick said? Stop The War explicitly aren't opposed to all wars just western involvement. That's not to say that opposing war is a bad thing but Stop The War don't simply do that.
It's the sneering arrogance of right-wingery. The certainty that there are two opinions 'mine and the wrong one'.
Fair dinkum - if you're a lefty. But the left seems utterly lost these days. What is the shining city on a hill that you can point to? Is there a deeply socialist country anywhere (or anywhen) that isn't a repressive cesspit? What is Labour for? Are you able to answer? Is anyone? We know pretty much what policy measures produce what outcomes. The outcomes that nearly all people desire demand the policies that produce them. But those policies don't accord with lefty theory. The very French objecton of 'yes I know it works in practice but does it work in thoery' is an absolute obstacle to progress. It makes the NHS unreformable for example. I accept that you think this makes the right arrogant. I think the converse makes the left fanatical. You become like Islam - you know your religion fails but can't bring yourself to accept a better reality. So the policy of the left always reverts to 'more eggs and ham'. Einstein's theory of insanity applies.
Einstein never said what you think he said, which is just as well given what a twattish thing it would be to say. Think about how it applies to tossing a coin, and how much of human endeavour has a stochastic element to it.
Remember a week is a long time in politics and McMillans phrase, "events dear boy events". You do not know what is round the corner, the Conservatives lack of real electoral popularity may become a landslide of angst against them. Anything can happen. Corbyn may well defy those who basically wish him ill.
There has been some absolutely shocking spelling of politicians' names on here in the last 24 hours. We've had Stella CreasEy from the usually precise Richard N, while Nick P granted Hilary Benn an additional L in his given name.
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
London voted very strongly to remain though !
Crazy idea but hear me out, maybe we could educate and train people in the UK to fill these "vital" jobs in London?
Who and on what timescale?
In the long term, the "throw the doors wide open" fix was rejected back on June 23rd as you may recall. If we have a shortage of highly skilled people, and I would in part suggest that we are doing a lousy job of putting the right people in the right careers, then we need to educate and train them. That's the real fix, not the Ponzi scheme of endless immigration.
We did not vote to end immigration on 23rd June.
We voted to take back control - so UK voters can in future decide what level of immigration from the EU they want.
We didn't vote to take back control. We voted to leave the EU.
Indeed we did. Then in accordance with our system of government we placed that in the hands of our elected government to enact, if we dont like how they enact it we throw them out and elect someone else. The current government appears to be going for a take back control approach, if you dont like how that works out I am sure one of Messrs Corbyn, Farron or Prof Nuttall KCMG DSO(Bar) would welcome your vote in 2020.
Comments
Stop the War is not about stopping war. They'd love it if Israel got nuked or if someone assassinated Trump for example. Stop the War is really Stop the West. What they really hate is our free market capitalist system, because what socialists crave above all else is to control you and the 'free' bit of free markets precludes that. I believe StW was founded by a certain J Corbyn esq. A man not 100% hostile to liaison with terrorists.
Don, there is every doubt. What on earth are you on?
"A surfeit of lawyers is a sign of a civilization in decline."
(It was written in the card I got from a boyfriend the day I passed my Bar exams. He didn't last.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/10/david-miliband-in-running-for-top-un-development-job
Unsurprising: if you radiate an image that you don't like certain people, they are far more likely to look for other options.
Of course, it could all have gone wrong too, but I doubt it could have gone much more wrong than it did in reality.
The key fact in terms of the consequences of parliament's decision was not military, it was political.
No: wrong country and about 1800 years too early. (Though the idea that lawyers are not universally loved has been around probably for ever. You're all very ungrateful, I must say.)
Lawyers may be prone to producing reams of paper covered in unreadable gobble-de-gook but surely that is a better way of settling things than beating each other senseless ...
He is committed - a good thing. Some of his policies are very popular, so he should be on to a winner. He's right-on, which is popular with many. But ... there's the lurking suspicion that sentiment will always trump reality.
We'll be shouting slogans as we descend into chaos and starvation. At the back of even the most loyal Corbynite is that chilling thought.
Benn Jr and some of the Northern MPs realised that long ago.
Napoleon?
If he withdraws before the closing date for presidential nominations in about a month's time, then there would be replacement chosen by his Party who would probably take most of his support, but other than that, his support is more likely to go to either Le Pen on the far right or to Macron who is more centralist.
The "let's make sure that people we don't like aren't on the ballot" rule is there for a reason, the rationale for which has been amply demonstrated these last 18 months. Labour is currently an irrelevance. It is fortunate for them that no party in England or Wales is yet in a position to capitalise on that fact as the SNP have in Scotland (except the Tories, if May finesses a Spring election - but that'd be a temporary advantage: a centre-right party can't displace a centre-left one from the field). They can't rely on that continuing indefinitely.
However bonkers Corbyn and his cronies are they hardly scratch the surface of the bonkersness of the right-wing fruitcakes
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/25/london-separate-city-state-leave-voters-class
(an article well worth reading by the London seperatist fantasists)
Conference will get its vote in October. Progress is not seeking to stop that. It is seeking to ensure that conference says No. What is your problem with that, Nick? It's called democracy. If the far left can get Corbyn keyboard supporters to actively engage in CLP meetings, then the McDonnell amendment will pass, you will be happy and the Tories will continue to face an incoherent, useless opposition that gives them free licence to do whatever they want.
As is the US state I'm most likely to visit for work purpose is Ohio in the future.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jun/29/facebook-users-emotions-news-feeds
Anyone who isn't very sceptical of what they're being fed is a useful idiot.
https://youtu.be/JhU8wJ3UZww
Are you suggesting compelling people who have already retired to come out of retirement and work as carers ? I'd argue if you paid carers £100k per annum you wouldn't be short of carers but who pays those wages - local authorities can't, the private sector won't.
Equity release already exists though the terms aren't terribly advantageous for the home owner I'm told and the new annuity system means older people can release more of their pension pot in cash to buy that Ferrari they've always wanted or the collection of S K Tremayne books they've always dreamed of passing on to their children ?
The central question remains - how do we ensure we create a society where growing old isn't seen as a curse and older people can live with dignity and as part of an integrated society to which they can contribute (other than by voting Tory at every opportunity) ?
I would nonetheless take issue with the suggestion that the Commons does not benefit from having a goodly number of lawyers in it. As a legislature, good legal minds seem to me to be a key component, regardless of the skill of any advisors available.
Where it doesn't help is in the creation of an effective Executive. But then neither does being a professional politician, whose skill set revolves principally around getting elected (and in particular winning the support of their party machinery). This is where a successful career outside politics matters: it is indicative (though no guarantee) of the professional skills required to run a large organisation well and possibly even get things done.
Lawyers can be useful creatures. But they are all too often their own worst enemy. A good lawyer is a marvel and when you encounter him or her you will be on your knees nightly thanking your God for or hugging yourself with glee at your great good fortune.
Unfortunately, there are not that many of us around. The world - or at least that bit of London I work in - is full of indifferent, self-regarding lawyers who make my inner Jack Cade come to the surface.
Law is the equivalent of plumbing for the middle classes - a mystery to the uninitated, not that difficult to understand if you put the work in, necessary, expensive and leaves shit in its wake when it all goes wrong.
Beside which, you miss the key point. If it doesn't work, the British people will vote for something else to happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkJs-tK2vak
I don't have to like the moral disaster and you don't have to get so upset that your cherished dream might turn out to be a shitshow.
Remove one and things get tighter for the Tories, remove both and I suspect they are out.
In the gossip, Magnussen reckons there'll be more overtaking due to regulation changes. Whilst that is what they're meant to create, we'll see.
Also, a few days ago Vettel had a crash (nothing major, it seems) whilst testing Pirelli's wet tyres. They do need drastically improving from last year, as does the namby-pamby use of the safety car at every opportunity in the wet, which also means the wet tyres have, over recent years, hardly ever been used in anger.
I'll pay attention to the testing mood music but would reiterate that the times really should not be taken seriously. The tyre, fuel load and climatic variance means the times can be (and usually are) very misleading.
Early vague predictions:
Mercedes fastest
Red Bull clear 2nd
Haas to continue to struggle
Sauber to have a small improvement
Renault to improve a little (probably more than Sauber, relatively)
Ferrari to go backwards (losing Allison was not smart)
McLaren to be solid midfield
Toro Rosso likewise
Williams are interesting because they're a bit rubbish at aero (may change with Lowe there, but obviously it'll take time). If they can mend that, they'd be pretty quick.
Force India are hard to tell. They don't have much cash but develop well, and Ocon for Hulkenberg will cost them performance at least early on.
Also, remember that McLaren are tasty in Oz. So, don't take their performance at race one to be indicative of the season.
"...And it’s awesome. Because, finally, the Right has taken Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and shoved it up where #TheResistance don’t shine...
Alinsky’s Rules are relatively simple, and they make sense when you are fighting a conventional opponent with an interest in maintaining the status quo. The Rules are terrific for dealing with an old-school conservative guy who drives a Buick, enjoys gardening, and doesn’t want any trouble. They aren’t so effective against conservative brawlers who like to punch, and who aren’t too fussy about whether it’s with tweets
The Rules are not some magic incantation; they are simply some tactical principles that work in certain kinds of fights against certain kinds of opponents – particularly ones willing to unilaterally disarm in the face of an unprincipled enemy. But once the secret is out, it’s relatively easy to turn them around on an enemy that is so stupid it thinks it’s going to gain widespread acceptance among normal Americans by dressing up as genitalia. That’s why the thirteen classic Alinsky Rules are playing out right now in a way the Left did not expect.
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/02/13/shoving-alinskys-rules-for-radicals-right-back-in-the-lefts-ugly-face-n2284892
Another triumphal surge to -16 % lead over Tories.
Try not to lump what I've said with leavers in general when responding in future, or better still don't respond.
But the left seems utterly lost these days. What is the shining city on a hill that you can point to? Is there a deeply socialist country anywhere (or anywhen) that isn't a repressive cesspit? What is Labour for? Are you able to answer? Is anyone?
We know pretty much what policy measures produce what outcomes. The outcomes that nearly all people desire demand the policies that produce them. But those policies don't accord with lefty theory. The very French objecton of 'yes I know it works in practice but does it work in thoery' is an absolute obstacle to progress. It makes the NHS unreformable for example.
I accept that you think this makes the right arrogant. I think the converse makes the left fanatical. You become like Islam - you know your religion fails but can't bring yourself to accept a better reality. So the policy of the left always reverts to 'more eggs and ham'. Einstein's theory of insanity applies.
Winston Churchill's official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert, speaking of this quote, noted that Churchill actually said, 'Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.' Four years later, during a visit to Australia, Harold Macmillan said the words usually—and wrongly—attributed to Churchill: “Jaw, jaw is better than war, war.” Credit: Harold Macmillan.
http://www.winstonchurchill.org/resources/quotations/135-quotes-falsely-attributed
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/qy62qtdw1z/TimesResults_170206_VI_W.pdf
Con 60%, UKIP 14%, Lab 11%, Lib Dem 9%
Lab in danger of finishing 4th among the segment of the electorate that is most likely to vote.
Take a bow Jeremy Corbyn, take a bow.
Can you name a single British policy that's been affected by his election? To clarify, I mean a policy that wasn't in place before November that's subsequently been introduced and which mirrors Trump's, or which has been modified to match, or which has been scrapped.
I see no evidence whatsoever of a 'love-in' and it's simply wishful thinking to believe that there is one.
And if you think I can distinguish what you, the great and noble @glw says vs anyone else on here, then you have a hugely inflated idea of how important your posts are.
Of course we need to address those things, but poor old Brexit is being loaded with such unrealistic expecations that it is bound to disappoint.
https://pjmedia.com/video/lefty-reporter-jonathan-pie-gets-it-breaks-down-exactly-why-trump-won/
I mean I don't think it is the 1-2 shot that it does that the rest of Betfair does.
But it may well be a classic 'Labour ought to be 1-7, in reality they are more like 5-6, Betfair reckons they're 2-1' with the rest of the market for the Tories.
"It was a big part of the campaign that immigration was out of our control, and May acknowledged that when she took over as PM."
My point was that an extra £350m/week for the NHS was "a big part of the campaign" also, and hence your emphasis on this one particular "big part of the campaign" is irrelevant and mimics what the PB Leavers' braintrust (of which you are in no way a part) want which is that any one particular, and their preferred element of those many different things should override all else.