This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
The Spectator was tipping the future potential of Damian Hinds and Dominic Raab. I also think Jeremy Hunt could benefit from being rotated to a main office of State (for at least a year) to broaden his experience.
I think the Tories will have to go for someone with little experience like Raab or Kwasi if they want to shake things up and have a chance of defeating Corbyn.
Trouble is that will require an election in quick order as the public won't wear being governed by someone little known for very long - But I think an election in 2020 is worth the gamble for the Tories if it means they can bring in a fresh face.
No even I have barely heard of Raab or Kwasi and I am a Tory member they cannot expect to become the PM they would automatically be without having held a senior Cabinet post. Neither have the charisma of Boris either. No Hammond or Davis are the only viable options
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.
As it stands Hammond and Davis are both losers against Corbyn - Neither on them has the remotest chance of winning an election against Jezza.
Boris remains an intriguing possibility. He DOES have the charisma to take on Jezza... But he also has a lot of negatives.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?
Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?
Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?
Yes indeed although of course Corbyn did still lose to May even if not as badly as expected
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Well no, some people may one day want us to go back in, especially if th EU prospers and we drop down to the economic level of Albania. (Venezuala if Corbyn is PM).
And join the Euro, the European army, have a European wide tax system?
It will be (at best) a fringe view within the Tory Party I'd have thought...
People forget that whilst there were risks in LEAVING, REMAINING wasn't risk free either. REJOINING will be even more risky.
A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.
I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question....
Because it's the most salient political issue of this parliament. That you don't wish to hear that the country might have changed its mind is not a particularly good reason for not polling on the issue.
+1 If we followed GIN's logic we shouldn't have had a referendum last year because we already had one in 1975!
For a long time that was exactly the reason the establishment wouldn't allow an EU referendum.
But you can't really compare having a referendum over 30 years ago to trying to re-run a referendum from just one year ago...
Fair point - plus in 1975 it was a ref on the EEC not today's EU. But... at least the 1975 ref gave a clear verdict.
One perennial problem with referenda is the danger of a close result. Do you honestly think that had it been 48/52 the other way the Brexiteers would have shut up?
A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.
I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question....
Because it's the most salient political issue of this parliament. That you don't wish to hear that the country might have changed its mind is not a particularly good reason for not polling on the issue.
+1 If we followed GIN's logic we shouldn't have had a referendum last year because we already had one in 1975!
For a long time that was exactly the reason the establishment wouldn't allow an EU referendum.
But you can't really compare having a referendum over 30 years ago to trying to re-run a referendum from just one year ago...
Maybe the real problem is that referendums are not generally a good way of determining the nature and scope of your main platforms of economic and political policy for the next few generations.
Mr. HYUFD, yes. From a 20 point lead she lost seats and scraped a victory. That's not a model of inspiration, and the Conservatives must not be complacent next time.
Corbyn's a terrible leader, but (aided by an inept Conservative campaign and abetted by a soft-pedalling media) rather better at campaigning.
A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.
I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question.
They should ask, once we've left would you like to rejoin? And also what kind of Brexit people want to see.
We can remain if a party comes to power with a commitment to hold another referendum and the vote is to, er, remain.
I don't think that would be good for the country at the moment, but...if it happened, and we went back in, and they offered us Dave's deal, and of course we didn't need to sign up for Schengen & the Euro...well I might *just* be in favour, and put our economic well-being ahead of the national humiliation we would suffer.
The Spectator was tipping the future potential of Damian Hinds and Dominic Raab. I also think Jeremy Hunt could benefit from being rotated to a main office of State (for at least a year) to broaden his experience.
I think the Tories will have to go for someone with little experience like Raab or Kwasi if they want to shake things up and have a chance of defeating Corbyn.
Trouble is that will require an election in quick order as the public won't wear being governed by someone little known for very long - But I think an election in 2020 is worth the gamble for the Tories if it means they can bring in a fresh face.
No even I have barely heard of Raab or Kwasi and I am a Tory member they cannot expect to become the PM they would automatically be without having held a senior Cabinet post. Neither have the charisma of Boris either. No Hammond or Davis are the only viable options
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.
As it stands Hammond and Davis are both losers against Corbyn - Neither on them has the remotest chance of winning an election against Jezza.
Boris remains an intriguing possibility. He DOES have the charisma to take on Jezza... But he also has a lot of negatives.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?
Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?
Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?
Yes indeed although of course Corbyn did still lose to May even if not as badly as expected
True, but be honest, Hyufd, do you think the outcome would have been essentially the same if the election had been a week later?
I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.
There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.
Presumably neither is the country, on this occasion. Time to stop this foolishness and increase our focus on renewables.
We are focusing on renewables and there were a few times in the last few weeks were most of the country energy needs for the day came from renewables.
However, it does introduce a new kind of risk. A large proportion of the energy came from wind farms and there are times when there is no wind across the whole UK (or not enough wind) for powering wind turbines. Admittedly this only happens for a few days every couple of years, but imagine having only 49% of the needed power capacity for two days.
I can remember the 1970s when the unions used to cut power off at power stations until they got pay rises and we sat in the dark with candles going and used hot water bottles for "central heating" and gas camping stoves for cooking. I can do without reliving those experiences.
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
The Spectator was tipping the future potential of Damian Hinds and Dominic Raab. I also think Jeremy Hunt could benefit from being rotated to a main office of State (for at least a year) to broaden his experience.
I think the Tories will have to go for someone with little experience like Raab or Kwasi if they want to shake things up and have a chance of defeating Corbyn.
Trouble is that will require an election in quick order as the public won't wear being governed by someone little known for very long - But I think an election in 2020 is worth the gamble for the Tories if it means they can bring in a fresh face.
No even I have barely heard of Raab or Kwasi and I am a Tory member they cannot expect to become the PM they would automatically be without having held a senior Cabinet post. Neither have the charisma of Boris either. No Hammond or Davis are the only viable options
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.
As it stands Hammond and Davis are both losers against Corbyn - Neither on them has the remotest chance of winning an election against Jezza.
Boris remains an intriguing possibility. He DOES have the charisma to take on Jezza... But he also has a lot of negatives.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?
Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?
Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?
Yes indeed although of course Corbyn did still lose to May even if not as badly as expected
True, but be honest, Hyufd, do you think the outcome would have been essentially the same if the election had been a week later?
Yes, the anti Corbyn vote is solid at about 41 to 42%. Corbyn has a lot of very passionate supporters but also a large number of voters wouldn't trust him to run a bath. If the Tories scrap the dementia tax, end the public sector pay freeze etc as they are moving towards and do a half sensible Brexit deal they can win next time
Mr. HYUFD, yes. From a 20 point lead she lost seats and scraped a victory. That's not a model of inspiration, and the Conservatives must not be complacent next time.
Corbyn's a terrible leader, but (aided by an inept Conservative campaign and abetted by a soft-pedalling media) rather better at campaigning.
Morris The Daily Mail and Sun hardly soft pedaled on Corbyn My conservative supporting dad had to take all day on pre election day to way through the it all.He knew so much about Corbyn and the dementia tax , he rang me up and said for the first time in his life he was not voting.
Mr. Pointer, the next PM should provide a reason to vote for the Conservatives, not be defined as Not-Corbyn. May tried that to destruction.
Yes - I agree on both points. But there is always an element of a beauty contest - relative charisma often plays a part. I can't think of any election since the 1970s, except possibly 1992, where I would say the more charismatic leader of the two main parties hasn't come out on top. Admittedly sometimes (Wilson Heath) there was next to no charisma on either side.
The logic of this argument leads me to conclude that BoJo is the only choice to succeed May... ...so I hope my argument is flawed somehere along the line!
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
In implementing Basel III, for example, the Commission put forward proposals on the harmonisation of capital requirements throughout the EU. The UK, concerned that this represented a threat to its post financial crisis policy objective of ensuring tougher capital requirements for domestic banks, negotiated a compromise position ensuring that individual member states would be permitted to set higher regulatory capital reserve requirements without prior permission from the EU.
Or
it is in the areas of passporting and non-discriminatory access to markets that the UK has most effectively wielded its influence. Absent from MiFID I, a harmonised third-country access regime was one of the UK’s key policy objectives during legislative negotiations on MiFID II. Proving to be one of the most controversial topics throughout negotiations, a compromise was finally reached which permitted non-EU states partial, reciprocal access based on an affirmative determination by the Commission that their regulatory framework in the provision of financial services was equivalent to EU rules.
Or
Likewise on EMIR, the UK used its influence not only to ensure a framework for third-country market access, but also to ensure non-discriminatory access to clearing houses, following heated debate over the appropriate venue for the clearing of euro-denominated derivatives trading.
Mr. HYUFD, yes. From a 20 point lead she lost seats and scraped a victory. That's not a model of inspiration, and the Conservatives must not be complacent next time.
Corbyn's a terrible leader, but (aided by an inept Conservative campaign and abetted by a soft-pedalling media) rather better at campaigning.
The Tories clearly need to dump the dementia tax etc as they are starting to do but the fact the Tories still won more seats than Corbyn despite his running a far better campaign shows you the reservations swing voters have about voting Labour while he remains leader
I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.
There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.
Presumably neither is the country, on this occasion. Time to stop this foolishness and increase our focus on renewables.
We are focusing on renewables and there were a few times in the last few weeks were most of the country energy needs for the day came from renewables.
However, it does introduce a new kind of risk. A large proportion of the energy came from wind farms and there are times when there is no wind across the whole UK (or not enough wind) for powering wind turbines. Admittedly this only happens for a few days every couple of years, but imagine having only 49% of the needed power capacity for two days.
I can remember the 1970s when the unions used to cut power off at power stations until they got pay rises and we sat in the dark with candles going and used hot water bottles for "central heating" and gas camping stoves for cooking. I can do without reliving those experiences.
In 2000 we had some conservative farmers and hauliers who held the country to ransom to.How the conservatives loved it , until it got out of hand.
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
In implementing Basel III, for example, the Commission put forward proposals on the harmonisation of capital requirements throughout the EU. The UK, concerned that this represented a threat to its post financial crisis policy objective of ensuring tougher capital requirements for domestic banks, negotiated a compromise position ensuring that individual member states would be permitted to set higher regulatory capital reserve requirements without prior permission from the EU.
Or
it is in the areas of passporting and non-discriminatory access to markets that the UK has most effectively wielded its influence. Absent from MiFID I, a harmonised third-country access regime was one of the UK’s key policy objectives during legislative negotiations on MiFID II. Proving to be one of the most controversial topics throughout negotiations, a compromise was finally reached which permitted non-EU states partial, reciprocal access based on an affirmative determination by the Commission that their regulatory framework in the provision of financial services was equivalent to EU rules.
Or
Likewise on EMIR, the UK used its influence not only to ensure a framework for third-country market access, but also to ensure non-discriminatory access to clearing houses, following heated debate over the appropriate venue for the clearing of euro-denominated derivatives trading.
How many more do you want?
I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
I think the Tories will have to go for someone with little experience like Raab or Kwasi if they want to shake things up and have a chance of defeating Corbyn.
Trouble is that will require an election in quick order as the public won't wear being governed by someone little known for very long - But I think an election in 2020 is worth the gamble for the Tories if it means they can bring in a fresh face.
No even I have barely heard of Raab or Kwasi and I am a Tory member they cannot expect to become the PM they would automatically be without having held a senior Cabinet post. Neither have the charisma of Boris either. No Hammond or Davis are the only viable options
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.
As it stands Hammond and Davis are both losers against Corbyn - Neither on them has the remotest chance of winning an election against Jezza.
Boris remains an intriguing possibility. He DOES have the charisma to take on Jezza... But he also has a lot of negatives.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?
Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?
Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?
Yes indeed although of course Corbyn did still lose to May even if not as badly as expected
True, but be honest, Hyufd, do you think the outcome would have been essentially the same if the election had been a week later?
Yes, the anti Corbyn vote is solid at about 41 to 42%. Corbyn has a lot of very passionate supporters but also a large number who wouldn't trust him to run a bath. If the Tories scrap the dementia tax, end the public sector pay freeze etc as they are moving towards and do a half sensible Brexit deal they can win next time
Just look at this graph and tell me that by June 15th we wouldn't have passed crossover point!
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
I think the Tories will have to go for someone with little experience like Raab or Kwasi if they want to shake things up and have a chance of defeating Corbyn.
Trouble is that will require an election in quick order as the public won't wear being governed by someone little known for very long - But I think an election in 2020 is worth the gamble for the Tories if it means they can bring in a fresh face.
No even I have barely heard of Raab or Kwasi and I am a Tory member they cannot expect to become the PM they would automatically be without having held a senior Cabinet post. Neither have the charisma of Boris either. No Hammond or Davis are the only viable options
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time nd Jezza is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?
Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?
Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?
Yes indeed although of course Corbyn did still lose to May even if not as badly as expected
True, but be honest, Hyufd, do you think the outcome would have been essentially the same if the election had been a week later?
Yes, the anti Corbyn vote is solid at about 41 to 42%. Corbyn has a lot of very passionate supporters but also a large number who wouldn't trust him to run a bath. If the Tories scrap the dementia tax, end the public sector pay freeze etc as they are moving towards and do a half sensible Brexit deal they can win next time
Just look at this graph and tell me that by June 15th we wouldn't have passed crossover point!
You wouldn't, the movement to Labour in the final period came almost entirely from the LDs and minor parties not the Tories
I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.
There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.
Presumably neither is the country, on this occasion. Time to stop this foolishness and increase our focus on renewables.
We are focusing on renewables and there were a few times in the last few weeks were most of the country energy needs for the day came from renewables.
However, it does introduce a new kind of risk. A large proportion of the energy came from wind farms and there are times when there is no wind across the whole UK (or not enough wind) for powering wind turbines. Admittedly this only happens for a few days every couple of years, but imagine having only 49% of the needed power capacity for two days.
I can remember the 1970s when the unions used to cut power off at power stations until they got pay rises and we sat in the dark with candles going and used hot water bottles for "central heating" and gas camping stoves for cooking. I can do without reliving those experiences.
Wasn't it the government that imposed power cuts in response to the miners' strike and also (often forgotten) the oil price shock where oil went up 400 per cent and supply was reduced? I don't recall the power workers striking, though I could be wrong as it was a long time ago.
Mr. Pointer, the next PM should provide a reason to vote for the Conservatives, not be defined as Not-Corbyn. May tried that to destruction.
Yes - I agree on both points. But there is always an element of a beauty contest - relative charisma often plays a part. I can't think of any election since the 1970s, except possibly 1992, where I would say the more charismatic leader of the two main parties hasn't come out on top. Admittedly sometimes (Wilson Heath) there was next to no charisma on either side.
The logic of this argument leads me to conclude that BoJo is the only choice to succeed May... ...so I hope my argument is flawed somehere along the line!
Corbyn is not charismatic, he is just a bearded nerd who rants a lot
My preference is the narrow and nerdish definition.
One for Sunil perhaps?
The East London Line was part of the tube network and 15 years ago would certainly have been thought to have been one of the tube lines. By a rebadging after its extension, it became part of the Overground. Not treating it as a tube line would be worse than the decision to demote Pluto from planet status.
The Spectator was tipping the future potential of Damian Hinds and Dominic Raab. I also think Jeremy Hunt could benefit from being rotated to a main office of State (for at least a year) to broaden his experience.
I think the Tories will have to go for someone with little experience like Raab or Kwasi if they want to shake things up and have a chance of defeating Corbyn.
Trouble is that will require an election in quick order as the public won't wear being governed by someone little known for very long - But I think an election in 2020 is worth the gamble for the Tories if it means they can bring in a fresh face.
No even I have barely heard of Raab or Kwasi and I am a Tory member they cannot expect to become the PM they would automatically be without having held a senior Cabinet post. Neither have the charisma of Boris either. No Hammond or Davis are the only viable options
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?
Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?
Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?
Yes indeed although of course Corbyn did still lose to May even if not as badly as expected
True, but be honest, Hyufd, do you think the outcome would have been essentially the same if the election had been a week later?
Yes, the anti Corbyn vote is solid at about 41 to 42%. Corbyn has a lot of very passionate supporters but also a large number of voters wouldn't trust him to run a bath. If the Tories scrap the dementia tax, end the public sector pay freeze etc as they are moving towards and do a half sensible Brexit deal they can win next time
Hmmmm....not sure about that. The vote is always solid, until it melts away.
All the indications are that Corbyn was closing fast and there is no reason to suppose that was about to stop.
A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.
I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question.
They should ask, once we've left would you like to rejoin? And also what kind of Brexit people want to see.
I think the big test for the polls will come in the Autumn as we move into the divorce bill phase of the initial negotiations - we could easily see Remain support hitting over 60% once folks realise there is a real cost to Brexit.
Restating the same question gives a clearer picture of how many people have changed their minds.
You can only start asking the rejoin question once we have left when, of course, the terms of rejoining would be critical. Up to actually leaving nobody knows for certain on what basis we would be allowed to stay in if we changed our mind.
I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.
There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.
Presumably neither is the country, on this occasion. Time to stop this foolishness and increase our focus on renewables.
We are focusing on renewables and there were a few times in the last few weeks were most of the country energy needs for the day came from renewables.
However, it does introduce a new kind of risk. A large proportion of the energy came from wind farms and there are times when there is no wind across the whole UK (or not enough wind) for powering wind turbines. Admittedly this only happens for a few days every couple of years, but imagine having only 49% of the needed power capacity for two days.
I can remember the 1970s when the unions used to cut power off at power stations until they got pay rises and we sat in the dark with candles going and used hot water bottles for "central heating" and gas camping stoves for cooking. I can do without reliving those experiences.
Wasn't it the government that imposed power cuts in response to the miners' strike and also (often forgotten) the oil price shock where oil went up 400 per cent and supply was reduced? I don't recall the power workers striking, though I could be wrong as it was a long time ago.
It was a long time ago and I remember shivering more than whichever hand pulled the Big Red Lever in the power station.
Having said that, here are some memories from the 70s. Enjoy
My preference is the narrow and nerdish definition.
One for Sunil perhaps?
The East London Line was part of the tube network and 15 years ago would certainly have been thought to have been one of the tube lines. By a rebadging after its extension, it became part of the Overground. Not treating it as a tube line would be worse than the decision to demote Pluto from planet status.
I am not at all sure about what has happened to the Circle Line, these past 15 years or so.
The Spectator was tipping the future potential of Damian Hinds and Dominic Raab. I also think Jeremy Hunt could benefit from being rotated to a main office of State (for at least a year) to broaden his experience.
I think the Tories will have to go for someone with little experience like Raab or Kwasi if they want to shake things up and have a chance of defeating Corbyn.
Trouble is that will require an election in quick order as the public won't wear being governed by someone little known for very long - But I think an election in 2020 is worth the gamble for the Tories if it means they can bring in a fresh face.
No even I have barely heard of Raab or Kwasi and I am a Tory member they cannot expect to become the PM they would automatically be without having held a senior Cabinet post. Neither have the charisma of Boris either. No Hammond or Davis are the only viable options
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?
Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?
Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?
Yes indeed although of course Corbyn did still lose to May even if not as badly as expected
True, but be honest, Hyufd, do you think the outcome would have been essentially the same if the election had been a week later?
Yes, the anti Corbyn vote is solid at about 41 to 42%. Corbyn has a lot of very passionate supporters but also a large number of voters wouldn't trust him to me
Hmmmm....not sure about that. The vote is always solid, until it melts away.
All the indications are that Corbyn was closing fast and there is no reason to suppose that was about to stop.
Nope even now Survation (the most accurate election pollster) has the Tories on 41%. In 1987 the Tories got 42% against Kinnock in 1992 41% against Kinnock in 1997 31% against Blair. Spot the difference?
I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.
There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.
Presumably neither is the country, on this occasion. Time to stop this foolishness and increase our focus on renewables.
We are focusing on renewables and there were a few times in the last few weeks were most of the country energy needs for the day came from renewables.
However, it does introduce a new kind of risk. A large proportion of the energy came from wind farms and there are times when there is no wind across the whole UK (or not enough wind) for powering wind turbines. Admittedly this only happens for a few days every couple of years, but imagine having only 49% of the needed power capacity for two days.
I can remember the 1970s when the unions used to cut power off at power stations until they got pay rises and we sat in the dark with candles going and used hot water bottles for "central heating" and gas camping stoves for cooking. I can do without reliving those experiences.
Fair point, but we would do better to spend the £20bn on developing ways to store and re-use energy e.g. through Pumped-storage hydroelectricity etc.
Re the 70's I was there too with my powercut rota... my recollection is that it was Heath's* inept goverment that caused that - it's all in the eye of the beholder!
(*Although I still have arguments from time to time with people who think that the 3-day-week was under Wilson/Callaghan!)
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
I
I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.
Also, the idea that the Tories can simply change leader and press reset is delusional...the Tory brand is trashed again for a good decade, and maybe longer.
My preference is the narrow and nerdish definition.
One for Sunil perhaps?
The East London Line was part of the tube network and 15 years ago would certainly have been thought to have been one of the tube lines. By a rebadging after its extension, it became part of the Overground. Not treating it as a tube line would be worse than the decision to demote Pluto from planet status.
I refuse to recognise the tube since the Circle Line stopped being a circle.
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
I
I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.
Yep - at least we will be taking back control of our own descent into abject poverty and 3rd world status! ('We' being politicians and bureaucrats in Westiminster rather than politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels, which will make it all feel much better I am sure!)
A comically over-optimistic and confident timeframe, which reminds me of the tory overconfidence about how rapidly the Brexit talks will proceed.
Meanwhile Survation, the new gold standard, are pointing to ever more increasingly clear majorities in favour of remain. If it's 54% now, and the economy continues to show weaker performance, it may be 64% by this time next year.
We can't remain because we've had a referendum and it was decided by the country that we're leaving.
I don't know why these pollsters are even asking the old remain/leave question....
Because it's the most salient political issue of this parliament. That you don't wish to hear that the country might have changed its mind is not a particularly good reason for not polling on the issue.
There are more relevant ways you can get that across though.
You could ask, for example;
After the referendum we're leaving the European Union. Do you think this is the right decision? Etc.
I just think asking the old Remain/Leave question a year after we voted to leave is odd.
But pollsters haven't 'just asked' that. Only a couple of days back we saw a survey on what people would be prepared to pay to retain the benefits of EU citizenship.
You might like neither the questions nor the answers. Feel free to pose your own.
Also, the idea that the Tories can simply change leader and press reset is delusional...the Tory brand is trashed again for a good decade, and maybe longer.
The Tory brand which won 42% against Corbyn, the highest it has got since 1987? That Tory brand you mean?
My preference is the narrow and nerdish definition.
One for Sunil perhaps?
The East London Line was part of the tube network and 15 years ago would certainly have been thought to have been one of the tube lines. By a rebadging after its extension, it became part of the Overground. Not treating it as a tube line would be worse than the decision to demote Pluto from planet status.
I refuse to recognise the tube since the Circle Line stopped being a circle.
Ok the Circle line is not a circle but at least the Northern line is the most... er, southerly.
I might have to finish my Times subscription......I cannot cope with the endless stories about the machinations of the Tory leadership. I stopped subscribing to the Guardian because the Corbyn/Blairite stuff got boring and repetitive....
These Tories are really horrible to each other and care far more for their ridiculous egos than they could ever care for the national interest....
I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.
There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.
Presumably neither is the country, on this occasion. Time to stop this foolishness and increase our focus on renewables.
We are focusing on renewables and there were a few times in the last few weeks were most of the country energy needs for the day came from renewables.
However, it does introduce a new kind of risk. A large proportion of the energy came from wind farms and there are times when there is no wind across the whole UK (or not enough wind) for powering wind turbines. Admittedly this only happens for a few days every couple of years, but imagine having only 49% of the needed power capacity for two days.
I can remember the 1970s when the unions used to cut power off at power stations until they got pay rises and we sat in the dark with candles going and used hot water bottles for "central heating" and gas camping stoves for cooking. I can do without reliving those experiences.
Fair point, but we would do better to spend the £20bn on developing ways to store and re-use energy e.g. through Pumped-storage hydroelectricity etc.
I did look into this some years ago and came to the conclusion that we would be better off with tidal generation than pumped storage. Someone did the calculations and we lack enough "storage space" in our hills. Direct tidal generation, river barriers and tidal pools offered more possibilities and are predictable and reliable.
Re the 70's I was there too with my powercut rota... my recollection is that it was Heath's* inept goverment that caused that - it's all in the eye of the beholder!
(*Although I still have arguments from time to time with people who think that the 3-day-week was under Wilson/Callaghan!)
My father was self-employed and I was at school at the time so my memories of the 3 day week are vague at best. I will never forget the power cuts or having to wait 6 months for BT to install our first phone. Ours was NOT a shared line and we felt like Gods and stared at it wondering who we could phone (and whether we could afford the call)
Mr. Pointer, the next PM should provide a reason to vote for the Conservatives, not be defined as Not-Corbyn. May tried that to destruction.
Yes - I agree on both points. But there is always an element of a beauty contest - relative charisma often plays a part. I can't think of any election since the 1970s, except possibly 1992, where I would say the more charismatic leader of the two main parties hasn't come out on top. Admittedly sometimes (Wilson Heath) there was next to no charisma on either side.
The logic of this argument leads me to conclude that BoJo is the only choice to succeed May... ...so I hope my argument is flawed somehere along the line!
Why limit yourself to the 70s, Mr.D ? Attlee/Churchill is an interesting instance.
And charisma is all very well, but if other positive qualities (judgment, for example) are entirely and obviously absent...
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
I
I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.
Yep - at least we will be taking back control of our own descent into abject poverty and 3rd world status! ('We' being politicians and bureaucrats in Westiminster rather than politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels, which will make it all feel much better I am sure!)
Yeah but those who get tumescent when whining about Jonnny Foreigner will be happy.
Mr. Pointer, the next PM should provide a reason to vote for the Conservatives, not be defined as Not-Corbyn. May tried that to destruction.
Yes - I agree on both points. But there is always an element of a beauty contest - relative charisma often plays a part. I can't think of any election since the 1970s, except possibly 1992, where I would say the more charismatic leader of the two main parties hasn't come out on top. Admittedly sometimes (Wilson Heath) there was next to no charisma on either side.
The logic of this argument leads me to conclude that BoJo is the only choice to succeed May... ...so I hope my argument is flawed somehere along the line!
Corbyn is not charismatic, he is just a bearded nerd who rants a lot
I might have to finish my Times subscription......I cannot cope with the endless stories about the machinations of the Tory leadership. I stopped subscribing to the Guardian because the Corbyn/Blairite stuff got boring and repetitive....
These Tories are really horrible to each other and care far more for their ridiculous egos than they could ever care for the national interest....
How do you stop subscribing to the Guardian? Not pay the voluntary 1.4x coffee per month donation?
Boris Johnson will be Tory leader and PM by the Tory party conference in October 2017 ! Michael Gove will be Chancellor, with Hammond sent to the back benches. Both of these are already in campaigning mode.
Theresa May does not have 100% support of her cabinet and will decide that the longer she stays the more damage will be done. Most senior Tories will be thinking the same and the sooner a new leader takes over, the more chance the Tories have of securing Brexit and winning the next election.
Gove wouldn't be credible given some of his previous comments
If Gove ever made it to leader his honeymoon would end whilst he still had his clothes on.
I agree.
The only thing less credible is @Richard_H suggestion of Gove as #2 to Boris...
If I were to be provocative, I'd say Gove/Boris both regret how they behaved last year and think they'd have done a better job than May had they stuck together and won.
That may be influencing their behaviour today, because it looks like they're at least starting to bury the hatchet.
Once said, it can not be unsaid.
This is true, but Boris and Gove may have concluded that they both had a point about one another.
Politicians say ghastly things about each other all the time. If you were a political journalist, you'd be forgiven for thinking everyone in the cabinet/shadow cabinet hated everyone else.
Yes but "unfit to be Prime Minister but I'm willing to serve under him" ain't going to fly
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?
Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?
Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?
Yes indeed although of course Corbyn did still lose to May even if not as badly as expected
True, but be honest, Hyufd, do you think the outcome would have been essentially the same if the election had been a week later?
Yes, next time
Hmmmm....not sure about that. The vote is always solid, until it melts away.
All the indications are that Corbyn was closing fast and there is no reason to suppose that was about to stop.
The Labour left, which now controls the party, has made absolutely clear it does not want anti-Tory, anti-Brexit votes - only socialist ones. It has decided that this is what Labour got last month and has rejected centrists and moderates as a result. Their support is not needed. Thus, Labour will present a much more redistributive, anti-market manifesto to voters when the next election takes place. If the Tories have not made a complete pig's ear of Brexit - which I concede is a very big if given their current shambolic approach - they should approach the next election with a fair degree of confidence. They do have a major talent problem, though.
My preference is the narrow and nerdish definition.
One for Sunil perhaps?
I would say that there are seven tube lines: Bakerloo, Central, Jubilee, Northern, Piccadilly, Victoria and Waterloo & City.
The Met, H&S, Circle and District lines are underground railways.
And what was the East London Line is now fully absorbed into the London Overground network which is very much a railway rather than a light rail system.
I have very fond earlier memories of the three day week.....the candles coming out felt like camping, and it was wonderful having my dad at home....it was the only time I remember seeing him because he was working all the time....
Everyone had sod all then...I lived on hand me downs and a bag of crips was a treat....
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
I
I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.
Yep - at least we will be taking back control of our own descent into abject poverty and 3rd world status! ('We' being politicians and bureaucrats in Westiminster rather than politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels, which will make it all feel much better I am sure!)
Yeah but those who get tumescent when whining about Jonnny Foreigner will be happy.
They'll find someone else to blame for our self-inflicted troubles... the media, bankers, the Chinese, the Yanks, benefits scroungers, anyone!
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
I
I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.
that would be the sector that crashed the economy and had the biggest bail out ever ?
the sector everyone agrees is too big and distorts the economy ?
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
I
I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.
that would be the sector that crashed the economy and had the biggest bail out ever ?
the sector everyone agrees is too big and distorts the economy ?
The sector didn't crash the economy. You did. With all your borrowing and HD TVs and new Audis on the never never and your self-certifying mortgages.
I might have to finish my Times subscription......I cannot cope with the endless stories about the machinations of the Tory leadership. I stopped subscribing to the Guardian because the Corbyn/Blairite stuff got boring and repetitive....
These Tories are really horrible to each other and care far more for their ridiculous egos than they could ever care for the national interest....
How do you stop subscribing to the Guardian? Not pay the voluntary 1.4x coffee per month donation?
I had the Guardian on my kindle for 9.99 a month....
To be honest I think I still pay it, but I get the Times delivered everyday now. I subscribe to the NY Times too
Mr. Pointer, the next PM should provide a reason to vote for the Conservatives, not be defined as Not-Corbyn. May tried that to destruction.
Yes - I agree on both points. But there is always an element of a beauty contest - relative charisma often plays a part. I can't think of any election since the 1970s, except possibly 1992, where I would say the more charismatic leader of the two main parties hasn't come out on top. Admittedly sometimes (Wilson Heath) there was next to no charisma on either side.
The logic of this argument leads me to conclude that BoJo is the only choice to succeed May... ...so I hope my argument is flawed somehere along the line!
Corbyn is not charismatic, he is just a bearded nerd who rants a lot
Relative to May or Hammond he is.
Dull Tory can beat left-wing ranter see Major v Kinnock but not charismatic moderate see Major v Blair
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
I
I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.
that would be the sector that crashed the economy and had the biggest bail out ever ?
the sector everyone agrees is too big and distorts the economy ?
The sector didn't crash the economy. You did. With all your borrowing and HD TVs and new Audis on the never never and your self-certifying mortgages.
lol
during the boom years I saved
but its always fun to watch the finance guys claim it's people fault and they never went a bit off the rails themselves
I wonder what all those billions of fines were for ?
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
I
I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.
that would be the sector that crashed the economy and had the biggest bail out ever ?
the sector everyone agrees is too big and distorts the economy ?
The financial services sector is more than the banks, I believe Lloyds-HBOS have repaid their loans.
I wish you, like the SWP, would come up with decent ideas of growing the economy instead of castrating/reducing the financial services sector.
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?
Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?
Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?
Yes indeed although of course Corbyn did still lose to May even if not as badly as expected
True, but be honest, Hyufd, do you think the outcome would have been essentially the same if the election had been a week later?
Yes, next time
Hmmmm....not sure about that. The vote is always solid, until it melts away.
All the indications are that Corbyn was closing fast and there is no reason to suppose that was about to stop.
The Labour left, which now controls the party, has made absolutely clear it does not want anti-Tory, anti-Brexit votes - only socialist ones. It has decided that this is what Labour got last month and has rejected centrists and moderates as a result. Their support is not needed. Thus, Labour will present a much more redistributive, anti-market manifesto to voters when the next election takes place. If the Tories have not made a complete pig's ear of Brexit - which I concede is a very big if given their current shambolic approach - they should approach the next election with a fair degree of confidence. They do have a major talent problem, though.
I might have to finish my Times subscription......I cannot cope with the endless stories about the machinations of the Tory leadership. I stopped subscribing to the Guardian because the Corbyn/Blairite stuff got boring and repetitive....
These Tories are really horrible to each other and care far more for their ridiculous egos than they could ever care for the national interest....
How do you stop subscribing to the Guardian? Not pay the voluntary 1.4x coffee per month donation?
I had the Guardian on my kindle for 9.99 a month....
To be honest I think I still pay it, but I get the Times delivered everyday now. I subscribe to the NY Times too
Mr. City, true, I meant the broadcast media rather than print.
Mr. Eagles, it's damning with faint praise to claim a diplomatic triumph for Britain when we're given permission to actually have proper financial regulations that are stricter than an EU minimum. Such power. Such influence.
There are some genuine positives to being in the EU (economic, essentially). The mighty ability to sometimes have some influence over our own regulation is not one of them.
I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.
There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.
Presumably neither is the country, on this occasion. Time to stop this foolishness and increase our focus on renewables.
We are focusing on renewables and there were a few times in the last few weeks were most of the country energy needs for the day came from renewables.
I can remember the 1970s when the unions used to cut power off at power stations until they got pay rises and we sat in the dark with candles going and used hot water bottles for "central heating" and gas camping stoves for cooking. I can do without reliving those experiences.
Fair point, but we would do better to spend the £20bn on developing ways to store and re-use energy e.g. through Pumped-storage hydroelectricity etc.
I did look into this some years ago and came to the conclusion that we would be better off with tidal generation than pumped storage. Someone did the calculations and we lack enough "storage space" in our hills. Direct tidal generation, river barriers and tidal pools offered more possibilities and are predictable and reliable.
Re the 70's I was there too with my powercut rota... my recollection is that it was Heath's* inept goverment that caused that - it's all in the eye of the beholder!
(*Although I still have arguments from time to time with people who think that the 3-day-week was under Wilson/Callaghan!)
My father was self-employed and I was at school at the time so my memories of the 3 day week are vague at best. I will never forget the power cuts or having to wait 6 months for BT to install our first phone. Ours was NOT a shared line and we felt like Gods and stared at it wondering who we could phone (and whether we could afford the call)
I remember homework by candlelight. And it was the Post Office the ran the telephone network in the 70s - BT didn't come into being until 1981.
The Tories desperately need to reclaim the centre ground. Theresa's problem was that she was terrified that Jacob Rees-Mogg would defect to UKIP and so created an entire electoral strategy around aping Farage. This was as foolish as it was short sighted - the Kippers all voted for Corbyn anyway. Why a 'conservative' party thinks there's any benefit in mimicking Corbyn, UKIP and other manifestations of the far Left is beyond me. The Tories need to rediscover their purpose. The far Left is a crowded field and the Tories should just let UKIP, Corbyn and the Greens fight it out.
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
I
I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.
Yep - at least we will be taking back control of our own descent into abject poverty and 3rd world status! ('We' being politicians and bureaucrats in Westiminster rather than politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels, which will make it all feel much better I am sure!)
Go to places like Barking... it feels like the 3rd World, & many are living in abject poverty to be able to fund the lifestyles of Westminster politicians and the like
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?
Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?
Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?
Yes indeed although of course Corbyn did still lose to May even if not as badly as expected
True, but be honest, Hyufd, do you think the outcome would have been essentially the same if the election had been a week later?
Yes, next time
Hmmmm....not sure about that. The vote is always solid, until it melts away.
All the indications are that Corbyn was closing fast and there is no reason to suppose that was about to stop.
The Labour left, which now controls the party, has made absolutely clear it does not want anti-Tory, anti-Brexit votes - only socialist ones. It has decided that this is what Labour got last month and has rejected centrists and moderates as a result. Their support is not needed. Thus, Labour will present a much more redistributive, anti-market manifesto to voters when the next election takes place. If the Tories have not made a complete pig's ear of Brexit - which I concede is a very big if given their current shambolic approach - they should approach the next election with a fair degree of confidence. They do have a major talent problem, though.
I think the only thing that will now stop Labour heading into power is replacing Corbyn with Abbott....
Whether you like it or not Brexit is driving the country in one direction....into the path of left wing populists....
Mr. City, true, I meant the broadcast media rather than print.
Mr. Eagles, it's damning with faint praise to claim a diplomatic triumph for Britain when we're given permission to actually have proper financial regulations that are stricter than an EU minimum. Such power. Such influence.
There are some genuine positives to being in the EU (economic, essentially). The mighty ability to sometimes have some influence over our own regulation is not one of them.
You don't work in the financial services industry do you?
As I explained with clearing a few weeks ago, it is likely very possible that a UK institution, post Brexit, could accidentally bring to its knees a Eurozone institution.
"Detectives believe the weapons had been smuggled from eastern Europe to be sold to organised crime gangs in London. Two men Janusz Michek, 59, a Polish national, who was arrested at the scene, and Denis Kolencukov, 23, originally from the Czech Republic but living in Slough, were charged with conspiracy to possess firearms."
This is exactly what I heard time and again the last time I was in China. The UK is a decent market, but on its own not one that is really worth a great deal of time and investment. Trump is driving the Chinese to the Europeans, while also giving them a big leadership role in Asia. Outside the EU if we want to trade with the Chinese it will be on the terms they set. Though, to be fair, that also applies to all other major and fast-growing economies.
I might have to finish my Times subscription......I cannot cope with the endless stories about the machinations of the Tory leadership. I stopped subscribing to the Guardian because the Corbyn/Blairite stuff got boring and repetitive....
These Tories are really horrible to each other and care far more for their ridiculous egos than they could ever care for the national interest....
How do you stop subscribing to the Guardian? Not pay the voluntary 1.4x coffee per month donation?
I had the Guardian on my kindle for 9.99 a month....
To be honest I think I still pay it, but I get the Times delivered everyday now. I subscribe to the NY Times too
Murdoch lackey
I know...and I subscribe to SkySports too...the deal with the devil....
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
I
I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.
that would be the sector that crashed the economy and had the biggest bail out ever ?
the sector everyone agrees is too big and distorts the economy ?
The financial services sector is more than the banks, I believe Lloyds-HBOS have repaid their loans.
I wish you, like the SWP, would come up with decent ideas of growing the economy instead of castrating/reducing the financial services sector.
Try housebuilding theres a start, were a bit short of them
and then some decent infrastructure like a sensible motorway networks and rail
and decent broadband
we could also revitalise manufacturing and onshore more of the stuff we need to cut our horrendous trade deficit
develop a few IT hubs to help pay our way and pump some cash into materials research and area were ratrher good at
there that should start you
however as the Bob Crow of the financial sector that might confuse you
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?
Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?
Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?
Yes indeed although of course Corbyn did still lose to May even if not as badly as expected
True, but be honest, Hyufd, do you think the outcome would have been essentially the same if the election had been a week later?
Yes, next time
Hmmmm....not sure about that. The vote is always solid, until it melts away.
All the indications are that Corbyn was closing fast and there is no reason to suppose that was about to stop.
The Labour left, which now controls the party, has made absolutely clear it does not want anti-Tory, anti-Brexit votes - only socialist ones. It has decided that this is what Labour got last month and has rejected centrists and moderates as a result. Their support is not needed. Thus, Labour will present a much more redistributive, anti-market manifesto to voters when the next election takes place. If the Tories have not made a complete pig's ear of Brexit - which I concede is a very big if given their current shambolic approach - they should approach the next election with a fair degree of confidence. They do have a major talent problem, though.
I think the only thing that will now stop Labour heading into power is replacing Corbyn with Abbott....
Whether you like it or not Brexit is driving the country in one direction....into the path of left wing populists....
No Corbyn is the same anti austerity anti financial sector figure as Melenchon and Sanders, Brexit was anti immigration and pro sovereignty and Corbyn was indifferent to it
I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.
There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.
Presumably neither is the country, on this occasion. Time to stop this foolishness and increase our focus on renewables.
We are focusing on renewables and there were a few times in the last few weeks were most of the country energy needs for the day came from renewables.
However, it does introduce a new kind of risk. A large proportion of the energy came from wind farms and there are times when there is no wind across the whole UK (or not enough wind) for powering wind turbines. Admittedly this only happens for a few days every couple of years, but imagine having only 49% of the needed power capacity for two days.
I can remember the 1970s when the unions used to cut power off at power stations until they got pay rises and we sat in the dark with candles going and used hot water bottles for "central heating" and gas camping stoves for cooking. I can do without reliving those experiences.
Fair point, but we would do better to spend the £20bn on developing ways to store and re-use energy e.g. through Pumped-storage hydroelectricity etc.
I did look into this some years ago and came to the conclusion that we would be better off with tidal generation than pumped storage. Someone did the calculations and we lack enough "storage space" in our hills. Direct tidal generation, river barriers and tidal pools offered more possibilities and are predictable and reliable.
Gas plus wind plus imported energy is the here and now answer. Because gas plants are cheap to install and economically viable when used intermittently you can still reduce overall greenhouse emissions. Nuclear power is inflexible, expensive and risky. You can make a case with one of those disadvantages, but not two, let alone three.
The Tories desperately need to reclaim the centre ground. Theresa's problem was that she was terrified that Jacob Rees-Mogg would defect to UKIP and so created an entire electoral strategy around aping Farage. This was as foolish as it was short sighted - the Kippers all voted for Corbyn anyway. Why a 'conservative' party thinks there's any benefit in mimicking Corbyn, UKIP and other manifestations of the far Left is beyond me. The Tories need to rediscover their purpose. The far Left is a crowded field and the Tories should just let UKIP, Corbyn and the Greens fight it out.
The Conservatives are depressingly centre ground right now.
Brexit was forced upon them so that doesn't count. They've dropped any truly radical policies - sorting out long term healthcare, grammar schools etc. I can't think of a single strong initiative.
Reclaim the centre ground? You can't be serious. They've built a huge ugly multi-storey car park in the middle of the centre ground for all their broken tanks.
I assume EDF will take the hit with this. After all it is what privatisation is all about, putting the risk (And rewards) to the private sector.
There is a difference between an estimate and a quote. When a business gives a quote for work it is (generally) a guaranteed price. An estimate is a guess that may bear no relation to the finished cost. Businesses are not bound by estimates.
Presumably neither is the country, on this occasion. Time to stop this foolishness and increase our focus on renewables.
We are focusing on renewables and there were a few times in the last few weeks were most of the country energy needs for the day came from renewables.
However, it does introduce a new kind of risk. A large proportion of the energy came from wind farms and there are times when there is no wind across the whole UK (or not enough wind) for powering wind turbines. Admittedly this only happens for a few days every couple of years, but imagine having only 49% of the needed power capacity for two days.
I can remember the 1970s when the unions used to cut power off at power stations until they got pay rises and we sat in the dark with candles going and used hot water bottles for "central heating" and gas camping stoves for cooking. I can do without reliving those experiences.
Wasn't it the government that imposed power cuts in response to the miners' strike and also (often forgotten) the oil price shock where oil went up 400 per cent and supply was reduced? I don't recall the power workers striking, though I could be wrong as it was a long time ago.
I have very fond earlier memories of the three day week.....the candles coming out felt like camping, and it was wonderful having my dad at home....it was the only time I remember seeing him because he was working all the time....
Everyone had sod all then...I lived on hand me downs and a bag of crips was a treat....
Heath was not popular with many regarding making the TV broadcasters shut down at 1030 pm.
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
I
I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.
that would be the sector that crashed the economy and had the biggest bail out ever ?
the sector everyone agrees is too big and distorts the economy ?
The sector didn't crash the economy. You did. With all your borrowing and HD TVs and new Audis on the never never and your self-certifying mortgages.
lol
during the boom years I saved
but its always fun to watch the finance guys claim it's people fault and they never went a bit off the rails themselves
I wonder what all those billions of fines were for ?
Look on it as a tripartite arrangement. The bankers were wrong, the governments were wrong, and you, sunshine, although not you personally who put money into a leaky roof fund, but otherwise, generally, for normal people, you were wrong.
All three elements.
And it's difficult to put people in jail for bad business strategy although some of the mortgage bundling was definitely on the borderline, most fines were for fraud relating to TARP funds.
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
I
I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.
Yep - at least we will be taking back control of our own descent into abject poverty and 3rd world status! ('We' being politicians and bureaucrats in Westiminster rather than politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels, which will make it all feel much better I am sure!)
Go to places like Barking... it feels like the 3rd World, & many are living in abject poverty to be able to fund the lifestyles of Westminster politicians and the like
The Tories desperately need to reclaim the centre ground. Theresa's problem was that she was terrified that Jacob Rees-Mogg would defect to UKIP and so created an entire electoral strategy around aping Farage. This was as foolish as it was short sighted - the Kippers all voted for Corbyn anyway. Why a 'conservative' party thinks there's any benefit in mimicking Corbyn, UKIP and other manifestations of the far Left is beyond me. The Tories need to rediscover their purpose. The far Left is a crowded field and the Tories should just let UKIP, Corbyn and the Greens fight it out.
I think Kippers from 2015 split about 60/40 in favour of the Conservatives/Labour. That was certainly closer than expected. The Conservatives' manifesto was mainly centrist, albeit dismal.
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
I
I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.
that would be the sector that crashed the economy and had the biggest bail out ever ?
the sector everyone agrees is too big and distorts the economy ?
The sector didn't crash the economy. You did. With all your borrowing and HD TVs and new Audis on the never never and your self-certifying mortgages.
lol
during the boom years I saved
but its always fun to watch the finance guys claim it's people fault and they never went a bit off the rails themselves
I wonder what all those billions of fines were for ?
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
Nope. Of all the false premises behind Brexit, that's the biggest one. The EU will dominate the political life of the country after exit in a way it never did while we were members. And not in a good way.
Indeed. It will still be a huge market whose standards and rules we will have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
I
I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
It's only the financial services sector, only represents 10% of GDP, nothing to worry about, Leavers will tell us that sovereignty will make up for all those lost tax revenues.
Yep - at least we will be taking back control of our own descent into abject poverty and 3rd world status! ('We' being politicians and bureaucrats in Westiminster rather than politicians and bureaucrats in Brussels, which will make it all feel much better I am sure!)
Go to places like Barking... it feels like the 3rd World, & many are living in abject poverty to be able to fund the lifestyles of Westminster politicians and the like
Barking is a very odd place. Redevelopment seems to have moved the town centre to the west. My impression last time I was there after a long period away was that you could do a lot of walking without appearing to get anywhere. Even its posh streets now look shabby. Most of the jobs in Dagenham (not just Ford) have gone.
This obsession with the EU is the reason why every Conservative leader for decades to come will continue to fail abjectly. It's not going to go away.
Once we've left doesn't that bring matters to a close once and for all?
have no ability to influence. Yet, in order to gain access to their market, we will have to follow and implement their rules.
Please gibe lots of examples of how we were able to influence standards and rules as members.
I
I mean fair enough to say that fat-cat bankers are leeches and should be expelled from our lives and the less influence they have the better.
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
tax revenues.
that would be the sector that crashed the economy and had the biggest bail out ever ?
the sector everyone agrees is too big and distorts the economy ?
The sector didn't crash the economy. You did. With all your borrowing and HD TVs and new Audis on the never never and your self-certifying mortgages.
lol
during the boom years I saved
but its always fun to watch the finance guys claim it's people fault and they never went a bit off the rails themselves
I wonder what all those billions of fines were for ?
Look on it as a tripartite arrangement. The bankers were wrong, the governments were wrong, and you, sunshine, although not you personally who put money into a leaky roof fund, but otherwise, generally, for normal people, you were wrong.
All three elements.
And it's difficult to put people in jail for bad business strategy although some of the mortgage bundling was definitely on the borderline, most fines were for fraud relating to TARP funds.
we'll of course Im glad you recognise my upbeat sunshiny nature, but lets face it if the brakes were taken off , the financial services sector today would just go off and do it all over again
By Gove and Johnson campaigning to give pay increases to the public sector weakens the Chancellrs negotiating position - and ai at time when the country has a massive deficit.
There is no money left. How many public sector workers will need to be sacked to pay for the increased salaries of those remaining?
Admittedly we need improved productivity in public and private sectors. But pay rises should follow increased productivity - not whim.
By Gove and Johnson campaigning to give pay increases to the public sector weakens the Chancellrs negotiating position - and ai at time when the country has a massive deficit.
There is no money left. How many public sector workers will need to be sacked to pay for the increased salaries of those remaining?
Admittedly we need improved productivity in public and private sectors. But pay rises should follow increased productivity - not whim.
Improving public finances probably give the government some room for manouvere.
By Gove and Johnson campaigning to give pay increases to the public sector weakens the Chancellrs negotiating position - and ai at time when the country has a massive deficit.
There is no money left. How many public sector workers will need to be sacked to pay for the increased salaries of those remaining?
Admittedly we need improved productivity in public and private sectors. But pay rises should follow increased productivity - not whim.
Public sector pay could at least rise in line with average pay even if not in line with inflation after years of public sector pay caps
The Tories desperately need to reclaim the centre ground. Theresa's problem was that she was terrified that Jacob Rees-Mogg would defect to UKIP and so created an entire electoral strategy around aping Farage. This was as foolish as it was short sighted - the Kippers all voted for Corbyn anyway. Why a 'conservative' party thinks there's any benefit in mimicking Corbyn, UKIP and other manifestations of the far Left is beyond me. The Tories need to rediscover their purpose. The far Left is a crowded field and the Tories should just let UKIP, Corbyn and the Greens fight it out.
The Conservatives are depressingly centre ground right now.
Brexit was forced upon them so that doesn't count. They've dropped any truly radical policies - sorting out long term healthcare, grammar schools etc. I can't think of a single strong initiative.
Reclaim the centre ground? You can't be serious. They've built a huge ugly multi-storey car park in the middle of the centre ground for all their broken tanks.
Maybe they could get more radical if the conservative membership had some influence.At the moment they are twisting and turning to whatever the current leadership says , which changes daily including Milliband ideas and even parts of Corbyn agenda.Surely they have some think tanks of their own .They are the most pragmatic successful party but to be a member must be more like religious faith.
Mr. HYUFD, I'd have more sympathy with that line on pay if the public sector had pay cuts when the private sector does, or had comparable pensions and job security.
I'm not saying a pay rise above 1% (on average, across the board) is necessarily the wrong move, just responding to the suggestion public sector pay should rise with private sector pay.
By Gove and Johnson campaigning to give pay increases to the public sector weakens the Chancellrs negotiating position - and ai at time when the country has a massive deficit.
There is no money left. How many public sector workers will need to be sacked to pay for the increased salaries of those remaining?
Admittedly we need improved productivity in public and private sectors. But pay rises should follow increased productivity - not whim.
Public sector pay could at least rise in line with average pay even if not in line with inflation after years of public sector pay caps
Pay rises can only be justified by increased performance. This might be better quality of work, wider skills or improved productivity but not just because of inflation or somebody else's pay increase umless necessary because of market forces.
By Gove and Johnson campaigning to give pay increases to the public sector weakens the Chancellrs negotiating position - and ai at time when the country has a massive deficit.
There is no money left. How many public sector workers will need to be sacked to pay for the increased salaries of those remaining?
Admittedly we need improved productivity in public and private sectors. But pay rises should follow increased productivity - not whim.
Improving public finances probably give the government some room for manouvere.
You would assume there will be a cabinet reshuffle in the next few months that will promote some fresh faces to the cabinet in time for the 2019 leadership election.
The only way they'll stop Corbyn is to do something surprising and try to shake up the narrative (which is that Con are on their way "out" and Jezza is on his way "in")
Why are Hammond and Davis automatic losers against Corbyn? The latest Survation has the Tories back in the lead against Labour
And where does all thsi 'automatic loser' stuff come from anyway?
Wasn't Corbyn thought to be an automatic loser against May, (and just about everybody else too)?
Go on, give it a whirl. What have you got to lose?
Yes indeed although of course Corbyn did still lose to May even if not as badly as expected
True, but be honest, Hyufd, do you think the outcome would have been essentially the same if the election had been a week later?
Yes, next time
Hmmmm....not sure about that. The vote is always solid, until it melts away.
All the indications are that Corbyn was closing fast and there is no reason to suppose that was about to stop.
The talent problem, though.
I think the only thing that will now stop Labour heading into power is replacing Corbyn with Abbott....
Whether you like it or not Brexit is driving the country in one direction....into the path of left wing populists....
Given the absolute shambles the government is making of Brexit and the paucity of Tory talent out there (Raab, really??), it is a possibility. But I am afraid I struggle with the idea that if the Tories get their act together constituencies that voted Tory in 2015 and 2017 are suddenly going to embrace the kind of populist socialism advocated by those who now control the Labour party. This country has never swung behind the left in that way before. The utter uselessness of Boris & co might persuade it to, but I am far from convinced.
@matt_dathan: The latest Labour reshuffle is about to start. Several junior ministerial jobs vacant, especially in the home affairs team. Fire up Google..
Given the absolute shambles the government is making of Brexit and the paucity of Tory talent out there (Raab, really??), it is a possibility. But I am afraid I struggle with the idea that if the Tories get their act together constituencies that voted Tory in 2015 and 2017 are suddenly going to embrace the kind of populist socialism advocated by those who now control the Labour party. This country has never swung behind the left in that way before. The utter uselessness of Boris & co might persuade it to, but I am far from convinced.
The Conservatives will be extremely vulnerable at the next election if Labour offers an alternative government-in-waiting. But that doesn't look even remotely likely at the moment.
By Gove and Johnson campaigning to give pay increases to the public sector weakens the Chancellrs negotiating position - and ai at time when the country has a massive deficit.
There is no money left. How many public sector workers will need to be sacked to pay for the increased salaries of those remaining?
Admittedly we need improved productivity in public and private sectors. But pay rises should follow increased productivity - not whim.
Public sector pay could at least rise in line with average pay even if not in line with inflation after years of public sector pay caps
Pay rises can only be justified by increased performance. This might be better quality of work, wider skills or improved productivity but not just because of inflation or somebody else's pay increase umless necessary because of market forces.
We need teachers, doctors, police, nurses etc and if we don't pay them even in line with average wages we won't get them end of.
Comments
One perennial problem with referenda is the danger of a close result. Do you honestly think that had it been 48/52 the other way the Brexiteers would have shut up?
But there you go. Stuck with it now.
Corbyn's a terrible leader, but (aided by an inept Conservative campaign and abetted by a soft-pedalling media) rather better at campaigning.
I don't think that would be good for the country at the moment, but...if it happened, and we went back in, and they offered us Dave's deal, and of course we didn't need to sign up for Schengen & the Euro...well I might *just* be in favour, and put our economic well-being ahead of the national humiliation we would suffer.
However, it does introduce a new kind of risk. A large proportion of the energy came from wind farms and there are times when there is no wind across the whole UK (or not enough wind) for powering wind turbines. Admittedly this only happens for a few days every couple of years, but imagine having only 49% of the needed power capacity for two days.
I can remember the 1970s when the unions used to cut power off at power stations until they got pay rises and we sat in the dark with candles going and used hot water bottles for "central heating" and gas camping stoves for cooking. I can do without reliving those experiences.
The latest blogpost seems to be arguing about the number of tube lines in London.
http://www.citymetric.com/transport/how-many-tube-lines-does-london-have-riposte-3151
My preference is the narrow and nerdish definition.
One for Sunil perhaps?
The logic of this argument leads me to conclude that BoJo is the only choice to succeed May...
...so I hope my argument is flawed somehere along the line!
Or
it is in the areas of passporting and non-discriminatory access to markets that the UK has most effectively wielded its influence. Absent from MiFID I, a harmonised third-country access regime was one of the UK’s key policy objectives during legislative negotiations on MiFID II. Proving to be one of the most controversial topics throughout negotiations, a compromise was finally reached which permitted non-EU states partial, reciprocal access based on an affirmative determination by the Commission that their regulatory framework in the provision of financial services was equivalent to EU rules.
Or
Likewise on EMIR, the UK used its influence not only to ensure a framework for third-country market access, but also to ensure non-discriminatory access to clearing houses, following heated debate over the appropriate venue for the clearing of euro-denominated derivatives trading.
How many more do you want?
But to deny that the UK had huge influence in setting the rules for european financial services is just bizarre.
Someone said to me, discussing MiFID II, that our leaving the EU would be great because we could ignore it.............
All the indications are that Corbyn was closing fast and there is no reason to suppose that was about to stop.
You can only start asking the rejoin question once we have left when, of course, the terms of rejoining would be critical. Up to actually leaving nobody knows for certain on what basis we would be allowed to stay in if we changed our mind.
Having said that, here are some memories from the 70s. Enjoy
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6729683.stm
Re the 70's I was there too with my powercut rota... my recollection is that it was Heath's* inept goverment that caused that - it's all in the eye of the beholder!
(*Although I still have arguments from time to time with people who think that the 3-day-week was under Wilson/Callaghan!)
Hmmmm....not sure about that. The vote is always solid, until it melts away.
All the indications are that Corbyn was closing fast and there is no reason to suppose that was about to stop.
@PtP
Also, the idea that the Tories can simply change leader and press reset is delusional...the Tory brand is trashed again for a good decade, and maybe longer.
You might like neither the questions nor the answers.
Feel free to pose your own.
Also, the idea that the Tories can simply change leader and press reset is delusional...the Tory brand is trashed again for a good decade, and maybe longer.
The Tory brand which won 42% against Corbyn, the highest it has got since 1987? That Tory brand you mean?
These Tories are really horrible to each other and care far more for their ridiculous egos than they could ever care for the national interest....
My father was self-employed and I was at school at the time so my memories of the 3 day week are vague at best. I will never forget the power cuts or having to wait 6 months for BT to install our first phone. Ours was NOT a shared line and we felt like Gods and stared at it wondering who we could phone (and whether we could afford the call)
Attlee/Churchill is an interesting instance.
And charisma is all very well, but if other positive qualities (judgment, for example) are entirely and obviously absent...
The Met, H&S, Circle and District lines are underground railways.
And what was the East London Line is now fully absorbed into the London Overground network which is very much a railway rather than a light rail system.
I have very fond earlier memories of the three day week.....the candles coming out felt like camping, and it was wonderful having my dad at home....it was the only time I remember seeing him because he was working all the time....
Everyone had sod all then...I lived on hand me downs and a bag of crips was a treat....
the sector everyone agrees is too big and distorts the economy ?
If we hadn't been inside we wouldn't have had to fight against the hostile rule changes that he lists.
Not May
Cameron - yes, although a startling act of treachery to undercut your successor like that. Wouldn't show him in a good light
A rival for May's job - yes, but it would need to be someone who thinks they will win now but not in 2 years.
To be honest I think I still pay it, but I get the Times delivered everyday now. I subscribe to the NY Times too
during the boom years I saved
but its always fun to watch the finance guys claim it's people fault and they never went a bit off the rails themselves
I wonder what all those billions of fines were for ?
I wish you, like the SWP, would come up with decent ideas of growing the economy instead of castrating/reducing the financial services sector.
Mr. Eagles, it's damning with faint praise to claim a diplomatic triumph for Britain when we're given permission to actually have proper financial regulations that are stricter than an EU minimum. Such power. Such influence.
There are some genuine positives to being in the EU (economic, essentially). The mighty ability to sometimes have some influence over our own regulation is not one of them.
And it was the Post Office the ran the telephone network in the 70s - BT didn't come into being until 1981.
As for the £20bn, this might be a worthwhile investment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Wind_Power_Hub
Whether you like it or not Brexit is driving the country in one direction....into the path of left wing populists....
As I explained with clearing a few weeks ago, it is likely very possible that a UK institution, post Brexit, could accidentally bring to its knees a Eurozone institution.
Their currency, they want oversight rules.
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/881818551908159489
and then some decent infrastructure like a sensible motorway networks and rail
and decent broadband
we could also revitalise manufacturing and onshore more of the stuff we need to cut our horrendous trade deficit
develop a few IT hubs to help pay our way and pump some cash into materials research and area were ratrher good at
there that should start you
however as the Bob Crow of the financial sector that might confuse you
from Red Robbo to Red shoed Robbo in a generation
Brexit was forced upon them so that doesn't count. They've dropped any truly radical policies - sorting out long term healthcare, grammar schools etc. I can't think of a single strong initiative.
Reclaim the centre ground? You can't be serious. They've built a huge ugly multi-storey car park in the middle of the centre ground for all their broken tanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week
Note what the ensuing Labour government paid the miners - two consecutive 35% pay rises.
All three elements.
And it's difficult to put people in jail for bad business strategy although some of the mortgage bundling was definitely on the borderline, most fines were for fraud relating to TARP funds.
Sheds seem very popular for some reason in Barking..
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/13/guest-slot-the-impact-of-leaving-the-eu-on-londons-technology-start-up-scene/
Think Blair, Cameron and the second term US Presidents.
By Gove and Johnson campaigning to give pay increases to the public sector weakens the Chancellrs negotiating position - and ai at time when the country has a massive deficit.
There is no money left. How many public sector workers will need to be sacked to pay for the increased salaries of those remaining?
Admittedly we need improved productivity in public and private sectors. But pay rises should follow increased productivity - not whim.
I'm not saying a pay rise above 1% (on average, across the board) is necessarily the wrong move, just responding to the suggestion public sector pay should rise with private sector pay.
Breaching the pay cap worsens public finances.
Several junior ministerial jobs vacant, especially in the home affairs team.
Fire up Google..