Caroline Flint has decided to upset both Corbynistas and anti-Corbynistas on the Left with her decision today. I even saw some on Twitter calling for her deselection.
foxinsoxuk UK makes a good point about Momentum. They are very fired up and will likely be consistently campaigning throughout the country until whenever the next GE will be. In that sense, the expansion of the Labour membership is highly useful to Corbyn. Meanwhile it doesn't seem that the Conservatives are doing very much to increase their membership, or indeed broaden it.
Caroline may be upsetting people but at least she is usig her brain. Labour's stance is opposition for it's own sake. This is not - or should not be - a proxy for the principle of Brexit. What are these muppets voting for? If the withdrawal bill were blocked - unlikely, I know - it would mean we would crash out of Europe without a functioning legal system.
We clearly need legislation. We do not need the legislation that has been put in front of the Commons. MPs who vote against the bill at second reading are making that point.
The legislation can be ammended as the bill progresses. Prominent Tories dislike the detail but they are not going to vote against the principle of the bill at second reading. Corbyn is grandstading to the anti-Brexit lobby - smart politics, maybe, but his stance makes little merit beyond that.
Opposition opposes shock!
Why not oppose the A50 when it returned unamended?
Caroline Flint has decided to upset both Corbynistas and anti-Corbynistas on the Left with her decision today. I even saw some on Twitter calling for her deselection.
foxinsoxuk UK makes a good point about Momentum. They are very fired up and will likely be consistently campaigning throughout the country until whenever the next GE will be. In that sense, the expansion of the Labour membership is highly useful to Corbyn. Meanwhile it doesn't seem that the Conservatives are doing very much to increase their membership, or indeed broaden it.
Somehow struggle to see the fire lasting 4.5 years....
The Tories may seek simply to time Corbyn out. At the the next GE, assuming the parliament runs to term, he will be 74 (Vince will be 79). No one has ever become PM for the first time at that age.
Gladstone did.
Gladstone was born on 29th December 1809. He first became PM on 3rd December 1868.
And for the fourth (and last time) in 1892. But I see what you mean!
He certainly kept buggering on, didn't he? Good man.
I do think there is a big difference between doing a job for the first time and returning to it after a break. There is a even bigger difference between the scope of the job in the 19th century and the twenty-first!
Caroline Flint has decided to upset both Corbynistas and anti-Corbynistas on the Left with her decision today. I even saw some on Twitter calling for her deselection.
foxinsoxuk UK makes a good point about Momentum. They are very fired up and will likely be consistently campaigning throughout the country until whenever the next GE will be. In that sense, the expansion of the Labour membership is highly useful to Corbyn. Meanwhile it doesn't seem that the Conservatives are doing very much to increase their membership, or indeed broaden it.
Somehow struggle to see the fire lasting 4.5 years....
I don't. I don't think some Tories understand quite how enthusiastic many of these people are for Corbyn and quite how much they hate the Conservative Party.
There is undoubtedly a large, enthusiastic groundswell of young Labour members who have been enthused by Jeremy Corbyn and repelled by the Tories. Then there are these kind of people:
Caroline Flint has decided to upset both Corbynistas and anti-Corbynistas on the Left with her decision today. I even saw some on Twitter calling for her deselection.
foxinsoxuk UK makes a good point about Momentum. They are very fired up and will likely be consistently campaigning throughout the country until whenever the next GE will be. In that sense, the expansion of the Labour membership is highly useful to Corbyn. Meanwhile it doesn't seem that the Conservatives are doing very much to increase their membership, or indeed broaden it.
Somehow struggle to see the fire lasting 4.5 years....
The Tories may seek simply to time Corbyn out. At the the next GE, assuming the parliament runs to term, he will be 74 (Vince will be 79). No one has ever become PM for the first time at that age.
Gladstone did.
Gladstone was born on 29th December 1809. He first became PM on 3rd December 1868.
And for the fourth (and last time) in 1892. But I see what you mean!
He certainly kept buggering on, didn't he? Good man.
I do think there is a big difference between doing a job for the first time and returning to it after a break. There is a even bigger difference between the scope of the job in the 19th century and the twenty-first!
There was an Empire to run in the 19th.
Would you rather run the gauntlett of 24hr news and social media or run an Empire?
Throughout the West Country, support for the Lib Dems has collapsed. Some of that support has gone to the Conservatives, more of it to Labour, so they have a lot of strong second places now, in seats where previously, their support had been reduced to a rump.
It's striking how much that coalition deal stuffed the Lib Dems and changed the face of our politics.
There's a book to be written on the strange death of LibDems in South West. This area had been one of their absolute heartlands throughout my life.
The LD MPs in the South West would typically campaign as eurosceptics (or keep quiet about the EU) and then we had Clegg debating for the EU followed by the promulgation of a pro-EU line by the LDs which has probably finished off the LDs in the area.
Indeed. The metropolitan style of the 2015 and 2017 elections was what did for the LDs there. They had forgotten their provincial roots.
The party is entirely out of step nationally with the activist base.
"We count 12 LibDem MPs, Lord Vader, but their majorities are so small, they're evading our Turbolasers!"
Interesting point about small majorities. Of course it cuts both ways, 50 more votes in the right places and the LibDems would have 2 more MPs and Zac wouldn't have been back. I wonder, does this parliament have more close results than usual?
Mr. Topping, poppycock. You can't say "oppose everything!" and then "not that!".
Labour chose not to oppose Article 50. If it then indiscriminately opposes everything related to leaving the EU, whether good or bad, it will, at least at times and perhaps often, be acting against the national interest.
How the reality of Brexit changes things - if it does at all - is probably the big question in Scotland between now and the next GE. I suspect that if Labour did form the next UK government, Scottish independence would cease to be an issue. On the other hand, if the Tories got back in after taking us over the cliff it could be a very different story. But what do I know?
Except the Tories now have 11 seats in Scotland all but one gained post Brexit
Yep, the Tories have certainly returned in Scotland. But the Tory vote alone would not prevent independence. That will depend on the Labour and LibDem vote, too. With a Labour government in Westminster, the Union is pretty much assured. With a Tory government pursuing right-wing policies post-Brexit, it may be less so. We shall see.
I think James Kelly is right that there is a ceiling of 30% for Scottish Conservatives, enough to win back their historic areas of strength.
Is that just a unionist vote which will disappear once the SNP stops having a manifesto with indie on it?
Well, I think it will be a while before that happens. The SCons have also benefitted from the collapse of the Lib Dem vote in the North East, and Borders.
Mr. Topping, poppycock. You can't say "oppose everything!" and then "not that!".
Labour chose not to oppose Article 50. If it then indiscriminately opposes everything related to leaving the EU, whether good or bad, it will, at least at times and perhaps often, be acting against the national interest.
Apples and chalk, Morris, apples and chalk.
Article 50 was a necessary consequence of the referendum result. It was party independent. Once Article 50 had been triggered, then it is let 100 flowers bloom for the flavour of Brexit. As we know all too well on here, after March 2019 we can be in the single market and the customs union, be required to speak French on alternate Thursdays and submit our monthly iphone bills to the ECJ for approval, and still we will have left the EU.
Caroline Flint has decided to upset both Corbynistas and anti-Corbynistas on the Left with her decision today. I even saw some on Twitter calling for her deselection.
foxinsoxuk UK makes a good point about Momentum. They are very fired up and will likely be consistently campaigning throughout the country until whenever the next GE will be. In that sense, the expansion of the Labour membership is highly useful to Corbyn. Meanwhile it doesn't seem that the Conservatives are doing very much to increase their membership, or indeed broaden it.
Somehow struggle to see the fire lasting 4.5 years....
The Tories may seek simply to time Corbyn out. At the the next GE, assuming the parliament runs to term, he will be 74 (Vince will be 79). No one has ever become PM for the first time at that age.
So Labour go into the next election with a new leader. Perfect for a 'time for a change' story.
I thought the big issue with shipping was the lack of regulation and cut-ptice registration under flags of convenience, and the consequent ability to pay low wages.
Caroline Flint has decided to upset both Corbynistas and anti-Corbynistas on the Left with her decision today. I even saw some on Twitter calling for her deselection.
foxinsoxuk UK makes a good point about Momentum. They are very fired up and will likely be consistently campaigning throughout the country until whenever the next GE will be. In that sense, the expansion of the Labour membership is highly useful to Corbyn. Meanwhile it doesn't seem that the Conservatives are doing very much to increase their membership, or indeed broaden it.
Somehow struggle to see the fire lasting 4.5 years....
The Tories may seek simply to time Corbyn out. At the the next GE, assuming the parliament runs to term, he will be 74 (Vince will be 79). No one has ever become PM for the first time at that age.
So Labour go into the next election with a new leader. Perfect for a 'time for a change' story.
The LD’s will too. Gather Jo Swinson is tipped to take over before then.
Business Liaison - a great idea with an obvious problem.
If a CLP appoints (for example) someone like me who works in business and manages both P&L and people, then I can talk to local business about our support for the basics of capitalism and why we support them growing and making a profit. Because the secure well paid jobs we want for people need to be created by businesses that both have a long-term sustainable business plan AND recognise that for people to be able to consume their goods/services they need to pay their workforce enough that they have the cash. This is the bit that the bad boys of capitalism seem to have forgotten.
However, think of the fun that could be had if the CLP appoints a Momentum loon who tells business they should be abolished because profit is theft and their all Tory banker scum...
Its absolutely clear that the Tories don't give a shit about business. Hard Brexit destroys the chances of businesses of all shapes and sizes from the cataclysmic shock that no deal creates on day 1 as trucks stop crossing the channel and Sterling implodes. And when they're not promoting suicidal hard Brexit they're doing nothing about the cost of living crisis which is removing from consumers their ability to consume, and the personal debt bubble which has ameliorated some of the effects is not long for this world.
But its not remotely clear that Corbyn's Labour Party gives a shit about business either. So many refuse to accept that we live in a capitalist system, that capitalism can do wonderful things for national and personal development, and that we need private business.
Business Liaison - a great idea with an obvious problem.
If a CLP appoints (for example) someone like me who works in business and manages both P&L and people, then I can talk to local business about our support for the basics of capitalism and why we support them growing and making a profit. Because the secure well paid jobs we want for people need to be created by businesses that both have a long-term sustainable business plan AND recognise that for people to be able to consume their goods/services they need to pay their workforce enough that they have the cash. This is the bit that the bad boys of capitalism seem to have forgotten.
However, think of the fun that could be had if the CLP appoints a Momentum loon who tells business they should be abolished because profit is theft and their all Tory banker scum...
Its absolutely clear that the Tories don't give a shit about business. Hard Brexit destroys the chances of businesses of all shapes and sizes from the cataclysmic shock that no deal creates on day 1 as trucks stop crossing the channel and Sterling implodes. And when they're not promoting suicidal hard Brexit they're doing nothing about the cost of living crisis which is removing from consumers their ability to consume, and the personal debt bubble which has ameliorated some of the effects is not long for this world.
But its not remotely clear that Corbyn's Labour Party gives a shit about business either. So many refuse to accept that we live in a capitalist system, that capitalism can do wonderful things for national and personal development, and that we need private business.
Just to be clear, business cares about the Tories and the Tories care about business.
And no, Hard Brexit doesn't mean no deal, it means not being in the Single Market or Customs Union. It is another foolish designation from the continuity Remain campaigners. It doesn't help their argument but makes them feel better.
Caroline Flint has decided to upset both Corbynistas and anti-Corbynistas on the Left with her decision today. I even saw some on Twitter calling for her deselection.
foxinsoxuk UK makes a good point about Momentum. They are very fired up and will likely be consistently campaigning throughout the country until whenever the next GE will be. In that sense, the expansion of the Labour membership is highly useful to Corbyn. Meanwhile it doesn't seem that the Conservatives are doing very much to increase their membership, or indeed broaden it.
Somehow struggle to see the fire lasting 4.5 years....
The Tories may seek simply to time Corbyn out. At the the next GE, assuming the parliament runs to term, he will be 74 (Vince will be 79). No one has ever become PM for the first time at that age.
Caroline Flint has decided to upset both Corbynistas and anti-Corbynistas on the Left with her decision today. I even saw some on Twitter calling for her deselection.
foxinsoxuk UK makes a good point about Momentum. They are very fired up and will likely be consistently campaigning throughout the country until whenever the next GE will be. In that sense, the expansion of the Labour membership is highly useful to Corbyn. Meanwhile it doesn't seem that the Conservatives are doing very much to increase their membership, or indeed broaden it.
Somehow struggle to see the fire lasting 4.5 years....
The Tories may seek simply to time Corbyn out. At the the next GE, assuming the parliament runs to term, he will be 74 (Vince will be 79). No one has ever become PM for the first time at that age.
So Labour go into the next election with a new leader. Perfect for a 'time for a change' story.
The LD’s will too. Gather Jo Swinson is tipped to take over before then.
And so will the Tories. The point about Corbyn is that he has cult status. How enduring that cult is we shall see, but by definition it will not adhere to any successor. The question for Labour is do they seek to keep that cult for as long as possible in the form of Corbyn's leadership? The answer for the Tories is simple: May must go. At present Labour appears to have the best leader possible, the Tories have the worst. But change, if course, is on the way. We just don't know what it is.
Caroline Flint has decided to upset both Corbynistas and anti-Corbynistas on the Left with her decision today. I even saw some on Twitter calling for her deselection.
foxinsoxuk UK makes a good point about Momentum. They are very fired up and will likely be consistently campaigning throughout the country until whenever the next GE will be. In that sense, the expansion of the Labour membership is highly useful to Corbyn. Meanwhile it doesn't seem that the Conservatives are doing very much to increase their membership, or indeed broaden it.
Somehow struggle to see the fire lasting 4.5 years....
The Tories may seek simply to time Corbyn out. At the the next GE, assuming the parliament runs to term, he will be 74 (Vince will be 79). No one has ever become PM for the first time at that age.
So Labour go into the next election with a new leader. Perfect for a 'time for a change' story.
The LD’s will too. Gather Jo Swinson is tipped to take over before then.
So the Tories could keep TM and go for the strong and stable line. Just need to get the thesaurus out for some different adjectives.
Caroline Flint has decided to upset both Corbynistas and anti-Corbynistas on the Left with her decision today. I even saw some on Twitter calling for her deselection.
foxinsoxuk UK makes a good point about Momentum. They are very fired up and will likely be consistently campaigning throughout the country until whenever the next GE will be. In that sense, the expansion of the Labour membership is highly useful to Corbyn. Meanwhile it doesn't seem that the Conservatives are doing very much to increase their membership, or indeed broaden it.
Somehow struggle to see the fire lasting 4.5 years....
I don't. I don't think some Tories understand quite how enthusiastic many of these people are for Corbyn and quite how much they hate the Conservative Party.
Quite. The momentum fire will certainly not go out anytime soon. Not until Corbynism starts to weaken electorally and there is no sign of that yet and may not be for many years. The Tories are doing their level best to pour petrol on the flames...
Just to be clear, business cares about the Tories and the Tories care about business.
And no, Hard Brexit doesn't mean no deal, it means not being in the Single Market or Customs Union. It is another foolish designation from the continuity Remain campaigners. It doesn't help their argument but makes them feel better.
Just to be clear, business cares about the Tories and the Tories care about business.
And no, Hard Brexit doesn't mean no deal, it means not being in the Single Market or Customs Union. It is another foolish designation from the continuity Remain campaigners. It doesn't help their argument but makes them feel better.
Caroline Flint has decided to upset both Corbynistas and anti-Corbynistas on the Left with her decision today. I even saw some on Twitter calling for her deselection.
foxinsoxuk UK makes a good point about Momentum. They are very fired up and will likely be consistently campaigning throughout the country until whenever the next GE will be. In that sense, the expansion of the Labour membership is highly useful to Corbyn. Meanwhile it doesn't seem that the Conservatives are doing very much to increase their membership, or indeed broaden it.
Somehow struggle to see the fire lasting 4.5 years....
I don't. I don't think some Tories understand quite how enthusiastic many of these people are for Corbyn and quite how much they hate the Conservative Party.
Quite. The momentum fire will certainly not go out anytime soon. Not until Corbynism starts to weaken electorally and there is no sign of that yet and may not be for many years. The Tories are doing their level best to pour petrol on the flames...
I assume that Flint, a veteran Blairite iirc, is doing this because she represents such a Leave part of the country, rather than she believes a word of what she is doing.
Caroline Flint has decided to upset both Corbynistas and anti-Corbynistas on the Left with her decision today. I even saw some on Twitter calling for her deselection.
foxinsoxuk UK makes a good point about Momentum. They are very fired up and will likely be consistently campaigning throughout the country until whenever the next GE will be. In that sense, the expansion of the Labour membership is highly useful to Corbyn. Meanwhile it doesn't seem that the Conservatives are doing very much to increase their membership, or indeed broaden it.
Somehow struggle to see the fire lasting 4.5 years....
The Tories may seek simply to time Corbyn out. At the the next GE, assuming the parliament runs to term, he will be 74 (Vince will be 79). No one has ever become PM for the first time at that age.
So Labour go into the next election with a new leader. Perfect for a 'time for a change' story.
The LD’s will too. Gather Jo Swinson is tipped to take over before then.
So the Tories could keep TM and go for the strong and stable line. Just need to get the thesaurus out for some different adjectives.
Have we learnt nothing in recent years? The old lines about 'no one has become PM with/at/from', the British will never vote for X, Y is a shoe-in etc etc have been proved to be junk.
History is merely a guide and an unreliable one at that.
Business Liaison - a great idea with an obvious problem.
If a CLP appoints (for example) someone like me who works in business and manages both P&L and people, then I can talk to local business about our support for the basics of capitalism and why we support them growing and making a profit. Because the secure well paid jobs we want for people need to be created by businesses that both have a long-term sustainable business plan AND recognise that for people to be able to consume their goods/services they need to pay their workforce enough that they have the cash. This is the bit that the bad boys of capitalism seem to have forgotten.
However, think of the fun that could be had if the CLP appoints a Momentum loon who tells business they should be abolished because profit is theft and their all Tory banker scum...
Its absolutely clear that the Tories don't give a shit about business. Hard Brexit destroys the chances of businesses of all shapes and sizes from the cataclysmic shock that no deal creates on day 1 as trucks stop crossing the channel and Sterling implodes. And when they're not promoting suicidal hard Brexit they're doing nothing about the cost of living crisis which is removing from consumers their ability to consume, and the personal debt bubble which has ameliorated some of the effects is not long for this world.
But its not remotely clear that Corbyn's Labour Party gives a shit about business either. So many refuse to accept that we live in a capitalist system, that capitalism can do wonderful things for national and personal development, and that we need private business.
Spot on. But for us to have got to the point where Tory and Labour are both as bad as each other is a big win for Jeremy Corbyn.
Business Liaison - a great idea with an obvious problem.
If a CLP appoints (for example) someone like me who works in business and manages both P&L and people, then I can talk to local business about our support for the basics of capitalism and why we support them growing and making a profit. Because the secure well paid jobs we want for people need to be created by businesses that both have a long-term sustainable business plan AND recognise that for people to be able to consume their goods/services they need to pay their workforce enough that they have the cash. This is the bit that the bad boys of capitalism seem to have forgotten.
However, think of the fun that could be had if the CLP appoints a Momentum loon who tells business they should be abolished because profit is theft and their all Tory banker scum...
Its absolutely clear that the Tories don't give a shit about business. Hard Brexit destroys the chances of businesses of all shapes and sizes from the cataclysmic shock that no deal creates on day 1 as trucks stop crossing the channel and Sterling implodes. And when they're not promoting suicidal hard Brexit they're doing nothing about the cost of living crisis which is removing from consumers their ability to consume, and the personal debt bubble which has ameliorated some of the effects is not long for this world.
But its not remotely clear that Corbyn's Labour Party gives a shit about business either. So many refuse to accept that we live in a capitalist system, that capitalism can do wonderful things for national and personal development, and that we need private business.
The 'slightly less left' Livingstone long ago reached an accommodation with business ... and became a Europhile. IMO that's the leftward limit of most peoples' politics. Beyond it probably only appeals to a few 100,000 voters under 35.
It might be better to use the terms 'markets' and 'mixed economy', i.e capitalism is tamed and markets are our servant not our master. I don't think even Momentum plans to nationalise Easyjet. If I'm wrong, that would be 'interesting' in the Sir Humphrey sense.
Caroline Flint has decided to upset both Corbynistas and anti-Corbynistas on the Left with her decision today. I even saw some on Twitter calling for her deselection.
foxinsoxuk UK makes a good point about Momentum. They are very fired up and will likely be consistently campaigning throughout the country until whenever the next GE will be. In that sense, the expansion of the Labour membership is highly useful to Corbyn. Meanwhile it doesn't seem that the Conservatives are doing very much to increase their membership, or indeed broaden it.
Somehow struggle to see the fire lasting 4.5 years....
I don't. I don't think some Tories understand quite how enthusiastic many of these people are for Corbyn and quite how much they hate the Conservative Party.
Quite. The momentum fire will certainly not go out anytime soon. Not until Corbynism starts to weaken electorally and there is no sign of that yet and may not be for many years. The Tories are doing their level best to pour petrol on the flames...
I assume that Flint, a veteran Blairite iirc, is doing this because she represents such a Leave part of the country, rather than she believes a word of what she is doing.
Business Liaison - a great idea with an obvious problem.
If a CLP appoints (for example) someone like me who works in business and manages both P&L and people, then I can talk to local business about our support for the basics of capitalism and why we support them growing and making a profit. Because the secure well paid jobs we want for people need to be created by businesses that both have a long-term sustainable business plan AND recognise that for people to be able to consume their goods/services they need to pay their workforce enough that they have the cash. This is the bit that the bad boys of capitalism seem to have forgotten.
However, think of the fun that could be had if the CLP appoints a Momentum loon who tells business they should be abolished because profit is theft and their all Tory banker scum...
Its absolutely clear that the Tories don't give a shit about business. Hard Brexit destroys the chances of businesses of all shapes and sizes from the cataclysmic shock that no deal creates on day 1 as trucks stop crossing the channel and Sterling implodes. And when they're not promoting suicidal hard Brexit they're doing nothing about the cost of living crisis which is removing from consumers their ability to consume, and the personal debt bubble which has ameliorated some of the effects is not long for this world.
But its not remotely clear that Corbyn's Labour Party gives a shit about business either. So many refuse to accept that we live in a capitalist system, that capitalism can do wonderful things for national and personal development, and that we need private business.
Welcome back!
I have to say (but then I would) that the Cons approach to business is absolutley bonkers with the Brexit thing. OK we're leaving, but there is plenty of business friendly wiggle room which they seem intent on not using.
Business Liaison - a great idea with an obvious problem.
If a CLP appoints (for example) someone like me who works in business and manages both P&L and people, then I can talk to local business about our support for the basics of capitalism and why we support them growing and making a profit. Because the secure well paid jobs we want for people need to be created by businesses that both have a long-term sustainable business plan AND recognise that for people to be able to consume their goods/services they need to pay their workforce enough that they have the cash. This is the bit that the bad boys of capitalism seem to have forgotten.
However, think of the fun that could be had if the CLP appoints a Momentum loon who tells business they should be abolished because profit is theft and their all Tory banker scum...
Its absolutely clear that the Tories don't give a shit about business. Hard Brexit destroys the chances of businesses of all shapes and sizes from the cataclysmic shock that no deal creates on day 1 as trucks stop crossing the channel and Sterling implodes. And when they're not promoting suicidal hard Brexit they're doing nothing about the cost of living crisis which is removing from consumers their ability to consume, and the personal debt bubble which has ameliorated some of the effects is not long for this world.
But its not remotely clear that Corbyn's Labour Party gives a shit about business either. So many refuse to accept that we live in a capitalist system, that capitalism can do wonderful things for national and personal development, and that we need private business.
Welcome back!
I have to say (but then I would) that the Cons approach to business is absolutley bonkers with the Brexit thing. OK we're leaving, but there is plenty of business friendly wiggle room which they seem intent on not using.
Yep - but May decided long ago to outsource Brexit policy to the right wing press and that sits uncomfortably with a business-led approach to the negotiations.
Yep - but May decided long ago to outsource Brexit policy to the right wing press and that sits uncomfortably with a business-led approach to the negotiations.
That makes no sense, given that it is the EU27, not the UK, which is refusing to discuss business issues.
Just to be clear, business cares about the Tories and the Tories care about business.
And no, Hard Brexit doesn't mean no deal, it means not being in the Single Market or Customs Union. It is another foolish designation from the continuity Remain campaigners. It doesn't help their argument but makes them feel better.
Indeed, we could revert to methods of business that we used in the 1970s.
Alternatively we could trade from outside the single market, into a single market that has one set of standards, using the trading methods of the 2010s.
If you try to replicate the pre EU / single market business model, yes, you will struggle and fail. Looks like an unimaginative and backward looking businessman from here.
I do struggle with the unremitting gloom of those who are unable to imagine the possibility that problems are only little blips waiting for the right solution.
Sure, some problems will be hard, some won't. Some will have a cost to solve, some will create an added benefit when they are solved. Governments have been creating problems for business for the last 150 years or more.
I think the expression is 'Get over it- - that is what business has done in the past and will do in the future to the government created hurdles.
Yep - but May decided long ago to outsource Brexit policy to the right wing press and that sits uncomfortably with a business-led approach to the negotiations.
That makes no sense, given that it is the EU27, not the UK, which is refusing to discuss business issues.
The UK agreed to the timetable the EU proposed, but cannot now make the necessary progress for fear of bad headlines at home about caving into EU payment demands.
Yep - but May decided long ago to outsource Brexit policy to the right wing press and that sits uncomfortably with a business-led approach to the negotiations.
That makes no sense, given that it is the EU27, not the UK, which is refusing to discuss business issues.
I appreciate you have consistently (perhaps more than anyone on here) been keen to put both sides' motives and activities. And equally, we would have hoped for a slightly different response from the EU27 (and that nomenclature itself gives away much of the game). But we had no right to expect it.
For Indyref, if Scotland had voted yes, then we, as a mature, developed, confident, coherent nation would have worked as well as we could have to ensure all was as smooth and mutually successful as possible. The EU is neither mature, nor developed, nor confident, not all that coherent. It is nervous and no doubt wracked by existential doubt. It is like a baby 600lb gorilla in many senses.
Now of course that is no reason for us not to have left it, but it does mean that our approach should reflect reality, rather than wishful thinking.
I do struggle with the unremitting gloom of those who are unable to imagine the possibility that problems are only little blips waiting for the right solution.
The real reason for unremitting gloom is that we have become, once more, a country that creates unnecessary problems for ourselves in the first place. Until we nip that habit in the bud, pessimism is the correct attitude.
The UK agreed to the timetable the EU proposed, but cannot now make the necessary progress for fear of bad headlines at home about caving into EU payment demands.
So you think we should agree to pay something more than the entire annual defence budget on the off chance that the EU might be nice to us?
Well, it's a view. I can't think that it's a very business-friendly view though. That money will come directly out of the UK economy.
I do struggle with the unremitting gloom of those who are unable to imagine the possibility that problems are only little blips waiting for the right solution.
The real reason for unremitting gloom is that we have become, once more, a country that creates unnecessary problems for ourselves in the first place. Until we nip that habit in the bud, pessimism is the correct attitude.
Because the EU has never created unnecessary problems for itself, right?
Like monetary union without fiscal or even banking union. That never happened, did it.
Goodness me, Corbynistas might be happy now in their delusions, but if Corbyn ever got power he would toxify Labour for decades. And I say that as a non Blairite Labour voter.
I do struggle with the unremitting gloom of those who are unable to imagine the possibility that problems are only little blips waiting for the right solution.
The real reason for unremitting gloom is that we have become, once more, a country that creates unnecessary problems for ourselves in the first place. Until we nip that habit in the bud, pessimism is the correct attitude.
Because the EU has never created unnecessary problems for itself, right?
Like monetary union without fiscal or even banking union. That never happened, did it.
There is close enough banking union for eurozone members, plus there is the fiscal compact.
The UK agreed to the timetable the EU proposed, but cannot now make the necessary progress for fear of bad headlines at home about caving into EU payment demands.
So you think we should agree to pay something more than the entire annual defence budget on the off chance that the EU might be nice to us?
Well, it's a view. I can't think that it's a very business-friendly view though. That money will come directly out of the UK economy.
Nope - I think we should accept that if we want to have a meaningful ongoing relationship with the EU, then we are going to have to pay a relatively large amount of money. If we do not have that relationship, the cost to the British economy - and to British business - will be a lot higher than anything we fork out.
I appreciate you have consistently (perhaps more than anyone on here) been keen to put both sides' motives and activities. And equally, we would have hoped for a slightly different response from the EU27 (and that nomenclature itself gives away much of the game). But we had no right to expect it.
For Indyref, if Scotland had voted yes, then we, as a mature, developed, confident, coherent nation would have worked as well as we could have to ensure all was as smooth and mutually successful as possible. The EU is neither mature, nor developed, nor confident, not all that coherent. It is nervous and no doubt wracked by existential doubt. It is like a baby 600lb gorilla in many senses.
Now of course that is no reason for us not to have left it, but it does mean that our approach should reflect reality, rather than wishful thinking.
I agree with the thrust of what you are saying, but in all the criticism of the UK government's position, I can't really see anyone making any coherent suggestion as to what exactly they should be doing differently, with the one minor exception that sometimes ministers might have chosen their words more carefully. The UK has made it very clear that we want a trade deal, as frictionless a border as we can get, and a good solution for Ireland. It has also made it very clear that it is prepared to pay something to make this happen. If our EU friends don't want to tango, then there's no dance, but it won't be for want of trying on our part.
Nope - I think we should accept that if we want to have a meaningful ongoing relationship with the EU, then we are going to have to pay a relatively large amount of money. If we do not have that relationship, the cost to the British economy - and to British business - will be a lot higher than anything we fork out.
I think that the government does accept that. So far, the EU has refused to discuss it.
Edit: Unless of course there are actually meaningful discussions going on behind the scenes, which is possible.
I appreciate you have consistently (perhaps more than anyone on here) been keen to put both sides' motives and activities. And equally, we would have hoped for a slightly different response from the EU27 (and that nomenclature itself gives away much of the game). But we had no right to expect it.
For Indyref, if Scotland had voted yes, then we, as a mature, developed, confident, coherent nation would have worked as well as we could have to ensure all was as smooth and mutually successful as possible. The EU is neither mature, nor developed, nor confident, not all that coherent. It is nervous and no doubt wracked by existential doubt. It is like a baby 600lb gorilla in many senses.
Now of course that is no reason for us not to have left it, but it does mean that our approach should reflect reality, rather than wishful thinking.
I agree with the thrust of what you are saying, but in all the criticism of the UK government's position, I can't really see anyone making any coherent suggestion as to what exactly they should be doing differently, with the one minor exception that sometimes ministers might have chosen their words more carefully. The UK has made it very clear that we want a trade deal, as frictionless a border as we can get, and a good solution for Ireland. It has also made it very clear that it is prepared to pay something to make this happen. If our EU friends don't want to tango, then there's no dance, but it won't be for want of trying on our part.
A really bold, self-confident government would start by making a request for Northern Ireland to be given special status in the EU. It would invite the Scottish government to take part in negotiations, and it would accept an inevitable loosening of the UK union. This process may even lead to an outcome where the people reverse their original decision and for us to emerge from this episode stronger and wiser.
Business Liaison - a great idea with an obvious problem.
If a CLP appoints (for example) someone like me who works in business and manages both P&L and people, then I can talk to local business about our support for the basics of capitalism and why we support them growing and making a profit. Because the secure well paid jobs we want for people need to be created by businesses that both have a long-term sustainable business plan AND recognise that for people to be able to consume their goods/services they need to pay their workforce enough that they have the cash. This is the bit that the bad boys of capitalism seem to have forgotten.
However, think of the fun that could be had if the CLP appoints a Momentum loon who tells business they should be abolished because profit is theft and their all Tory banker scum...
Its absolutely clear that the Tories don't give a shit about business. Hard Brexit destroys the chances of businesses of all shapes and sizes from the cataclysmic shock that no deal creates on day 1 as trucks stop crossing the channel and Sterling implodes. And when they're not promoting suicidal hard Brexit they're doing nothing about the cost of living crisis which is removing from consumers their ability to consume, and the personal debt bubble which has ameliorated some of the effects is not long for this world.
But its not remotely clear that Corbyn's Labour Party gives a shit about business either. So many refuse to accept that we live in a capitalist system, that capitalism can do wonderful things for national and personal development, and that we need private business.
Spot on. But for us to have got to the point where Tory and Labour are both as bad as each other is a big win for Jeremy Corbyn.
I can't speak for everyone, but I have no doubt that a Corbyn-led government would be worse for my business than a May-led government.
A really bold, self-confident government would start by making a request for Northern Ireland to be given special status in the EU. It would invite the Scottish government to take part in negotiations, and it would accept an inevitable loosening of the UK union. This process may even lead to an outcome where the people reverse their original decision and for us to emerge from this episode stronger and wiser.
Hmm, not sure about that. The SNP's only interest is to cause as much havoc as possible. As for Northern Ireland, I'm completely baffled by the EU's position, since it is as plain as a pikestaff that the two parties can't discuss anything substantive until they know what trade deal if any is going to be put in place.
I do struggle with the unremitting gloom of those who are unable to imagine the possibility that problems are only little blips waiting for the right solution.
The real reason for unremitting gloom is that we have become, once more, a country that creates unnecessary problems for ourselves in the first place. Until we nip that habit in the bud, pessimism is the correct attitude.
Because the EU has never created unnecessary problems for itself, right?
Like monetary union without fiscal or even banking union. That never happened, did it.
There is close enough banking union for eurozone members, plus there is the fiscal compact.
The UK agreed to the timetable the EU proposed, but cannot now make the necessary progress for fear of bad headlines at home about caving into EU payment demands.
So you think we should agree to pay something more than the entire annual defence budget on the off chance that the EU might be nice to us?
Well, it's a view. I can't think that it's a very business-friendly view though. That money will come directly out of the UK economy.
Nope - I think we should accept that if we want to have a meaningful ongoing relationship with the EU, then we are going to have to pay a relatively large amount of money. If we do not have that relationship, the cost to the British economy - and to British business - will be a lot higher than anything we fork out.
So do you think we should agree to be blackmailed/extorted into writing a blank cheque in order to talk about trade?
I do struggle with the unremitting gloom of those who are unable to imagine the possibility that problems are only little blips waiting for the right solution.
The real reason for unremitting gloom is that we have become, once more, a country that creates unnecessary problems for ourselves in the first place. Until we nip that habit in the bud, pessimism is the correct attitude.
If you look solely on one side of the balance sheet, that is true.
If you refuse to look on the other side of the balance sheet, then someone else will take advantage.
If you refuse to acknowledge the other side of the balance sheet could exist, then you end up with no more than an unfulfilling half life, seeped in a sea of gloom and despondency.
It may not be popular, but I do understand the motivation of the lower paid to feel that the EU has had negative effects on pay levels, housing, education, welfare, and many other aspects of daily life. The result of the last 25 or so years in the single market has not helped a lot of our brethren, and I do believe they are entitled to a better life. The fact that the way they see of achieving it creates a new raft of issues isn't here or there. We will have to overcome them. That is our job. Quit the negativity and work towards solutions.
I appreciate you have consistently (perhaps more than anyone on here) been keen to put both sides' motives and activities. And equally, we would have hoped for a slightly different response from the EU27 (and that nomenclature itself gives away much of the game). But we had no right to expect it.
For Indyref, if Scotland had voted yes, then we, as a mature, developed, confident, coherent nation would have worked as well as we could have to ensure all was as smooth and mutually successful as possible. The EU is neither mature, nor developed, nor confident, not all that coherent. It is nervous and no doubt wracked by existential doubt. It is like a baby 600lb gorilla in many senses.
Now of course that is no reason for us not to have left it, but it does mean that our approach should reflect reality, rather than wishful thinking.
I agree with the thrust of what you are saying, but in all the criticism of the UK government's position, I can't really see anyone making any coherent suggestion as to what exactly they should be doing differently, with the one minor exception that sometimes ministers might have chosen their words more carefully. The UK has made it very clear that we want a trade deal, as frictionless a border as we can get, and a good solution for Ireland. It has also made it very clear that it is prepared to pay something to make this happen. If our EU friends don't want to tango, then there's no dance, but it won't be for want of trying on our part.
A really bold, self-confident government would start by making a request for Northern Ireland to be given special status in the EU. It would invite the Scottish government to take part in negotiations, and it would accept an inevitable loosening of the UK union. This process may even lead to an outcome where the people reverse their original decision and for us to emerge from this episode stronger and wiser.
1) Special status not going to happen - NI border issue is solved by a trade deal 2) Scotland is part of the UK, foreign affairs are a reserved power. 3) Just because you're obsessed with breaking up the UK, don't think the people of this country are. Indeed, every indication is that the union is stronger since the Brexit vote.
Your recent spinning suggests to me that even you've realised that the EU are being foolish in their stubborn and bizarre 'give us a load of money before we talk' 'position'
The result of the last 25 or so years in the single market has not helped a lot of our brethren, and I do believe they are entitled to a better life. The fact that the way they see of achieving it creates a new raft of issues isn't here or there. We will have to overcome them. That is our job. Quit the negativity and work towards solutions.
Is it 'the way they see of achieving it', or is it the way that a load of shyster ideologues have told them is the way to achieve it? My solution is to expose the shysters without remorse until they are run out of public life and then ask the people again.
I do struggle with the unremitting gloom of those who are unable to imagine the possibility that problems are only little blips waiting for the right solution.
The real reason for unremitting gloom is that we have become, once more, a country that creates unnecessary problems for ourselves in the first place. Until we nip that habit in the bud, pessimism is the correct attitude.
Because the EU has never created unnecessary problems for itself, right?
Like monetary union without fiscal or even banking union. That never happened, did it.
There is close enough banking union for eurozone members, plus there is the fiscal compact.
Subsequent to initiating monetary union, no?
Nope but you know, to adapt that Chinese saying, it's too early to tell.
Plus as those measures make sense for a currency union, then I can't believe that it came as a shock to any eurozone member that they were established.
The UK agreed to the timetable the EU proposed, but cannot now make the necessary progress for fear of bad headlines at home about caving into EU payment demands.
So you think we should agree to pay something more than the entire annual defence budget on the off chance that the EU might be nice to us?
Well, it's a view. I can't think that it's a very business-friendly view though. That money will come directly out of the UK economy.
Nope - I think we should accept that if we want to have a meaningful ongoing relationship with the EU, then we are going to have to pay a relatively large amount of money. If we do not have that relationship, the cost to the British economy - and to British business - will be a lot higher than anything we fork out.
So do you think we should agree to be blackmailed/extorted into writing a blank cheque in order to talk about trade?
We are not being blackmailed. We do not need to write a cheque to start talking about trade. We need to agree a process that will get us to a point where we make a series of payments in the future.
I appreciate you have consistently (perhaps more than anyone on here) been keen to put both sides' motives and activities. And equally, we would have hoped for a slightly different response from the EU27 (and that nomenclature itself gives away much of the game). But we had no right to expect it.
For Indyref, if Scotland had voted yes, then we, as a mature, developed, confident, coherent nation would have worked as well as we could have to ensure all was as smooth and mutually successful as possible. The EU is neither mature, nor developed, nor confident, not all that coherent. It is nervous and no doubt wracked by existential doubt. It is like a baby 600lb gorilla in many senses.
Now of course that is no reason for us not to have left it, but it does mean that our approach should reflect reality, rather than wishful thinking.
I agree with the thrust of what you are saying, but in all the criticism of the UK government's position, I can't really see anyone making any coherent suggestion as to what exactly they should be doing differently, with the one minor exception that sometimes ministers might have chosen their words more carefully. The UK has made it very clear that we want a trade deal, as frictionless a border as we can get, and a good solution for Ireland. It has also made it very clear that it is prepared to pay something to make this happen. If our EU friends don't want to tango, then there's no dance, but it won't be for want of trying on our part.
The result of the last 25 or so years in the single market has not helped a lot of our brethren, and I do believe they are entitled to a better life. The fact that the way they see of achieving it creates a new raft of issues isn't here or there. We will have to overcome them. That is our job. Quit the negativity and work towards solutions.
Is it 'the way they see of achieving it', or is it the way that a load of shyster ideologues have told them is the way to achieve it? My solution is to expose the shysters without remorse until they are run out of public life and then ask the people again.
That is only accepting the existence of one side of the balance sheet.
If you are so gullible as believe that there were (or are) shysters only on one side of the argument then I would have to ask you when will you grow out of your nappies?
The result of the last 25 or so years in the single market has not helped a lot of our brethren, and I do believe they are entitled to a better life. The fact that the way they see of achieving it creates a new raft of issues isn't here or there. We will have to overcome them. That is our job. Quit the negativity and work towards solutions.
Is it 'the way they see of achieving it', or is it the way that a load of shyster ideologues have told them is the way to achieve it? My solution is to expose the shysters without remorse until they are run out of public life and then ask the people again.
That is only accepting the existence of one side of the balance sheet.
What is on the other side of the balance sheet? What are the benefits of leaving the EU that will improve these voters' lives?
Goodness me, Corbynistas might be happy now in their delusions, but if Corbyn ever got power he would toxify Labour for decades. And I say that as a non Blairite Labour voter.
Maybe. But predictions about Corbyn have generally been wrong so far.
The result of the last 25 or so years in the single market has not helped a lot of our brethren, and I do believe they are entitled to a better life. The fact that the way they see of achieving it creates a new raft of issues isn't here or there. We will have to overcome them. That is our job. Quit the negativity and work towards solutions.
Is it 'the way they see of achieving it', or is it the way that a load of shyster ideologues have told them is the way to achieve it? My solution is to expose the shysters without remorse until they are run out of public life and then ask the people again.
That is only accepting the existence of one side of the balance sheet.
What is on the other side of the balance sheet? What are the benefits of leaving the EU that will improve these voters' lives?
After years of discussions you don't know what others see that they find attractive? You don't know what people find unattractive about the EU?
You may dismiss all the views that are contrary to your own as lies, delusions and temptations of Lucifer, but there is a cohort who see the world through a different prism to you.
They are entitled to what they consider a valid viewpoint, as are you.
From William Glenn Michael Skapinker ✔ @Skapinker Illuminating @FT letter on what leaving the single market means for a UK exporter. 10:42 AM - Sep 11, 2017
Rot. This Company made a profit after tax of £146k. It is actually an importer of goods made elsewhere. Little sign of manufacturing much in the UK, since its 2016 Accounts state "Most of the finished goods are manufactured overseas". Its biggest market is the UK, which is more than 90% of the whole. It exports less than 10% probably generating less corporation tax on foreign earnings than a small plumbing business with a few workers does in the UK.
From William Glenn Michael Skapinker ✔ @Skapinker Illuminating @FT letter on what leaving the single market means for a UK exporter. 10:42 AM - Sep 11, 2017
Rot. This Company made a profit after tax of £146k. It is actually an importer of goods made elsewhere. Little sign of manufacturing much in the UK, since its 2016 Accounts state "Most of the finished goods are manufactured overseas". Its biggest market is the UK, which is more than 90% of the whole. It exports less than 10%.
The main product is Christmas decorations, I assume manufactured in far east (they were when I traded with them 15 or so years ago).
O/T, but am outraged about this story. Seems authorities still don't get it is Age of CONSENT for a reason... www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/11/compensation-body-told-rotherham-abuse-victim-she-consented
O/T, but am outraged about this story. Seems authorities still don't get it is Age of CONSENT for a reason... //www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/11/compensation-body-told-rotherham-abuse-victim-she-consented
Anyone who thinks children consent to being abused should have no role to play in the state.
From William Glenn Michael Skapinker ✔ @Skapinker Illuminating @FT letter on what leaving the single market means for a UK exporter. 10:42 AM - Sep 11, 2017
Rot. This Company made a profit after tax of £146k. It is actually an importer of goods made elsewhere. Little sign of manufacturing much in the UK, since its 2016 Accounts state "Most of the finished goods are manufactured overseas". Its biggest market is the UK, which is more than 90% of the whole. It exports less than 10%.
The main product is Christmas decorations, I assume manufactured in far east (they were when I traded with them 15 or so years ago).
They do declare a minority shareholding in a Polish company. Maybe that makes some things, but hardly any claim to be a UK exporter. Chap once worked for the Labour government of 1974. What is the truth?
The result of the last 25 or so years in the single market has not helped a lot of our brethren, and I do believe they are entitled to a better life. The fact that the way they see of achieving it creates a new raft of issues isn't here or there. We will have to overcome them. That is our job. Quit the negativity and work towards solutions.
Is it 'the way they see of achieving it', or is it the way that a load of shyster ideologues have told them is the way to achieve it? My solution is to expose the shysters without remorse until they are run out of public life and then ask the people again.
That is only accepting the existence of one side of the balance sheet.
What is on the other side of the balance sheet? What are the benefits of leaving the EU that will improve these voters' lives?
The UK agreed to the timetable the EU proposed, but cannot now make the necessary progress for fear of bad headlines at home about caving into EU payment demands.
So you think we should agree to pay something more than the entire annual defence budget on the off chance that the EU might be nice to us?
Well, it's a view. I can't think that it's a very business-friendly view though. That money will come directly out of the UK economy.
Nope - I think we should accept that if we want to have a meaningful ongoing relationship with the EU, then we are going to have to pay a relatively large amount of money. If we do not have that relationship, the cost to the British economy - and to British business - will be a lot higher than anything we fork out.
So do you think we should agree to be blackmailed/extorted into writing a blank cheque in order to talk about trade?
We are not being blackmailed. We do not need to write a cheque to start talking about trade. We need to agree a process that will get us to a point where we make a series of payments in the future.
Currently the EU view is to get us to pay the maximum imaginable whether it is legally justified or not because we have no choice but to agree to it in their eyes. Do you think we should go ahead with that or not?
Goodness me, Corbynistas might be happy now in their delusions, but if Corbyn ever got power he would toxify Labour for decades. And I say that as a non Blairite Labour voter.
Maybe. But predictions about Corbyn have generally been wrong so far.
In the 1970s it was widely expected that Thatcher would prove to be a disaster for the Tories. Too extreme they said. People would never accept her ideas. But Labour imploded and policies that once appeared extreme became mainstream. Corbyn may follow a similar trajectory.
The result of the last 25 or so years in the single market has not helped a lot of our brethren, and I do believe they are entitled to a better life. The fact that the way they see of achieving it creates a new raft of issues isn't here or there. We will have to overcome them. That is our job. Quit the negativity and work towards solutions.
Is it 'the way they see of achieving it', or is it the way that a load of shyster ideologues have told them is the way to achieve it? My solution is to expose the shysters without remorse until they are run out of public life and then ask the people again.
That is only accepting the existence of one side of the balance sheet.
What is on the other side of the balance sheet? What are the benefits of leaving the EU that will improve these voters' lives?
Cheaper food once out of the CAP.
Give me an example of a good product that will be cheaper and explain why.
we, as a mature, developed, confident, coherent nation would have worked as well as we could have to ensure all was as smooth and mutually successful as possible. .
Must be typical British modesty & understatement that keeps that particular light hidden under a bushel of self doubt, threats & blackmail, then as now.
Just to be clear, business cares about the Tories and the Tories care about business.
And no, Hard Brexit doesn't mean no deal, it means not being in the Single Market or Customs Union. It is another foolish designation from the continuity Remain campaigners. It doesn't help their argument but makes them feel better.
Indeed, we could revert to methods of business that we used in the 1970s.
Alternatively we could trade from outside the single market, into a single market that has one set of standards, using the trading methods of the 2010s.
This "exporter" and manufacturer actually sold less than 8% of its goods into Europe before the Referendum. Worth about £10k of Profit after tax each year. The "business leader" should be more focused on why his business sells so little into Europe and get out and open new markets for his company. But he is 78 years old so may be a little long in the tooth for driving the company forward? He could always join young Vince's team with the Lib Dems.
The UK agreed to the timetable the EU proposed, but cannot now make the necessary progress for fear of bad headlines at home about caving into EU payment demands.
So you think we should agree to pay something more than the entire annual defence budget on the off chance that the EU might be nice to us?
Well, it's a view. I can't think that it's a very business-friendly view though. That money will come directly out of the UK economy.
Nope - I think we should accept that if we want to have a meaningful ongoing relationship with the EU, then we are going to have to pay a relatively large amount of money. If we do not have that relationship, the cost to the British economy - and to British business - will be a lot higher than anything we fork out.
So do you think we should agree to be blackmailed/extorted into writing a blank cheque in order to talk about trade?
We are not being blackmailed. We do not need to write a cheque to start talking about trade. We need to agree a process that will get us to a point where we make a series of payments in the future.
Currently the EU view is to get us to pay the maximum imaginable whether it is legally justified or not because we have no choice but to agree to it in their eyes. Do you think we should go ahead with that or not?
Of course they want more than we are willing to give. What we need to do right now is work out a mutually agreeable way of getting to a final sum. Given the balance of power in the negotiation that is likely to be closer to the EU amount than the UK one. The alternative is us walking out. That will be far more damaging to us, which is probably why there is no indication that we are preparing for it.
From William Glenn Michael Skapinker ✔ @Skapinker Illuminating @FT letter on what leaving the single market means for a UK exporter. 10:42 AM - Sep 11, 2017
Rot. This Company made a profit after tax of £146k. It is actually an importer of goods made elsewhere. Little sign of manufacturing much in the UK, since its 2016 Accounts state "Most of the finished goods are manufactured overseas". Its biggest market is the UK, which is more than 90% of the whole. It exports less than 10% probably generating less corporation tax on foreign earnings than a small plumbing business with a few workers does in the UK.
I get that you hate the message. But what are its factual inaccuracies? Is he incorrectly describing how the single market enables the free flow of goods?
Goodness me, Corbynistas might be happy now in their delusions, but if Corbyn ever got power he would toxify Labour for decades. And I say that as a non Blairite Labour voter.
The problem is that's probably going to have to happen for people to realise the downside of Labours plans.
Now, it's just free unicorns and owls for all, which sounds great.
Goodness me, Corbynistas might be happy now in their delusions, but if Corbyn ever got power he would toxify Labour for decades. And I say that as a non Blairite Labour voter.
Maybe. But predictions about Corbyn have generally been wrong so far.
In the 1970s it was widely expected that Thatcher would prove to be a disaster for the Tories. Too extreme they said. People would never accept her ideas. But Labour imploded and policies that once appeared extreme became mainstream. Corbyn may follow a similar trajectory.
Goodness me, Corbynistas might be happy now in their delusions, but if Corbyn ever got power he would toxify Labour for decades. And I say that as a non Blairite Labour voter.
The problem is that's probably going to have to happen for people to realise the downside of Labours plans.
Now, it's just free unicorns and owls for all, which sounds great.
O/T, but am outraged about this story. Seems authorities still don't get it is Age of CONSENT for a reason... //www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/11/compensation-body-told-rotherham-abuse-victim-she-consented
Anyone who thinks children consent to being abused should have no role to play in the state.
Indeed. Doubly so when, in addition to a lack of empathy, they display a fundamental ignorance of the Law!
we, as a mature, developed, confident, coherent nation would have worked as well as we could have to ensure all was as smooth and mutually successful as possible. .
Must be typical British modesty & understatement that keeps that particular light hidden under a bushel of self doubt, threats & blackmail, then as now.
I think that all the mood music emanating from both Whitehall and Westminster was of a sensible arrangement should independence have transpired.
Now? Well no one has the slightest clue about what they are doing. Whitehall I'm sure has no idea what its ministers want and those ministers seem to be still fighting like cats in a sack over what they do want, or over what the UK line should be.
The UK agreed to the timetable the EU proposed, but cannot now make the necessary progress for fear of bad headlines at home about caving into EU payment demands.
So you think we should agree to pay something more than the entire annual defence budget on the off chance that the EU might be nice to us?
Well, it's a view. I can't think that it's a very business-friendly view though. That money will come directly out of the UK economy.
Nope - I think we should accept that if we want to have a meaningful ongoing relationship with the EU, then we are going to have to pay a relatively large amount of money. If we do not have that relationship, the cost to the British economy - and to British business - will be a lot higher than anything we fork out.
So do you think we should agree to be blackmailed/extorted into writing a blank cheque in order to talk about trade?
We are not being blackmailed. We do not need to write a cheque to start talking about trade. We need to agree a process that will get us to a point where we make a series of payments in the future.
Currently the EU view is to get us to pay the maximum imaginable whether it is legally justified or not because we have no choice but to agree to it in their eyes. Do you think we should go ahead with that or not?
Of course they want more than we are willing to give. What we need to do right now is work out a mutually agreeable way of getting to a final sum. Given the balance of power in the negotiation that is likely to be closer to the EU amount than the UK one. The alternative is us walking out. That will be far more damaging to us, which is probably why there is no indication that we are preparing for it.
and what do you think the reaction here would be if we put our coats on? There is an audience of twinks to think about.
How the reality of Brexit changes things - if it does at all - is probably the big question in Scotland between now and the next GE. I suspect that if Labour did form the next UK government, Scottish independence would cease to be an issue. On the other hand, if the Tories got back in after taking us over the cliff it could be a very different story. But what do I know?
Except the Tories now have 11 seats in Scotland all but one gained post Brexit
Be interesting to see how they fare after the apocalypse.
Goodness me, Corbynistas might be happy now in their delusions, but if Corbyn ever got power he would toxify Labour for decades. And I say that as a non Blairite Labour voter.
Maybe. But predictions about Corbyn have generally been wrong so far.
In the 1970s it was widely expected that Thatcher would prove to be a disaster for the Tories. Too extreme they said. People would never accept her ideas. But Labour imploded and policies that once appeared extreme became mainstream. Corbyn may follow a similar trajectory.
I doubt Corbyn is another Attlee or Thatcher, more likely if he wins he will be another Heath and out after a term
Just to be clear, business cares about the Tories and the Tories care about business.
And no, Hard Brexit doesn't mean no deal, it means not being in the Single Market or Customs Union. It is another foolish designation from the continuity Remain campaigners. It doesn't help their argument but makes them feel better.
Indeed, we could revert to methods of business that we used in the 1970s.
Alternatively we could trade from outside the single market, into a single market that has one set of standards, using the trading methods of the 2010s.
This "exporter" and manufacturer actually sold less than 8% of its goods into Europe before the Referendum. Worth about £10k of Profit after tax each year. The "business leader" should be more focused on why his business sells so little into Europe and get out and open new markets for his company. But he is 78 years old so may be a little long in the tooth for driving the company forward? He could always join young Vince's team with the Lib Dems.
And your solution is to make it harder for him to export to Europe. I am sure that this makes sense in your head, but I have to say I'm struggling with it.
The result of the last 25 or so years in the single market has not helped a lot of our brethren, and I do believe they are entitled to a better life. The fact that the way they see of achieving it creates a new raft of issues isn't here or there. We will have to overcome them. That is our job. Quit the negativity and work towards solutions.
Is it 'the way they see of achieving it', or is it the way that a load of shyster ideologues have told them is the way to achieve it? My solution is to expose the shysters without remorse until they are run out of public life and then ask the people again.
That is only accepting the existence of one side of the balance sheet.
What is on the other side of the balance sheet? What are the benefits of leaving the EU that will improve these voters' lives?
Cheaper food once out of the CAP.
Give me an example of a good product that will be cheaper and explain why.
EU Tariffs = 33.5 per cent in dairy and 15 per cent on animal products. For individual products tariffs can be higher still. (Policy Exchange report 2017)
Caroline Flint has decided to upset both Corbynistas and anti-Corbynistas on the Left with her decision today. I even saw some on Twitter calling for her deselection.
foxinsoxuk UK makes a good point about Momentum. They are very fired up and will likely be consistently campaigning throughout the country until whenever the next GE will be. In that sense, the expansion of the Labour membership is highly useful to Corbyn. Meanwhile it doesn't seem that the Conservatives are doing very much to increase their membership, or indeed broaden it.
Somehow struggle to see the fire lasting 4.5 years....
I don't. I don't think some Tories understand quite how enthusiastic many of these people are for Corbyn and quite how much they hate the Conservative Party.
Yep - the Tories seem determined to persuade people like me living in marginal constituencies that the absolute priority at the next general election has to be to use our votes to prevent a Tory government.
The slim prospect of attracting centre left Remainers like you to vote Tory if the Tories back soft Brexit as you are not keen on Corbyn is not worth the large numbers of Tory Leave voters who would switch to UKIP if the Tories kept the UK in the single market and left free movement uncontrolled
Yep - but May decided long ago to outsource Brexit policy to the right wing press and that sits uncomfortably with a business-led approach to the negotiations.
That makes no sense, given that it is the EU27, not the UK, which is refusing to discuss business issues.
I appreciate you have consistently (perhaps more than anyone on here) been keen to put both sides' motives and activities. And equally, we would have hoped for a slightly different response from the EU27 (and that nomenclature itself gives away much of the game). But we had no right to expect it.
For Indyref, if Scotland had voted yes, then we, as a mature, developed, confident, coherent nation would have worked as well as we could have to ensure all was as smooth and mutually successful as possible. The EU is neither mature, nor developed, nor confident, not all that coherent. It is nervous and no doubt wracked by existential doubt. It is like a baby 600lb gorilla in many senses.
Now of course that is no reason for us not to have left it, but it does mean that our approach should reflect reality, rather than wishful thinking.
LOL, you are in La La Land, they would have been just as bitter and twisted as they are towards Europe.
Comments
http://www.onlondon.co.uk/momentum-group-wins-key-positions-in-haringey-labour-branches/
The former are a huge Labour asset; the latter are a millstone around the party's neck.
Of course it cuts both ways, 50 more votes in the right places and the LibDems would have 2 more MPs and Zac wouldn't have been back.
I wonder, does this parliament have more close results than usual?
Labour chose not to oppose Article 50. If it then indiscriminately opposes everything related to leaving the EU, whether good or bad, it will, at least at times and perhaps often, be acting against the national interest.
Article 50 was a necessary consequence of the referendum result. It was party independent. Once Article 50 had been triggered, then it is let 100 flowers bloom for the flavour of Brexit. As we know all too well on here, after March 2019 we can be in the single market and the customs union, be required to speak French on alternate Thursdays and submit our monthly iphone bills to the ECJ for approval, and still we will have left the EU.
If a CLP appoints (for example) someone like me who works in business and manages both P&L and people, then I can talk to local business about our support for the basics of capitalism and why we support them growing and making a profit. Because the secure well paid jobs we want for people need to be created by businesses that both have a long-term sustainable business plan AND recognise that for people to be able to consume their goods/services they need to pay their workforce enough that they have the cash. This is the bit that the bad boys of capitalism seem to have forgotten.
However, think of the fun that could be had if the CLP appoints a Momentum loon who tells business they should be abolished because profit is theft and their all Tory banker scum...
Its absolutely clear that the Tories don't give a shit about business. Hard Brexit destroys the chances of businesses of all shapes and sizes from the cataclysmic shock that no deal creates on day 1 as trucks stop crossing the channel and Sterling implodes. And when they're not promoting suicidal hard Brexit they're doing nothing about the cost of living crisis which is removing from consumers their ability to consume, and the personal debt bubble which has ameliorated some of the effects is not long for this world.
But its not remotely clear that Corbyn's Labour Party gives a shit about business either. So many refuse to accept that we live in a capitalist system, that capitalism can do wonderful things for national and personal development, and that we need private business.
https://twitter.com/__Gilmour__/status/907002490129858560
And no, Hard Brexit doesn't mean no deal, it means not being in the Single Market or Customs Union. It is another foolish designation from the continuity Remain campaigners. It doesn't help their argument but makes them feel better.
https://twitter.com/Skapinker/status/907177542616064000
Labour CAC was one member one vote 2 Corbynites vs 2 Progress members.
Could be close as Progress is traditionally better organised.
I am hoping Billy and Seema get elected but think it will be close vs GDP and M Cashman
More
CAC results are coming out today at noon!
History is merely a guide and an unreliable one at that.
I fully expect Corbyn and Vince to be in post.
It might be better to use the terms 'markets' and 'mixed economy', i.e capitalism is tamed and markets are our servant not our master. I don't think even Momentum plans to nationalise Easyjet. If I'm wrong, that would be 'interesting' in the Sir Humphrey sense.
I have to say (but then I would) that the Cons approach to business is absolutley bonkers with the Brexit thing. OK we're leaving, but there is plenty of business friendly wiggle room which they seem intent on not using.
https://www.ft.com/content/542a5536-9482-11e7-a9e6-11d2f0ebb7f0
Alternatively we could trade from outside the single market, into a single market that has one set of standards, using the trading methods of the 2010s.
If you try to replicate the pre EU / single market business model, yes, you will struggle and fail. Looks like an unimaginative and backward looking businessman from here.
I do struggle with the unremitting gloom of those who are unable to imagine the possibility that problems are only little blips waiting for the right solution.
Sure, some problems will be hard, some won't. Some will have a cost to solve, some will create an added benefit when they are solved. Governments have been creating problems for business for the last 150 years or more.
I think the expression is 'Get over it- - that is what business has done in the past and will do in the future to the government created hurdles.
For Indyref, if Scotland had voted yes, then we, as a mature, developed, confident, coherent nation would have worked as well as we could have to ensure all was as smooth and mutually successful as possible. The EU is neither mature, nor developed, nor confident, not all that coherent. It is nervous and no doubt wracked by existential doubt. It is like a baby 600lb gorilla in many senses.
Now of course that is no reason for us not to have left it, but it does mean that our approach should reflect reality, rather than wishful thinking.
https://twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/907190142246547456
Well, it's a view. I can't think that it's a very business-friendly view though. That money will come directly out of the UK economy.
Like monetary union without fiscal or even banking union. That never happened, did it.
Edit: Unless of course there are actually meaningful discussions going on behind the scenes, which is possible.
If you refuse to look on the other side of the balance sheet, then someone else will take advantage.
If you refuse to acknowledge the other side of the balance sheet could exist, then you end up with no more than an unfulfilling half life, seeped in a sea of gloom and despondency.
It may not be popular, but I do understand the motivation of the lower paid to feel that the EU has had negative effects on pay levels, housing, education, welfare, and many other aspects of daily life. The result of the last 25 or so years in the single market has not helped a lot of our brethren, and I do believe they are entitled to a better life. The fact that the way they see of achieving it creates a new raft of issues isn't here or there. We will have to overcome them. That is our job. Quit the negativity and work towards solutions.
2) Scotland is part of the UK, foreign affairs are a reserved power.
3) Just because you're obsessed with breaking up the UK, don't think the people of this country are. Indeed, every indication is that the union is stronger since the Brexit vote.
Your recent spinning suggests to me that even you've realised that the EU are being foolish in their stubborn and bizarre 'give us a load of money before we talk' 'position'
Plus as those measures make sense for a currency union, then I can't believe that it came as a shock to any eurozone member that they were established.
That is only accepting the existence of one side of the balance sheet.
If you are so gullible as believe that there were (or are) shysters only on one side of the argument then I would have to ask you when will you grow out of your nappies?
Process 55k
You don't know what people find unattractive about the EU?
You may dismiss all the views that are contrary to your own as lies, delusions and temptations of Lucifer, but there is a cohort who see the world through a different prism to you.
They are entitled to what they consider a valid viewpoint, as are you.
Michael Skapinker ✔ @Skapinker
Illuminating @FT letter on what leaving the single market means for a UK exporter.
10:42 AM - Sep 11, 2017
Rot. This Company made a profit after tax of £146k. It is actually an importer of goods made elsewhere. Little sign of manufacturing much in the UK, since its 2016 Accounts state "Most of the finished goods are manufactured overseas". Its biggest market is the UK, which is more than 90% of the whole. It exports less than 10% probably generating less corporation tax on foreign earnings than a small plumbing business with a few workers does in the UK.
www.theguardian.com/society/2017/sep/11/compensation-body-told-rotherham-abuse-victim-she-consented
At http://visual.ons.gov.uk/whats-changed-in-the-year-since-the-brexit-vote/
Now, it's just free unicorns and owls for all, which sounds great.
Now? Well no one has the slightest clue about what they are doing. Whitehall I'm sure has no idea what its ministers want and those ministers seem to be still fighting like cats in a sack over what they do want, or over what the UK line should be.