The UK is the most geopolitically capable country in Europe according to a new report on global power. Britain beat France, Germany and Russia on world power rankings which measured economics, technological prowess, military strength and cultural prestige. Globally the UK came second only to the United States in the Audit of Geopolitical Capability produced by the Henry Jackson Society.
I presume if the UK had a proper Constitution, like most respectable countries, that the EU Withdrawal Bill would be unconstitutional.
We do have a proper Constitution.
It's just not codified.
That's just nonsense. To take just one example, in most democracies local government has established rights and powers granted to it by the constitution. In the UK it has none; local councils can be reorganised or abolished and their powers taken away or fettered by central government according to its whim.
So our constitution is highly centralised. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist
There is very little constitutional constraint on a government with a majority. The idea of the unwritten constitution is romantic twaddle.
I guess I can throw my degree in Constitutional Government in the bin then?
(Hailsham's Dimbleby Lecture is worth reading if you haven't already)
Read it years ago, but well worth a reread. Yes stick it in the bin. Let's come up with something better than this failed settlement.
I don't disagree - personally I favour a federal system plus carving the executive out of the legislature
On your other point, no the ends don't justify the means. But politicians are largely irrelevant to outcomes. My mentor served in government for 40 years (and at cabinet rank for 30) and said that in that time there were only 3 important decisions made - in one there was no choice, in one the best course was obvious and on one he had no influence.
Did your mentor define important? It is, of course, a highly subjective term.
I'm greatly amused that there was zero fuss when the EU was exercising these powers. Heaven forbid the UK government wields them.
Its not the powers as such, it is the ability to amend them without democratic scrutiny.
Trust me says Theresa, after all, my judgement is infallible.
Yep - trust Theresa, the PM who promised no general election before calling one; and trust David, the cabinet minister who thought the UK could do an FTA with Germany; or trust Boris, sacked by the Times for lying; then there's Liam, who has been known to move in mysterious ways with his chum Mr Werrity; not to mention Michael, who warned us Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU.
I cannot see the problem with giving these and other ministers virtually unlimited power to legislate as they wish with no Parliamentary scrutiny. We can trust them. Can't we.
I think so.
Fair enough. My view of taking back control is that it does not involve giving unlimited, unaccountable power to serial liars and fantasists who were not able to win a majority at the last general election.
I think the argument that has more power is that you and I would not even like to see these powers given to people we wholeheartedly agreed with. There are basic principles that go beyond party politics and this is definitely one of them.
A fair point. But I wonder how many on here would be relaxed about Corbyn, McDonnell etc having the unregulated power that the current government is proposing for itself.
The unwritten British constitution that was being debated down below relies heavily on precedent. The legislation that was put before the Commons last night is constitutionally significant for that reason. It frightens the life out of me.
Absolutely - next time we leave a proto superstate we should be careful
Why does it have to involve leaving a proto superstate?
Because that is how precedent works.
No, it isn't. Henry VIII did not take the powers he did in order to leave the EU.
Just to enforce our break with a centralised European supranational authority
I'm greatly amused that there was zero fuss when the EU was exercising these powers. Heaven forbid the UK government wields them.
Its not the powers as such, it is the ability to amend them without democratic scrutiny.
Trust me says Theresa, after all, my judgement is infallible.
Yep - trust Theresa, the PM who promised no general election before calling one; and trust David, the cabinet minister who thought the UK could do an FTA with Germany; or trust Boris, sacked by the Times for lying; then there's Liam, who has been known to move in mysterious ways with his chum Mr Werrity; not to mention Michael, who warned us Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU.
I cannot see the problem with giving these and other ministers virtually unlimited power to legislate as they wish with no Parliamentary scrutiny. We can trust them. Can't we.
I think so.
Fair enough. My view of taking back control is that it does not involve giving unlimited, unaccountable power to serial liars and fantasists who were not able to win a majority at the last general election.
I think the argument that has more power is that you and I would not even like to see these powers given to people we wholeheartedly agreed with. There are basic principles that go beyond party politics and this is definitely one of them.
A fair point. But I wonder how many on here would be relaxed about Corbyn, McDonnell etc having the unregulated power that the current government is proposing for itself.
The of me.
Absolutely - next time we leave a proto superstate we should be careful
Why does it have to involve leaving a proto superstate?
Because that is how precedent works.
No, it isn't. Henry VIII did not take the powers he did in order to leave the EU.
Just to enforce our break with a centralised European supranational authority
He took the powers because he wanted to bypass Parliament. That is the precedent.
Corbyn won with all three categories of members handsomely. Tories4Corbyn made no difference to the overall outcome, but they did manage to contribute to the Labour party's coffers... For that they have my thanks.
That's the important bit. Corbyn won because the other candidates were appalling, appalling bad during the campaign.
Interestingly I did pay my £3 to vote in the labour election. But that was because 2 candidates were so poor I had to vote for Liz Kendall as just about the only sane option...
The UK is the most geopolitically capable country in Europe according to a new report on global power. Britain beat France, Germany and Russia on world power rankings which measured economics, technological prowess, military strength and cultural prestige. Globally the UK came second only to the United States in the Audit of Geopolitical Capability produced by the Henry Jackson Society.
Why would that upset any Remainers? The fear that many of us have is that over the next few years Brexit will cause us to lose many of the undoubted advantages we currently have.
Had Burnham won the Labour leadership in 2015 he may even have won in 2017 or at least won most seats unlike Corbyn.
Corbyn was good at consolidating the centre left behind him squeezing the LDs, the Greens and the SNP in Labour's favour and even winning some left-wing Eurosceptic who had voted for UKIP.
However he also United the right and much of the centre against him and the Tories got 42% of the vote as a result, their highest voteshare for 25 years despite a hapless Tory vote. Burnham may have won a few more Tory votes, after all in Mau he even won Trafford in his Greater Manchester Mayoral bid and Trafford still has a Tory council and in 2015 he polled far better with Tory voters as to who they wanted to succeed Ed Miliband than Corbyn while also polling well with Labour voters (as opposed to Labour members who made him a distant second after Corbyn, though it would have been closer had preferences been included).
But Corbyn got the youth vote out in seats they did win, like Canterbury, Burnham would not have done.
Corbyn won with all three categories of members handsomely. Tories4Corbyn made no difference to the overall outcome, but they did manage to contribute to the Labour party's coffers... For that they have my thanks.
That's the important bit. Corbyn won because the other candidates were appalling, appalling bad during the campaign.
Interestingly I did pay my £3 to vote in the labour election. But that was because 2 candidates were so poor I had to vote for Liz Kendall as just about the only sane option...
Burnham's landslide Manchester Mayoral win (in which he got more votes as a percentage in Greater Manchester than most Labour MPs and candidates did at the general election in the same region) does not suggest that
The UK is the most geopolitically capable country in Europe according to a new report on global power. Britain beat France, Germany and Russia on world power rankings which measured economics, technological prowess, military strength and cultural prestige. Globally the UK came second only to the United States in the Audit of Geopolitical Capability produced by the Henry Jackson Society.
Had Burnham won the Labour leadership in 2015 he may even have won in 2017 or at least won most seats unlike Corbyn.
Corbyn was good at consolidating the centre left behind him squeezing the LDs, the Greens and the SNP in Labour's favour and even winning some left-wing Eurosceptic who had voted for UKIP.
However he also United the right and much of the centre against him and the Tories got 42% of the vote as a result, their highest voteshare for 25 years despite a hapless Tory vote. Burnham may have won a few more Tory votes, after all in Mau he even won Trafford in his Greater Manchester Mayoral bid and Trafford still has a Tory council and in 2015 he polled far better with Tory voters as to who they wanted to succeed Ed Miliband than Corbyn while also polling well with Labour voters (as opposed to Labour members who made him a distant second after Corbyn, though it would have been closer had preferences been included).
But Corbyn got the youth vote out in seats they did win, like Canterbury, Burnham would not have done.
Yep - it's a trade-off. Burnham might have seen Labour do better in its heartlands, but probably would not have delivered the seats Labour won in more prosperous parts of the country. However, we would have had a more effective opposition in Parliament and a front bench that drew on talent from all parts of the Labour party. So no Richard Burgon embarrassing himself and Labour on the radio, for example.
Had Burnham won the Labour leadership in 2015 he may even have won in 2017 or at least won most seats unlike Corbyn.
Corbyn was good at consolidating the centre left behind him squeezing the LDs, the Greens and the SNP in Labour's favour and even winning some left-wing Eurosceptic who had voted for UKIP.
However he also United the right and much of the centre against him and the Tories got 42% of the vote as a result, their highest voteshare for 25 years despite a hapless Tory vote. Burnham may have won a few more Tory votes, after all in Mau he even won Trafford in his Greater Manchester Mayoral bid and Trafford still has a Tory council and in 2015 he polled far better with Tory voters as to who they wanted to succeed Ed Miliband than Corbyn while also polling well with Labour voters (as opposed to Labour members who made him a distant second after Corbyn, though it would have been closer had preferences been included).
But Corbyn got the youth vote out in seats they did win, like Canterbury, Burnham would not have done.
Labour won Canterbury but it also lost Mansfield, Walsall North etc and got 60 fewer seats than the Tories did
The UK is the most geopolitically capable country in Europe according to a new report on global power. Britain beat France, Germany and Russia on world power rankings which measured economics, technological prowess, military strength and cultural prestige. Globally the UK came second only to the United States in the Audit of Geopolitical Capability produced by the Henry Jackson Society.
Had Burnham won the Labour leadership in 2015 he may even have won in 2017 or at least won most seats unlike Corbyn.
Corbyn was good at consolidating the centre left behind him squeezing the LDs, the Greens and the SNP in Labour's favour and even winning some left-wing Eurosceptic who had voted for UKIP.
However he also United the right and much of the centre against him and the Tories got 42% of the vote as a result, their highest voteshare for 25 years despite a hapless Tory vote. Burnham may have won a few more Tory votes, after all in Mau he even won Trafford in his Greater Manchester Mayoral bid and Trafford still has a Tory council and in 2015 he polled far better with Tory voters as to who they wanted to succeed Ed Miliband than Corbyn while also polling well with Labour voters (as opposed to Labour members who made him a distant second after Corbyn, though it would have been closer had preferences been included).
But Corbyn got the youth vote out in seats they did win, like Canterbury, Burnham would not have done.
Yep - it's a trade-off. Burnham might have seen Labour do better in its heartlands, but probably would not have delivered the seats Labour won in more prosperous parts of the country. However, we would have had a more effective opposition in Parliament and a front bench that drew on talent from all parts of the Labour party. So no Richard Burgon embarrassing himself and Labour on the radio, for example.
Burnham won Tory Trafford in May which Corbyn lost in 2016 even when Labour narrowly won the local elections nationally. I agree on the rest
I presume if the UK had a proper Constitution, like most respectable countries, that the EU Withdrawal Bill would be unconstitutional.
We do have a proper Constitution.
It's just not codified.
That's just nonsense. To take just one example, in most democracies local government has established rights and powers granted to it by the constitution. In the UK it has none; local councils can be reorganised or abolished and their powers taken away or fettered by central government according to its whim.
So our constitution is highly centralised. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist
There is very little constitutional constraint on a government with a majority. The idea of the unwritten constitution is romantic twaddle.
I guess I can throw my degree in Constitutional Government in the bin then?
(Hailsham's Dimbleby Lecture is worth reading if you haven't already)
Read it years ago, but well worth a reread. Yes stick it in the bin. Let's come up with something better than this failed settlement.
I don't disagree - personally I favour a federal system plus carving the executive out of the legislature
On your other point, no the ends don't justify the means. But politicians are largely irrelevant to outcomes. My mentor served in government for 40 years (and at cabinet rank for 30) and said that in that time there were only 3 important decisions made - in one there was no choice, in one the best course was obvious and on one he had no influence.
Did your mentor define important? It is, of course, a highly subjective term.
This was someone who had a 3 year correspondence with the Archbishop of Canterbury on whether it is the "nature of God to be forgiving" or the "property of God to be forgiving"...
He tended to think a lot of things were important!
I'm greatly amused that there was zero fuss when the EU was exercising these powers. Heaven forbid the UK government wields them.
Its not the powers as such, it is the ability to amend them without democratic scrutiny.
Trust me says Theresa, after all, my judgement is infallible.
Yep - trust Theresa, the PM who promised no general election before calling one; and trust David, the cabinet minister who thought the UK could do an FTA with Germany; or trust Boris, sacked by the Times for lying; then there's Liam, who has been known to move in mysterious ways with his chum Mr Werrity; not to mention Michael, who warned us Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU.
I cannot see the problem with giving these and other ministers virtually unlimited power to legislate as they wish with no Parliamentary scrutiny. We can trust them. Can't we.
I think so.
Fair enough. My view of taking back control is that it does not involve giving unlimited, unaccountable power to serial liars and fantasists who were not able to win a majority at the last general election.
I think the argument that has more power is that you and I would not even like to see these powers given to people we wholeheartedly agreed with. There are basic principles that go beyond party politics and this is definitely one of them.
A fair point. But I wonder how many on here would be relaxed about Corbyn, McDonnell etc having the unregulated power that the current government is proposing for itself.
The of me.
Absolutely - next time we leave a proto superstate we should be careful
Why does it have to involve leaving a proto superstate?
Because that is how precedent works.
No, it isn't. Henry VIII did not take the powers he did in order to leave the EU.
Just to enforce our break with a centralised European supranational authority
He took the powers because he wanted to bypass Parliament. That is the precedent.
Because Parliament wanted to frustrate the wishes of the people (as expressed through their leader, Henry)
The UK is the most geopolitically capable country in Europe according to a new report on global power. Britain beat France, Germany and Russia on world power rankings which measured economics, technological prowess, military strength and cultural prestige. Globally the UK came second only to the United States in the Audit of Geopolitical Capability produced by the Henry Jackson Society.
I presume if the UK had a proper Constitution, like most respectable countries, that the EU Withdrawal Bill would be unconstitutional.
We do have a proper Constitution.
It's just not codified.
I'm greatly amused that there was zero fuss when the EU was exercising these powers. Heaven forbid the UK government wields them.
Its not the powers as such, it is the ability to amend them without democratic scrutiny.
Trust me says Theresa, after all, my judgement is infallible.
Yep - trust Theresa, the PM who promised no general election before calling one; and trust David, the cabinet minister who thought the UK could do an FTA with Germany; or trust Boris, sacked by the Times for lying; then there's Liam, who has been known to move in mysterious ways with his chum Mr Werrity; not to mention Michael, who warned us Turkey was on the verge of joining the EU.
I cannot see the problem with giving these and other ministers virtually unlimited power to legislate as they wish with no Parliamentary scrutiny. We can trust them. Can't we.
I think so.
Fair enough. My view of taking back control is that it does not involve giving unlimited, unaccountable power to serial liars and fantasists who were not able to win a majority at the last general election.
I think the argument that has more power is that you and I would not even like to see these powers given to people we wholeheartedly agreed with. There are basic principles that go beyond party politics and this is definitely one of them.
A fair point. But I wonder how many on here would be relaxed about Corbyn, McDonnell etc having the unregulated power that the current government is proposing for itself.
The unwritten British constitution that was being debated down below relies heavily on precedent. The legislation that was put before the Commons last night is constitutionally significant for that reason. It frightens the life out of me.
Absolutely - next time we leave a proto superstate we should be careful
Next time we ever consider joining a proto superstate we should be very very careful.
Had Burnham won the Labour leadership in 2015 he may even have won in 2017 or at least won most seats unlike Corbyn.
Corbyn was good at consolidating the centre left behind him squeezing the LDs, the Greens and the SNP in Labour's favour and even winning some left-wing Eurosceptic who had voted for UKIP.
However he also United the right and much of the centre against him and the Tories got 42% of the vote as a result, their highest voteshare for 25 years despite a hapless Tory vote. Burnham may have won a few more Tory votes, after all in Mau he even won Trafford in his Greater Manchester Mayoral bid and Trafford still has a Tory council and in 2015 he polled far better with Tory voters as to who they wanted to succeed Ed Miliband than Corbyn while also polling well with Labour voters (as opposed to Labour members who made him a distant second after Corbyn, though it would have been closer had preferences been included).
But Corbyn got the youth vote out in seats they did win, like Canterbury, Burnham would not have done.
Yep - it's a trade-off. Burnham might have seen Labour do better in its heartlands, but probably would not have delivered the seats Labour won in more prosperous parts of the country. However, we would have had a more effective opposition in Parliament and a front bench that drew on talent from all parts of the Labour party. So no Richard Burgon embarrassing himself and Labour on the radio, for example.
Burnham won Tory Trafford in May which Corbyn lost in 2016 even when Labour narrowly won the local elections nationally. I agree on the rest
Had anyone else won in 2015 chances are there wouldn't have been an election in 2017. Equally Labour would probably have made a better job of the referendum and Cameron would still be PM...
Had Burnham won the Labour leadership in 2015 he may even have won in 2017 or at least won most seats unlike Corbyn.
Corbyn was good at consolidating the centre left behind him squeezing the LDs, the Greens and the SNP in Labour's favour and even winning some left-wing Eurosceptic who had voted for UKIP.
However he also United the right and much of the centre against him and the Tories got 42% of the vote as a result, their highest voteshare for 25 years despite a hapless Tory vote. Burnham may have won a few more Tory votes, after all in Mau he even won Trafford in his Greater Manchester Mayoral bid and Trafford still has a Tory council and in 2015 he polled far better with Tory voters as to who they wanted to succeed Ed Miliband than Corbyn while also polling well with Labour voters (as opposed to Labour members who made him a distant second after Corbyn, though it would have been closer had preferences been included).
But Corbyn got the youth vote out in seats they did win, like Canterbury, Burnham would not have done.
Yep - it's a trade-off. Burnham might have seen Labour do better in its heartlands, but probably would not have delivered the seats Labour won in more prosperous parts of the country. However, we would have had a more effective opposition in Parliament and a front bench that drew on talent from all parts of the Labour party. So no Richard Burgon embarrassing himself and Labour on the radio, for example.
Burnham won Tory Trafford in May which Corbyn lost in 2016 even when Labour narrowly won the local elections nationally. I agree on the rest
Had anyone else won in 2015 chances are there wouldn't have been an election in 2017. Equally Labour would probably have made a better job of the referendum and Cameron would still be PM...
Brexit would still have happened regardless in my view as the same factors, sovereignty and immigration would have been in place.
Though May might not have risked an early general election against Burnham agreed, Corbyn did better than expected but that does not mean no alternative leader would not have done even better for Labour
Isn't it 2% plus or minus 1% that are the acceptable bounds? Outside of that the Governor needs to write a letter. CPI @ 2.9% is within the acceptable bounds so why is that an ouch?
The UK is the most geopolitically capable country in Europe according to a new report on global power. Britain beat France, Germany and Russia on world power rankings which measured economics, technological prowess, military strength and cultural prestige. Globally the UK came second only to the United States in the Audit of Geopolitical Capability produced by the Henry Jackson Society.
The absurd hyperbole about what is a purely technical bill with strictly limited powers is quite remarkable. Obviously, this is mostly displacement activity or an attempt at simple old-fashioned partisan point-scoring.
To an extent, though, this is the government's fault. Instead of initially hyping up the bill as the Great Repeal Bill, they should have called it something like the 'Regulatory Continuity Bill'.
For me the big takeaway of the CAC vote is that there remains a substantial anti-Corbyn rump in the Labour party - around 30% to 35% - that still needs to be purged.
They are still working on it. You can't purge Rome in a day.
The Bill is absolutely necessary and therefore should have been allowed a second reading. The process set out in the bill requires scrutiny and further thought. That is what the Committee stage is for. I expect the powers to amend legislation will be restricted to specific purposes and subject to limitations as to scope.
What the Bill is highlighting quite well is the hypocrisy of those who were content for the EU to regulate all these areas and change the laws of this country using QMV regardless of the views of our elected officials but somehow think it is appalling that Ministers who are completely accountable to Parliament in a minority government should be able to do something similar. Its bordering on the pathetic. But there is still work to do.
Isn't it 2% plus or minus 1% that are the acceptable bounds? Outside of that the Governor needs to write a letter. CPI @ 2.9% is within the acceptable bounds so why is that an ouch?
If you are subject to a 1% pay cap and you have been for 5 years and the 2 years before that it was 0%.
Isn't it 2% plus or minus 1% that are the acceptable bounds? Outside of that the Governor needs to write a letter. CPI @ 2.9% is within the acceptable bounds so why is that an ouch?
It's an ouch for anyone who does not get a 2.9% pay rise.
A last-ditch move to halt this year’s university tuition fees hike has been launched by Labour in a bid to embarrass Tory and DUP MPs into backing students.
Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner has found a way to force a binding Commons vote on the planned rise on Wednesday, HuffPost UK can reveal.
If the £250 hike is stopped in its tracks, it could save up to a thousand pounds for those on a four-year course, or £750 for most standard undergraduates.
What the Bill is highlighting quite well is the hypocrisy of those who were content for the EU to regulate all these areas and change the laws of this country using QMV regardless of the views of our elected officials but somehow think it is appalling that Ministers who are completely accountable to Parliament in a minority government should be able to do something similar. Its bordering on the pathetic. But there is still work to do.
Isn't it 2% plus or minus 1% that are the acceptable bounds? Outside of that the Governor needs to write a letter. CPI @ 2.9% is within the acceptable bounds so why is that an ouch?
It was over 5% in 2011 and nothing happened so 2.9% is no big deal.
The UK is the most geopolitically capable country in Europe according to a new report on global power. Britain beat France, Germany and Russia on world power rankings which measured economics, technological prowess, military strength and cultural prestige. Globally the UK came second only to the United States in the Audit of Geopolitical Capability produced by the Henry Jackson Society.
A last-ditch move to halt this year’s university tuition fees hike has been launched by Labour in a bid to embarrass Tory and DUP MPs into backing students.
Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner has found a way to force a binding Commons vote on the planned rise on Wednesday, HuffPost UK can reveal.
If the £250 hike is stopped in its tracks, it could save up to a thousand pounds for those on a four-year course, or £750 for most standard undergraduates.
Healey's old phrase about the first thing you have to do when in a hole is to stop digging comes to mind. Given the broad consensus that most University fees are too high why on earth are the government doing this?
Had Burnham won the Labour leadership in 2015 he may even have won in 2017 or at least won most seats unlike Corbyn.
Corbyn was good at consolidating the centre left behind him squeezing the LDs, the Greens and the SNP in Labour's favour and even winning some left-wing Eurosceptic who had voted for UKIP.
However he also United the right and much of the centre against him and the Tories got 42% of the vote as a result, their highest voteshare for 25 years despite a hapless Tory vote. Burnham may have won a few more Tory votes, after all in Mau he even won Trafford in his Greater Manchester Mayoral bid and Trafford still has a Tory council and in 2015 he polled far better with Tory voters as to who they wanted to succeed Ed Miliband than Corbyn while also polling well with Labour voters (as opposed to Labour members who made him a distant second after Corbyn, though it would have been closer had preferences been included).
But Corbyn got the youth vote out in seats they did win, like Canterbury, Burnham would not have done.
Labour won Canterbury but it also lost Mansfield, Walsall North etc and got 60 fewer seats than the Tories did
The Tories won 317 (excluding Bercow) with Labour winning 262 - a difference of 55.
Corbyn won with all three categories of members handsomely. Tories4Corbyn made no difference to the overall outcome, but they did manage to contribute to the Labour party's coffers... For that they have my thanks.
I see that the election to the Conference Arrangements Committee yesterday - which pitted two Momentum people against two incumbents backed by the traditional Labour right - was won by 2-1 by the Momentum team. This is a fairly obscure procedural election (it will help Corbyn's team in deciding what Conference debates) and I suspect turnout wasn't huge, but it's probably a bellwether as both sides canvassed heavily. Essentially Progress and Labour First need to build alliances with the centrists who still dominate the PLP and much of the membership - a straight "fight Momentum" platform is not a winning strategy, any more than "stop Corbyn" worked well for TM. At present, the centrist membership view is that Corbyn has earned another shot and not too many obstacles should be put in his way.
For me the big takeaway of the CAC vote is that there remains a substantial anti-Corbyn rump in the Labour party - around 30% to 35% - that still needs to be purged.
Broad Church but no room for Tory apologists amongst that 30 to 35% like McTernan. Purge probably in the hundreds far fewer than the NEC Purge of Corbynite voters at leadership election
The absurd hyperbole about what is a purely technical bill with strictly limited powers is quite remarkable.
Strictly limited to anything except:
(a) impose or increase taxation, (b) make retrospective provision, (c) create a relevant criminal offence, or (d) amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any subordinate legislation made under it.
I presume if the UK had a proper Constitution, like most respectable countries, that the EU Withdrawal Bill would be unconstitutional.
We do have a proper Constitution.
It's just not codified.
I'm greatly amused that there was zero fuss when the EU was exercising these powers. Heaven forbid the UK government wields them.
Well that's simple - we just vote the EU government out....oh, so we have...
So, as it turned out, we had retained sovereignty all along. We delegated authority while we were content with them doing it; when we weren't anymore, we exercised our sovereignty and fired them from doing so.
A last-ditch move to halt this year’s university tuition fees hike has been launched by Labour in a bid to embarrass Tory and DUP MPs into backing students.
Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner has found a way to force a binding Commons vote on the planned rise on Wednesday, HuffPost UK can reveal.
If the £250 hike is stopped in its tracks, it could save up to a thousand pounds for those on a four-year course, or £750 for most standard undergraduates.
The UK is the most geopolitically capable country in Europe according to a new report on global power. Britain beat France, Germany and Russia on world power rankings which measured economics, technological prowess, military strength and cultural prestige. Globally the UK came second only to the United States in the Audit of Geopolitical Capability produced by the Henry Jackson Society.
The Bill is absolutely necessary and therefore should have been allowed a second reading. The process set out in the bill requires scrutiny and further thought. That is what the Committee stage is for. I expect the powers to amend legislation will be restricted to specific purposes and subject to limitations as to scope.
What the Bill is highlighting quite well is the hypocrisy of those who were content for the EU to regulate all these areas and change the laws of this country using QMV regardless of the views of our elected officials but somehow think it is appalling that Ministers who are completely accountable to Parliament in a minority government should be able to do something similar. Its bordering on the pathetic. But there is still work to do.
Many of us thought long and hard about our referendum vote before casting it last June. I voted Remain because, on balance, I thought the positives of EU membership outweighed the negatives. One of the negatives was that pooled sovereignty meant that on very rare occasions UK law would be changed in ways that the UK government opposed. To say that I was "happy" about that is incorrect. I voted and my side lost. I understood that one of the consequences would be a transference of power from Brussels to the British people through the Parliament they elect. However, the legislation voted on last night envisages bypassing Parliament to give government ministers unprecedented power to change law without scrutiny. I am puzzled that those who voted to Leave the EU would be happy about that. But each to their own.
The absurd hyperbole about what is a purely technical bill with strictly limited powers is quite remarkable.
Strictly limited to anything except:
(a) impose or increase taxation, (b) make retrospective provision, (c) create a relevant criminal offence, or (d) amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any subordinate legislation made under it.
It sure is. Leaving the EU gives the UK an opportunity to have a constitutional convention and a complete rethink of the way things are organised currently. It won't happen, unfortunately.
The remain left needs to grab hold of "take back control ' and come up with a radicall programme of reform. If we are out of the EU on the basis of democratic deficit, let's become a real functioning, enterprising and vibrant democracy.
I'm sure your man Blair will be on it.
And listened to by no-one....
Blair can't lead it. But he might be the catalyst. Many people listen to him.
The Bill is absolutely necessary and therefore should have been allowed a second reading. The process set out in the bill requires scrutiny and further thought. That is what the Committee stage is for. I expect the powers to amend legislation will be restricted to specific purposes and subject to limitations as to scope.
What the Bill is highlighting quite well is the hypocrisy of those who were content for the EU to regulate all these areas and change the laws of this country using QMV regardless of the views of our elected officials but somehow think it is appalling that Ministers who are completely accountable to Parliament in a minority government should be able to do something similar. Its bordering on the pathetic. But there is still work to do.
Those of us who have concerns about the centralisation of powers in Westminster and Whitehall are, I think, justified in having concerns about the potential of this legislation.
Yes, of course, there has to be a procedure to ensure such EU legislation as we wish to maintain within UK law is retained and appropriate mechanisms to ensure the sovereignty of the UK Parliament but that shouldn't be used as cover for taking more powers into Westminster and Whitehall.
I'm a strong believer in appropriate decentralisation to directly-elected and accountable local authorities and much of the atrophy of local Government in the past 30-40 years has been the result of the accumulation of powers (under successive Governments it has to be said) to the centre.
Cameron made noises about the repatriation of powers and Nick Hurd and others did some good work but May seems disinterested and as a man who took more powers for himself as Mayor of London (and wasted millions on a garden bridge and a cable car that's hardly used), I have no confidence in Boris Johnson either.
It appears she's applied for British residency (which she doesn't have to) and has been rejected because the government is following the EU directive on health insurance which the UK has said it will drop.
On the Guardian story, while regrettable and unfortunate, what did the EU think would happen when it demanded superior rights for its citizens and oversight of those rights via extraterritorial jurisdiction?
The absurd hyperbole about what is a purely technical bill with strictly limited powers is quite remarkable. Obviously, this is mostly displacement activity or an attempt at simple old-fashioned partisan point-scoring.
To an extent, though, this is the government's fault. Instead of initially hyping up the bill as the Great Repeal Bill, they should have called it something like the 'Regulatory Continuity Bill'.
Had Burnham won the Labour leadership in 2015 he may even have won in 2017 or at least won most seats unlike Corbyn.
Corbyn was good at consolidating the centre left behind him squeezing the LDs, the Greens and the SNP in Labour's favour and even winning some left-wing Eurosceptic who had voted for UKIP.
However he also United the right and much of the centre against him and the Tories got 42% of the vote as a result, their highest voteshare for 25 years despite a hapless Tory vote. Burnham may have won a few more Tory votes, after all in Mau he even won Trafford in his Greater Manchester Mayoral bid and Trafford still has a Tory council and in 2015 he polled far better with Tory voters as to who they wanted to succeed Ed Miliband than Corbyn while also polling well with Labour voters (as opposed to Labour members who made him a distant second after Corbyn, though it would have been closer had preferences been included).
But Corbyn got the youth vote out in seats they did win, like Canterbury, Burnham would not have done.
Labour won Canterbury but it also lost Mansfield, Walsall North etc and got 60 fewer seats than the Tories did
The Tories won 317 (excluding Bercow) with Labour winning 262 - a difference of 55.
That's just Tory propaganda! Jezza won the election fair and square
The absurd hyperbole about what is a purely technical bill with strictly limited powers is quite remarkable. Obviously, this is mostly displacement activity or an attempt at simple old-fashioned partisan point-scoring.
To an extent, though, this is the government's fault. Instead of initially hyping up the bill as the Great Repeal Bill, they should have called it something like the 'Regulatory Continuity Bill'.
A Corbyn government will destroy the Labour Party. Corbyn's economic prognosis (such as it is) is one that ultimately can only deliver bankruptcy and rapidly falling living standards, as it has done in every country where it has been tried.
Talk of a Labour rebirth on this site is so much exciteable hot air....But it may sadly be that the young need to learn some valuable first-hand lessons of what a hard left government actually means in the interim. This may not take all that long...
Whatever happens, it is the Labour Party itself that will ultimately be amongst the biggest casualties as its remit to govern is destroyed for a generation or more.
The Bill is absolutely necessary and therefore should have been allowed a second reading. The process set out in the bill requires scrutiny and further thought. That is what the Committee stage is for. I expect the powers to amend legislation will be restricted to specific purposes and subject to limitations as to scope.
What the Bill is highlighting quite well is the hypocrisy of those who were content for the EU to regulate all these areas and change the laws of this country using QMV regardless of the views of our elected officials but somehow think it is appalling that Ministers who are completely accountable to Parliament in a minority government should be able to do something similar. Its bordering on the pathetic. But there is still work to do.
Many of us thought long and hard about our referendum vote before casting it last June. I voted Remain because, on balance, I thought the positives of EU membership outweighed the negatives. One of the negatives was that pooled sovereignty meant that on very rare occasions UK law would be changed in ways that the UK government opposed. To say that I was "happy" about that is incorrect. I voted and my side lost. I understood that one of the consequences would be a transference of power from Brussels to the British people through the Parliament they elect. However, the legislation voted on last night envisages bypassing Parliament to give government ministers unprecedented power to change law without scrutiny. I am puzzled that those who voted to Leave the EU would be happy about that. But each to their own.
As I say, the powers will be restricted in scope in Committee. Storms and teacups come to mind.
Let me be honest from the start - I like Jeremy Corbyn. I find him possessing a personal warmth that Theresa May seems to lack. Every Labour leader since Ramsey McDonald has been pilloried as a servant of Moscow or (since 1989) surrounded by acolytes who wish we were. Even Blair, against whom charges of left-wingery couldn't be made to stick, was accused by the Conservatives of being surrounded by man and women of the left who would take over as soon as he put his feet over the threshold of 10 Downing Street.
What was it - "New Labour - New Danger" ?
The "fear" of some Conservatives about a Corbyn-McDonnell Government is as hysterical as the two-minutes hate in 1984 and it's about as subtle. Each month, almost each day, brings new accusations guaranteed to scare - perhaps the problem in June wasn't that people were not scared enough of Corbyn but that, beyond "Trust Theresa", there was no reason given for voting FOR the Conservative Party.
I do think some Labour supporters will be disappointed by a Corbyn Government - Corbyn itself is a campaigner more than an administrator. He reminds me more of Michael Foot than Harold Wilson. McDonnell will be the power and he will ensure economic policy won't be about dolling about whatever Cabinet Ministers want. Indeed, in the tradition of Cripps, he may secure the safe more firmly than Hammond.
Were it not for low interest rates and rising asset values, the last decade would have been very tough for me and Mrs Stodge. The truth is we have less disposable income because inflation has taken whatever salary gains we have made. Yes, we are better off - the mortgage debt has been cleared and Stodge Towers is worth much more than we paid for it so in terms of capital assets, we're fine but on a day-to-day basis, increases of 3.6% in transport fares mean we lose ground as neither of us have seen our salaries rise by that amount.
A Corbyn government will destroy the Labour Party. Corbyn's economic prognosis (such as it is) is one that ultimately can only deliver bankruptcy and rapidly falling living standards, as it has done in every country where it has been tried.
Talk of a Labour rebirth on this site is so much exciteable hot air....But it may sadly be that the young need to learn some valuable first-hand lessons of what a hard left government actually means in the interim. This may not take all that long...
Whatever happens, it is the Labour Party itself that will ultimately be amongst the biggest casualties as its remit to govern is destroyed for a generation or more.
Or, they do perfectly fine in comparison to May's currently useless zombie government
My understanding is that the British Constitution consists of three words, "Parliament is Sovereign." These words to be found written in the blood of those who died at Naseby, Edgehill, Marston Moor, etc.
The Bill is absolutely necessary and therefore should have been allowed a second reading. The process set out in the bill requires scrutiny and further thought. That is what the Committee stage is for. I expect the powers to amend legislation will be restricted to specific purposes and subject to limitations as to scope.
What the Bill is highlighting quite well is the hypocrisy of those who were content for the EU to regulate all these areas and change the laws of this country using QMV regardless of the views of our elected officials but somehow think it is appalling that Ministers who are completely accountable to Parliament in a minority government should be able to do something similar. Its bordering on the pathetic. But there is still work to do.
Those of us who have concerns about the centralisation of powers in Westminster and Whitehall are, I think, justified in having concerns about the potential of this legislation.
Yes, of course, there has to be a procedure to ensure such EU legislation as we wish to maintain within UK law is retained and appropriate mechanisms to ensure the sovereignty of the UK Parliament but that shouldn't be used as cover for taking more powers into Westminster and Whitehall.
I'm a strong believer in appropriate decentralisation to directly-elected and accountable local authorities and much of the atrophy of local Government in the past 30-40 years has been the result of the accumulation of powers (under successive Governments it has to be said) to the centre.
Cameron made noises about the repatriation of powers and Nick Hurd and others did some good work but May seems disinterested and as a man who took more powers for himself as Mayor of London (and wasted millions on a garden bridge and a cable car that's hardly used), I have no confidence in Boris Johnson either.
On what basis are you deciding that these powers will be retained in Westminster? It is quite possible that the regulatory bodies selected to replace EU bodies will be local. I would expect a fair number to the Regional Parliaments in respect of devolved matters and to trading standards and the like. Others will go to existing regulatory bodies like the FCA. The hyperbole surrounding this Bill is truly absurd.
Leaving aside the bonkers insinuation by the Guardian that there is something improper about the UK government seeking to protect jobs in Belfast, this article is rather interesting:
Meanwhile, the people at Activ/ate are still frantically digging their hole bigger
"Activate has not officially launched… yet. We were only established over the last couple of weeks and are yet to formally launch our organisation.(1)
The recent media attention we have received was not courted by us, (2) but was in fact a response to the orchestrated attack on Activate and the individuals who helped form the movement that Activate was born out of. The media coverage received was neither accurate, nor evidence based. (3) We are disappointed by the viciousness of these personal attacks, some of which were against members under the age of 18.
Activate is in no way, shape or form associated with the Conservative Party. (4) Activate is not a “Tory-momentum” but we do hope it will be a vehicle for young conservatives to get engaged. Finally, the ‘Whatsapp’ posts that are being connected to Activate by the media did not originate from Activate or any of our members. Activate does not tolerate those views and would withdraw the membership of any member caught purporting such ignorant nonsense.
When we are ready to launch, we will send press releases and shout proudly about it. (5)In the meantime, please back Activate by becoming a member and getting engaged. #backactivate"
Apart from the fact that: (1) They launched it on 28th August (2) Media attention was entirely predictable (3) based on things which Activ/ate said & did on their website and on Twitter (4) Membership of Activ/ate requires Conservative Party membership and doesn't allow membership of any other party (5) They shouted about it two weeks ago with an appallingly badly designed tweet, showing Corbyn with open welcoming arms.
The Bill is absolutely necessary and therefore should have been allowed a second reading. The process set out in the bill requires scrutiny and further thought. That is what the Committee stage is for. I expect the powers to amend legislation will be restricted to specific purposes and subject to limitations as to scope.
What the Bill is highlighting quite well is the hypocrisy of those who were content for the EU to regulate all these areas and change the laws of this country using QMV regardless of the views of our elected officials but somehow think it is appalling that Ministers who are completely accountable to Parliament in a minority government should be able to do something similar. Its bordering on the pathetic. But there is still work to do.
Many of us thought long and hard about our referendum vote before casting it last June. I voted Remain because, on balance, I thought the positives of EU membership outweighed the negatives. One of the negatives was that pooled sovereignty meant that on very rare occasions UK law would be changed in ways that the UK government opposed. To say that I was "happy" about that is incorrect. I voted and my side lost. I understood that one of the consequences would be a transference of power from Brussels to the British people through the Parliament they elect. However, the legislation voted on last night envisages bypassing Parliament to give government ministers unprecedented power to change law without scrutiny. I am puzzled that those who voted to Leave the EU would be happy about that. But each to their own.
As I say, the powers will be restricted in scope in Committee. Storms and teacups come to mind.
Things are rarely either as bad, or as good, as the enthusiasts expect them to be. However, in this context that we have a minoirty administratiopn is a blessing, becuase the Committee stage will be much more important. There will be no steamrollering through on the Whips behest.
I will try and give a practical example here on why business is so concerned about the way Brexit is going.
In the medtech industry we comply with a European law the MDR which is then supported by a set of standards. (European Norms (EN) which in some cases are also global (ISO)). In the world of hospital sterilisation the English Dept of Health under Blair's government decided to rewrite the UK guidance on how to comply with the relevant EN. Rather than access the considerable private sector expertise based in the UK they appointed a professor as chair who had little experience of the industry and gave the overall contract to Capita who know nothing about the industry. The guidance issued conflicted with the European standard in many areas and was full of governmental policy as well as technical advice. The Scottish and Welsh governments refused to adopt it. The English hospitals were mandated to comply. Industry which is mostly US and German decided not to adapt their equipment to meet the guidance. The guidance staggered along for 5 years and was then dropped after huge amount of resources had been wasted.
There is not another country in the world with the arrogance of the UK (English) Govt which believes it can do better than the combined expertise of the rest of the world with the possible exception of the French.
On what basis are you deciding that these powers will be retained in Westminster? It is quite possible that the regulatory bodies selected to replace EU bodies will be local. I would expect a fair number to the Regional Parliaments in respect of devolved matters and to trading standards and the like. Others will go to existing regulatory bodies like the FCA. The hyperbole surrounding this Bill is truly absurd.
I'll be blunt - from Prime Ministers to Council Leaders, it's much easier to give someone power than it is to take it from them. I didn't vote to leave the EU to centralise more powers into Westminster.
I'd like to hear some assurances from May and others that this Government wants to devolve more powers (including some repatriated from the EU) to locally-elected and accountable authorities.
All I hear is "hyperbole" but I frankly don't trust May or her Government and nor do I believe the apologists for her Government (of which you aren't usually one to be fair).
The Bill is absolutely necessary and therefore should have been allowed a second reading. The process set out in the bill requires scrutiny and further thought. That is what the Committee stage is for. I expect the powers to amend legislation will be restricted to specific purposes and subject to limitations as to scope.
What the Bill is highlighting quite well is the hypocrisy of those who were content for the EU to regulate all these areas and change the laws of this country using QMV regardless of the views of our elected officials but somehow think it is appalling that Ministers who are completely accountable to Parliament in a minority government should be able to do something similar. Its bordering on the pathetic. But there is still work to do.
Many of us thought long and hard about our referendum vote before casting it last June. I voted Remain because, on balance, I thought the positives of EU membership outweighed the negatives. One of the negatives was that pooled sovereignty meant that on very rare occasions UK law would be changed in ways that the UK government opposed. To say that I was "happy" about that is incorrect. I voted and my side lost. I understood that one of the consequences would be a transference of power from Brussels to the British people through the Parliament they elect. However, the legislation voted on last night envisages bypassing Parliament to give government ministers unprecedented power to change law without scrutiny. I am puzzled that those who voted to Leave the EU would be happy about that. But each to their own.
As I say, the powers will be restricted in scope in Committee. Storms and teacups come to mind.
Things are rarely either as bad, or as good, as the enthusiasts expect them to be. However, in this context that we have a minoirty administratiopn is a blessing, becuase the Committee stage will be much more important. There will be no steamrollering through on the Whips behest.
A Corbyn government will destroy the Labour Party. Corbyn's economic prognosis (such as it is) is one that ultimately can only deliver bankruptcy and rapidly falling living standards, as it has done in every country where it has been tried.
Talk of a Labour rebirth on this site is so much exciteable hot air....But it may sadly be that the young need to learn some valuable first-hand lessons of what a hard left government actually means in the interim. This may not take all that long...
Whatever happens, it is the Labour Party itself that will ultimately be amongst the biggest casualties as its remit to govern is destroyed for a generation or more.
If we fall off the Brexit cliff, it will be the Conservatives who might find themselves in a spot of bother for a generation.
I share your fears over a Corbyn government, although the mood music from the current government is to my mind equally unattractive and potentially even more dangerous.
On what basis are you deciding that these powers will be retained in Westminster? It is quite possible that the regulatory bodies selected to replace EU bodies will be local. I would expect a fair number to the Regional Parliaments in respect of devolved matters and to trading standards and the like. Others will go to existing regulatory bodies like the FCA. The hyperbole surrounding this Bill is truly absurd.
I'll be blunt - from Prime Ministers to Council Leaders, it's much easier to give someone power than it is to take it from them. I didn't vote to leave the EU to centralise more powers into Westminster.
I'd like to hear some assurances from May and others that this Government wants to devolve more powers (including some repatriated from the EU) to locally-elected and accountable authorities.
All I hear is "hyperbole" but I frankly don't trust May or her Government and nor do I believe the apologists for her Government (of which you aren't usually one to be fair).
Well they've said, for instance, that they will devolve fisheries policy to Scotland
With Brexit putting strain on the union with Scotland, and also emboldening those calling for a referendum on a united Ireland, we also asked people what they would feel if they saw parts of the UK breaking away. The question said that some people think Brexit could lead to the break-up of the UK over the next 10 to 20 years and asked people if they would be pleased or disappointed if these outcomes occurred within the next 20 years. Here are the results.
Scotland voting for independence
Pleased: 24%
Disappointed: 51%
No view: 25%
Ireland voting to join the Republic
Pleased: 22%
Disappointed: 42%
No view: 36%
Wales voting for independence
Pleased: 15%
Disappointed: 56%
No view: 30%
Wales voting for independence in that time scale is not seen as at all probable, but we included it for the sake of fairness.
These figures represent the views of British voters, and obviously the overwhelming majority of those are English. The figures show that there is no desire to see the UK break up, but equally that support for the union is perhaps weaker than people might expect.
Only 42% of British voters would be disappointed to see Northern Ireland vote to join the Irish Republic after Brexit at some point in the next 20 years, a poll suggests. There would be more concern about Scotland voting for independence, but only a slim majority of Britons (51%) would be disappointed by that outcome, the poll suggests. ICM also asked its regular tracker questions about Brexit. We asked exactly the same questions in February and in July.
People were asked if Brexit would have a positive or negative impact on the British economy, on their personal finances and on life in Britain generally. Here are the results.
Impact on the British economy
Positive: 32%
Negative: 42%
No difference: 14%
Net: -10 (up 3 from ICM in July)
Impact on your personal finances
Positive: 13%
Negative: 30%
No difference: 41%
Net: -17 (up 3)
Impact on life in Britain generally
Positive: 35%
Negative: 34%
No difference: 18%
Net: +1 (up 2)
Voters are more likely to think Brexit will a negative effect than a positive effect on the economy and on their personal finances. But they are slightly less negative in their assessment they were two months ago, and, by a very narrow margin, they think Brexit will have a positive impact on life in Britain generally. I will post a link to the ICM tables here when they are available on the ICM website.
ICM Unlimited interviewed a representative sample of 2,052 GB adults aged 18+ online, on 8 to 10 September 2017. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
That's not a gun to the PM's head, it's a gun to the UK's head.
This is exactly the scenario which could lead to a potentially catastrophic situation where we can't agree anything with the EU and crash out in utter chaos.
The election result really was the most disastrous in modern times.
I will try and give a practical example here on why business is so concerned about the way Brexit is going.
In the medtech industry we comply with a European law the MDR which is then supported by a set of standards. (European Norms (EN) which in some cases are also global (ISO)). In the world of hospital sterilisation the English Dept of Health under Blair's government decided to rewrite the UK guidance on how to comply with the relevant EN. Rather than access the considerable private sector expertise based in the UK they appointed a professor as chair who had little experience of the industry and gave the overall contract to Capita who know nothing about the industry. The guidance issued conflicted with the European standard in many areas and was full of governmental policy as well as technical advice. The Scottish and Welsh governments refused to adopt it. The English hospitals were mandated to comply. Industry which is mostly US and German decided not to adapt their equipment to meet the guidance. The guidance staggered along for 5 years and was then dropped after huge amount of resources had been wasted.
There is not another country in the world with the arrogance of the UK (English) Govt which believes it can do better than the combined expertise of the rest of the world with the possible exception of the French.
I am no apologist for Tony Blair but am I not right in recalling that this occurred during a period of general and genuine concern about the prevalence of hospital acquired infections and anti-biotic resistant MRSA in English hospitals?
It is likely that the need to be seen to be "doing something" pressed the government into wanting to go further than the EN. It may have been ineptly implemented in this particular case but our politicians should respond to such concerns and address the local situation, whether that is a disproportionately large number of older hospitals, a somewhat chaotic semi-privatised cleaning service in those hospitals and a slightly embarrassing death toll.
In many less politicised areas I suspect that we will continue to apply standards compatible with the EU requirements. But our politicians should have the power to address our particular concerns if that is appropriate.
My understanding is that the British Constitution consists of three words, "Parliament is Sovereign." These words to be found written in the blood of those who died at Naseby, Edgehill, Marston Moor, etc.
My understanding is that the British Constitution consists of three words, "Parliament is Sovereign." These words to be found written in the blood of those who died at Naseby, Edgehill, Marston Moor, etc.
Who elects Parliament?
Actually, isn't it: Supremacy of the Crown in Parliament
That's not a gun to the PM's head, it's a gun to the UK's head.
This is exactly the scenario which could lead to a potentially catastrophic situation where we can't agree anything with the EU and crash out in utter chaos.
The election result really was the most disastrous in modern times.
"Brexit means Brexit means whatever Theresa and Daily Mail want it to mean" ... was not what the country voted for last June.
She didn't have a mandate for it before the election, which is why the election was called.
She doesn't have a mandate for it now.
Trying to pretend she does by fiddling with democracy is a disaster for the tory party and the country. It's shameful.
A Corbyn government will destroy the Labour Party. Corbyn's economic prognosis (such as it is) is one that ultimately can only deliver bankruptcy and rapidly falling living standards, as it has done in every country where it has been tried.
Talk of a Labour rebirth on this site is so much exciteable hot air....But it may sadly be that the young need to learn some valuable first-hand lessons of what a hard left government actually means in the interim. This may not take all that long...
Whatever happens, it is the Labour Party itself that will ultimately be amongst the biggest casualties as its remit to govern is destroyed for a generation or more.
Or, they do perfectly fine in comparison to May's currently useless zombie government
The evidence is that governments with agendas such as Corbyn's NEVER "do perfectly fine" even relative to our rather second rate current one.
That's not a gun to the PM's head, it's a gun to the UK's head.
This is exactly the scenario which could lead to a potentially catastrophic situation where we can't agree anything with the EU and crash out in utter chaos.
The election result really was the most disastrous in modern times.
"Brexit means Brexit means whatever Theresa and Daily Mail want it to mean" ... was not what the country voted for last June.
She didn't have a mandate for it before the election, which is why the election was called.
She doesn't have a mandate for it now.
Trying to pretend she does by fiddling with democracy is a disaster for the tory party and the country. It's shameful.
That's not a gun to the PM's head, it's a gun to the UK's head.
This is exactly the scenario which could lead to a potentially catastrophic situation where we can't agree anything with the EU and crash out in utter chaos.
The election result really was the most disastrous in modern times.
Whilst I agree with that I am also somewhat relieved that May did not get a stonking majority. Her judgment is poor and I am not sure I would trust her not to do serious harm with it. At the risk of anthropomorphising the great British electorate perhaps the view that she needed a leash was the right one.
That's not a gun to the PM's head, it's a gun to the UK's head.
This is exactly the scenario which could lead to a potentially catastrophic situation where we can't agree anything with the EU and crash out in utter chaos.
The election result really was the most disastrous in modern times.
"Brexit means Brexit means whatever Theresa and Daily Mail want it to mean" ... was not what the country voted for last June.
She didn't have a mandate for it before the election, which is why the election was called.
She doesn't have a mandate for it now.
Trying to pretend she does by fiddling with democracy is a disaster for the tory party and the country. It's shameful.
You are making exactly the same mistake as the more loony Brexiteers made before the referendum: assuming that the UK can unilaterally choose between a range of options, none of which are actually on offer.
Brexit means one thing and one thing only: whatever is agreed (if anything) between the UK government and the EU27 in the negotiations. There is no other possibility, other than utter chaos where either the UK parliament or the EU parliament reject the deal. In that case, as Michel Barnier keeps reminding us, the fallback position isn't 'no change', it's complete and disastrous chaos as the Article 50 deadline cuts in and we are left in legal limbo with no trade deal at all.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.
The ONS try very hard to hide the RPI figures. The one just issued is 3.9%.
That is high. This is probably a blip caused by the devaluation which will soon start to come out of the figures but it also means real wages will be falling for longer than was hoped.
Comments
The UK is the most geopolitically capable country in Europe according to a new report on global power. Britain beat France, Germany and Russia on world power rankings which measured economics, technological prowess, military strength and cultural prestige. Globally the UK came second only to the United States in the Audit of Geopolitical Capability produced by the Henry Jackson Society.
http://brexitcentral.com/britain-beats-europe-global-power-index/
Report:
http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/An-audit-of-geopolitical-capability.pdf
The top ten and their change in rating:
1) London -2
2) New York -24
3) Hong Kong -11
4) Singapore -18
5) Tokyo -15
6) Shanghai -4
7) Toronto -9
8) Sydney -14
9) Zurich -11
10) Beijing -7
http://www.longfinance.net/images/gfci/gfci_22.pdf
But interesting how there has been a general shift away from the big financial centres to upcoming smaller (and I suspect cheaper) cities.
Interestingly I did pay my £3 to vote in the labour election. But that was because 2 candidates were so poor I had to vote for Liz Kendall as just about the only sane option...
He tended to think a lot of things were important!
"Just think how much greater Britain could be if freed from the EU?"
And the answer is, not much...
It literally was.
Is that a good thing despite Brexit or a bad thing because of Brexit ?
https://twitter.com/jamesdoleman/status/907520464263827456
Though May might not have risked an early general election against Burnham agreed, Corbyn did better than expected but that does not mean no alternative leader would not have done even better for Labour
To an extent, though, this is the government's fault. Instead of initially hyping up the bill as the Great Repeal Bill, they should have called it something like the 'Regulatory Continuity Bill'.
What the Bill is highlighting quite well is the hypocrisy of those who were content for the EU to regulate all these areas and change the laws of this country using QMV regardless of the views of our elected officials but somehow think it is appalling that Ministers who are completely accountable to Parliament in a minority government should be able to do something similar. Its bordering on the pathetic. But there is still work to do.
CPI at 2.9% a definite ouch
Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner has found a way to force a binding Commons vote on the planned rise on Wednesday, HuffPost UK can reveal.
If the £250 hike is stopped in its tracks, it could save up to a thousand pounds for those on a four-year course, or £750 for most standard undergraduates.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/angela-rayner-forces-binding-commons-vote-tuition-fees-rise_uk_59b795fde4b031cc65cc3e34?gt
(a) impose or increase taxation,
(b) make retrospective provision,
(c) create a relevant criminal offence, or
(d) amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any subordinate legislation made under it.
We delegated authority while we were content with them doing it; when we weren't anymore, we exercised our sovereignty and fired them from doing so.
https://twitter.com/NinaDSchick/status/907373565250588672
(e) Make Dennis Skinner a Tory.
Yes, of course, there has to be a procedure to ensure such EU legislation as we wish to maintain within UK law is retained and appropriate mechanisms to ensure the sovereignty of the UK Parliament but that shouldn't be used as cover for taking more powers into Westminster and Whitehall.
I'm a strong believer in appropriate decentralisation to directly-elected and accountable local authorities and much of the atrophy of local Government in the past 30-40 years has been the result of the accumulation of powers (under successive Governments it has to be said) to the centre.
Cameron made noises about the repatriation of powers and Nick Hurd and others did some good work but May seems disinterested and as a man who took more powers for himself as Mayor of London (and wasted millions on a garden bridge and a cable car that's hardly used), I have no confidence in Boris Johnson either.
On the Guardian story, while regrettable and unfortunate, what did the EU think would happen when it demanded superior rights for its citizens and oversight of those rights via extraterritorial jurisdiction?
Talk of a Labour rebirth on this site is so much exciteable hot air....But it may sadly be that the young need to learn some valuable first-hand lessons of what a hard left government actually means in the interim. This may not take all that long...
Whatever happens, it is the Labour Party itself that will ultimately be amongst the biggest casualties as its remit to govern is destroyed for a generation or more.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/907533694126182400
Edit: beaten to it by SO.
Let me be honest from the start - I like Jeremy Corbyn. I find him possessing a personal warmth that Theresa May seems to lack. Every Labour leader since Ramsey McDonald has been pilloried as a servant of Moscow or (since 1989) surrounded by acolytes who wish we were. Even Blair, against whom charges of left-wingery couldn't be made to stick, was accused by the Conservatives of being surrounded by man and women of the left who would take over as soon as he put his feet over the threshold of 10 Downing Street.
What was it - "New Labour - New Danger" ?
The "fear" of some Conservatives about a Corbyn-McDonnell Government is as hysterical as the two-minutes hate in 1984 and it's about as subtle. Each month, almost each day, brings new accusations guaranteed to scare - perhaps the problem in June wasn't that people were not scared enough of Corbyn but that, beyond "Trust Theresa", there was no reason given for voting FOR the Conservative Party.
I do think some Labour supporters will be disappointed by a Corbyn Government - Corbyn itself is a campaigner more than an administrator. He reminds me more of Michael Foot than Harold Wilson. McDonnell will be the power and he will ensure economic policy won't be about dolling about whatever Cabinet Ministers want. Indeed, in the tradition of Cripps, he may secure the safe more firmly than Hammond.
Were it not for low interest rates and rising asset values, the last decade would have been very tough for me and Mrs Stodge. The truth is we have less disposable income because inflation has taken whatever salary gains we have made. Yes, we are better off - the mortgage debt has been cleared and Stodge Towers is worth much more than we paid for it so in terms of capital assets, we're fine but on a day-to-day basis, increases of 3.6% in transport fares mean we lose ground as neither of us have seen our salaries rise by that amount.
It's a novel argument, but one which seems remarkably widespread.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/12/dup-convinces-may-to-raise-northern-ireland-plane-jobs-with-trump
It will be an interesting test of Trump's protectionist stance. I suspect Mrs May won't get very far.
"Activate has not officially launched… yet. We were only established over the last couple of weeks and are yet to formally launch our organisation.(1)
The recent media attention we have received was not courted by us, (2) but was in fact a response to the orchestrated attack on Activate and the individuals who helped form the movement that Activate was born out of. The media coverage received was neither accurate, nor evidence based. (3) We are disappointed by the viciousness of these personal attacks, some of which were against members under the age of 18.
Activate is in no way, shape or form associated with the Conservative Party. (4) Activate is not a “Tory-momentum” but we do hope it will be a vehicle for young conservatives to get engaged. Finally, the ‘Whatsapp’ posts that are being connected to Activate by the media did not originate from Activate or any of our members. Activate does not tolerate those views and would withdraw the membership of any member caught purporting such ignorant nonsense.
When we are ready to launch, we will send press releases and shout proudly about it. (5)In the meantime, please back Activate by becoming a member and getting engaged. #backactivate"
Apart from the fact that:
(1) They launched it on 28th August
(2) Media attention was entirely predictable
(3) based on things which Activ/ate said & did on their website and on Twitter
(4) Membership of Activ/ate requires Conservative Party membership and doesn't allow membership of any other party
(5) They shouted about it two weeks ago with an appallingly badly designed tweet, showing Corbyn with open welcoming arms.
In the medtech industry we comply with a European law the MDR which is then supported by a set of standards. (European Norms (EN) which in some cases are also global (ISO)). In the world of hospital sterilisation the English Dept of Health under Blair's government decided to rewrite the UK guidance on how to comply with the relevant EN. Rather than access the considerable private sector expertise based in the UK they appointed a professor as chair who had little experience of the industry and gave the overall contract to Capita who know nothing about the industry. The guidance issued conflicted with the European standard in many areas and was full of governmental policy as well as technical advice. The Scottish and Welsh governments refused to adopt it. The English hospitals were mandated to comply. Industry which is mostly US and German decided not to adapt their equipment to meet the guidance. The guidance staggered along for 5 years and was then dropped after huge amount of resources had been wasted.
There is not another country in the world with the arrogance of the UK (English) Govt which believes it can do better than the combined expertise of the rest of the world with the possible exception of the French.
I'd like to hear some assurances from May and others that this Government wants to devolve more powers (including some repatriated from the EU) to locally-elected and accountable authorities.
All I hear is "hyperbole" but I frankly don't trust May or her Government and nor do I believe the apologists for her Government (of which you aren't usually one to be fair).
I share your fears over a Corbyn government, although the mood music from the current government is to my mind equally unattractive and potentially even more dangerous.
Labour: 42% (no change from Guardian/ICM two weeks ago)
Conservatives: 42% (no change)
Lib Dems: 7% (no change)
Ukip: 4% (up 1)
Greens: 3% (no change)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/sep/12/jeremy-corbyn-philip-hammond-leader-len-mccluskey-says-he-would-back-illegal-strikes-over-public-sector-pay-politics-live
Level pegging.
With Brexit putting strain on the union with Scotland, and also emboldening those calling for a referendum on a united Ireland, we also asked people what they would feel if they saw parts of the UK breaking away. The question said that some people think Brexit could lead to the break-up of the UK over the next 10 to 20 years and asked people if they would be pleased or disappointed if these outcomes occurred within the next 20 years. Here are the results.
Scotland voting for independence
Pleased: 24%
Disappointed: 51%
No view: 25%
Ireland voting to join the Republic
Pleased: 22%
Disappointed: 42%
No view: 36%
Wales voting for independence
Pleased: 15%
Disappointed: 56%
No view: 30%
Wales voting for independence in that time scale is not seen as at all probable, but we included it for the sake of fairness.
These figures represent the views of British voters, and obviously the overwhelming majority of those are English. The figures show that there is no desire to see the UK break up, but equally that support for the union is perhaps weaker than people might expect.
Only 42% of British voters would be disappointed to see Northern Ireland vote to join the Irish Republic after Brexit at some point in the next 20 years, a poll suggests. There would be more concern about Scotland voting for independence, but only a slim majority of Britons (51%) would be disappointed by that outcome, the poll suggests.
ICM also asked its regular tracker questions about Brexit. We asked exactly the same questions in February and in July.
People were asked if Brexit would have a positive or negative impact on the British economy, on their personal finances and on life in Britain generally. Here are the results.
Impact on the British economy
Positive: 32%
Negative: 42%
No difference: 14%
Net: -10 (up 3 from ICM in July)
Impact on your personal finances
Positive: 13%
Negative: 30%
No difference: 41%
Net: -17 (up 3)
Impact on life in Britain generally
Positive: 35%
Negative: 34%
No difference: 18%
Net: +1 (up 2)
Voters are more likely to think Brexit will a negative effect than a positive effect on the economy and on their personal finances. But they are slightly less negative in their assessment they were two months ago, and, by a very narrow margin, they think Brexit will have a positive impact on life in Britain generally.
I will post a link to the ICM tables here when they are available on the ICM website.
ICM Unlimited interviewed a representative sample of 2,052 GB adults aged 18+ online, on 8 to 10 September 2017. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
This is exactly the scenario which could lead to a potentially catastrophic situation where we can't agree anything with the EU and crash out in utter chaos.
The election result really was the most disastrous in modern times.
It is likely that the need to be seen to be "doing something" pressed the government into wanting to go further than the EN. It may have been ineptly implemented in this particular case but our politicians should respond to such concerns and address the local situation, whether that is a disproportionately large number of older hospitals, a somewhat chaotic semi-privatised cleaning service in those hospitals and a slightly embarrassing death toll.
In many less politicised areas I suspect that we will continue to apply standards compatible with the EU requirements. But our politicians should have the power to address our particular concerns if that is appropriate.
She didn't have a mandate for it before the election, which is why the election was called.
She doesn't have a mandate for it now.
Trying to pretend she does by fiddling with democracy is a disaster for the tory party and the country. It's shameful.
The evidence is that governments with agendas such as Corbyn's NEVER "do perfectly fine" even relative to our rather second rate current one.
REMAIN 48%
Brexit means one thing and one thing only: whatever is agreed (if anything) between the UK government and the EU27 in the negotiations. There is no other possibility, other than utter chaos where either the UK parliament or the EU parliament reject the deal. In that case, as Michel Barnier keeps reminding us, the fallback position isn't 'no change', it's complete and disastrous chaos as the Article 50 deadline cuts in and we are left in legal limbo with no trade deal at all.
This really shouldn't need explaining, but the degree of delusion is quite remarkable.