Having committed to buying back the PFI deals on the nation's credit card yesterday (on top of the earlier policies and the likely withdrawal of overseas investment in e.g. London property), that seems a fair expectation.
Labour Govt., Day One: complete ban on transfer of capital out of the UK. Back to taking a tenner a day spending money on holiday.
Day Two: the start of the biggest buyer's remorse in the history of democracy.
Can I Godwin that one? Can I? Pleeease.
The restoration of Exchange Controls was in Labour's 1987 Manifesto so it would hardly be new territory at all.In the 1960s the need to support the pound under the Bretton Woods system did lead to tight control on how much currency could be taken out of the UK , but most people felt able to live with that despite the associated inconveniences.
We're in a very different world from 1987 now though. I'm not sure how practical it would even be to impose exchange controls at short notice. How would if affect the use of debit and credit cards, for example - things which people take absolutely for granted now but which were all but unusable abroad (if you had them at all) thirty years ago?
Plus controlling bitcoin is going to be fun....
On the contrary, controlling credit cards or bitcoins is much easier than controlling the export of cash was in the 1970s. You just introduce the appropriate regulations on banks and credit card companies. In the case of bitcoins, you just ban banks from transferring money to purchase them. Easy as pie.
Of course, it's not so easy to control bitcoins once they have been obtained, but you don't need to.
Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently) Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
The one thing that has become apparent that over the summer Corbyn has become a cult figure that has revitalised the youth and with the help of momentum has seen him grow in confidence to follow his hard left agenda.
However, this is the first time I have witnessed anything like this and it is possible Corbyn, McDonnell et al have put too much faith in how much the voting public will endorse them.
Unless they get the youth to vote early and vote often, which would be a Northern Ireland-scale scandal I don't think they'll get a majority of 50. Hung parliament but the reverse of the current Tory/Labour split?
If Labour is the largest party, it still has to get its programme past Lib.Dems, Greens, Plaid, SNP ... and the House of Lords. The Lords have a reasonable record of trying to block mad legislation.
I agree with but would include the conservatives and the DUP in both houses and also the prospect of countless appeals to the High Courts as per Gina Miller on rights over share values etc
Unlike you, I'm a non-Tory who tolerates the views of some Tories (Grieve, Soubry, Clarke, Heseltine, Patten if he still is a Tory, Gummer) and disagrees with the views of others (Tebbit, Howard, Mogg, Bone, Cash, Redwood, IDS). When Clarke uses the word headbangers he seems to refer to the latter group!
The Lords also had a reasonable record in the 1980s of acting as the official opposition to Thatcher and her 'headbanger' policies. I think under FPTP it would be dangerous to abolish it as McD probably wants to do.
Tories not as good on the economy as they think they are. I remember when only the Tories could save our AAA rating. Oh dear.
After 2007 nothing could save our AAA rating. The country is deep in the brown stuff and it will take a generation to recover from that man's incompetence.
Or several, if Corbyn gets in.
People tried to warn conservatives like you where this was heading.
The Brexit campaign, with its anti-politics demagoguery, is laying the ground for an unexpected Corbyn majority if they're hubristic enough to go for a quick general election after winning the referendum.
Er.. there was no Corbyn majority in the quick general election after winning the referendum. So you were wrong - as ever.
Wrong only in degree. In fact I wish I'd stuck to my guns because when the election was first called I got carried away with thinking it would be a Tory landslide.
Wrong in 180 degrees. We still have a Conservative Prime Minister. We still have a Labour Leader of the Opposition. You were wronger than Wrongy McWrong of Wrongsville, on the wrongest day of the year.
As with Brexit.
Brexit, with its sunny uplands and no downsides, paved the way for Cake And Eat It politics. The Labour party's leadership learned an important lesson from a campaign they played no part in: when people feel alienated and their living standards are slipping, if you tell them what they want to hear, they will vote for you; cry Project Fear and promise the world, and you have every chance of success.
Corbyn is the same beneficiary of anti austerity populism as Bernie Sanders, Tsipras, Melenchon, Jacinda Ardern, Die Linke and Podemos. Brexit was the same beneficiary of anti immigration populism as Trump, Le Pen, Pauline Hanson, the AdD and Wilders. Brexit did not cause Corbyn anti austerity did
Bit unfair to lump Ardern and Sanders in there. They are mainstream figures (of the Left), who could have been around any time in the past 100 years. That said, I think you are right. The 2 groups are the 2 sides of the same coin, blaming different people. To defeat them we need rising real wages for a sustained period, which is easier said than done. Conventional measures are not working.
Tories not as good on the economy as they think they are. I remember when only the Tories could save our AAA rating. Oh dear.
After 2007 nothing could save our AAA rating. The country is deep in the brown stuff and it will take a generation to recover from that man's incompetence.
Or several, if Corbyn gets in.
People tried to warn conservatives like you where this was heading.
The Brexit campaign, with its anti-politics demagoguery, is laying the ground for an unexpected Corbyn majority if they're hubristic enough to go for a quick general election after winning the referendum.
Er.. there was no Corbyn majority in the quick general election after winning the referendum. So you were wrong - as ever.
Wrong only in degree. In fact I wish I'd stuck to my guns because when the election was first called I got carried away with thinking it would be a Tory landslide.
Wrong in 180 degrees. We still have a Conservative Prime Minister. We still have a Labour Leader of the Opposition. You were wronger than Wrongy McWrong of Wrongsville, on the wrongest day of the year.
As with Brexit.
Brexit, with its sunny uplands and no downsides, paved the way for Cake And Eat It politics. The Labour party's leadership learned an important lesson from a campaign they played no part in: when people feel alienated and their living standards are slipping, if you tell them what they want to hear, they will vote for you; cry Project Fear and promise the world, and you have every chance of success.
Corbyn is the same beneficiary of anti austerity populism as Bernie Sanders, Tsipras, Melenchon, Jacinda Ardern, Die Linke and Podemos. Brexit was the same beneficiary of anti immigration populism as Trump, Le Pen, Pauline Hanson, the AdD and Wilders. Brexit did not cause Corbyn anti austerity did
I know. Anti-immigration populism is also a consequence of stagnating and falling living standards. It is not a solution to them, of course.
Having committed to buying back the PFI deals on the nation's credit card yesterday (on top of the earlier policies and the likely withdrawal of overseas investment in e.g. London property), that seems a fair expectation.
Labour Govt., Day One: complete ban on transfer of capital out of the UK. Back to taking a tenner a day spending money on holiday.
Day Two: the start of the biggest buyer's remorse in the history of democracy.
Can I Godwin that one? Can I? Pleeease.
The restoration of Exchange Controls was in Labour's 1987 Manifesto so it would hardly be new territory at all.In the 1960s the need to support the pound under the Bretton Woods system did lead to tight control on how much currency could be taken out of the UK , but most people felt able to live with that despite the associated inconveniences.
We're in a very different world from 1987 now though. I'm not sure how practical it would even be to impose exchange controls at short notice. How would if affect the use of debit and credit cards, for example - things which people take absolutely for granted now but which were all but unusable abroad (if you had them at all) thirty years ago?
Plus controlling bitcoin is going to be fun....
How many people use bitcoin though? That might be an issue by 2022 but I still doubt it: national currencies enjoy the usage they do for good reasons.
But the basic point - about controlling the flow of 'money' - in the digital age is right: it's extremely difficult. The days of cash and travellers cheques are long gone.
Having committed to buying back the PFI deals on the nation's credit card yesterday (on top of the earlier policies and the likely withdrawal of overseas investment in e.g. London property), that seems a fair expectation.
Labour Govt., Day One: complete ban on transfer of capital out of the UK. Back to taking a tenner a day spending money on holiday.
Day Two: the start of the biggest buyer's remorse in the history of democracy.
Can I Godwin that one? Can I? Pleeease.
The restoration of Exchange Controls was in Labour's 1987 Manifesto so it would hardly be new territory at all.In the 1960s the need to support the pound under the Bretton Woods system did lead to tight control on how much currency could be taken out of the UK , but most people felt able to live with that despite the associated inconveniences.
We're in a very different world from 1987 now though. I'm not sure how practical it would even be to impose exchange controls at short notice. How would if affect the use of debit and credit cards, for example - things which people take absolutely for granted now but which were all but unusable abroad (if you had them at all) thirty years ago?
I do understand your point , but I don't actually believe that day to day life is so very different from 1987 really. Even items such as PCs and mobile phones remain optional extras for many people and a significant number choose to forgo them - and I am not only referring to pensioners! The changes that the reimposition of Exchange Controls would bring to the lives of most people would still be pretty minor when compared with the system of Rationing and Direct Controls during World War 2 which continued for almost a decade into the postwar period.
The Tories have long since given up on the centre ground. Like Labour, they are moving to their extreme.
Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true. It's evident nonsense; inasmuch as it is doing anything other than Brexit, the government is continuing with a mainstream centrist programme:
The main non-Brexit proposals of the [Queen's] speech include: - A Civil Liability Bill, designed to address the "compensation culture" around motoring insurance claims - A Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, establishing a Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner to stand up for victims and survivors and monitor the response of the authorities - A Tenant's Fees Bill, banning landlords from charging "letting fees" - A High-Speed Two Bill to authorise the second leg of the rail link from Birmingham to Crewe - A Data Protection Bill to strengthen individuals' rights and introduce a "right to be forgotten". - An Armed Forces Bill allowing people to serve on a part-time and flexible basis
Tories not as good on the economy as they think they are. I remember when only the Tories could save our AAA rating. Oh dear.
After 2007 nothing could save our AAA rating. The country is deep in the brown stuff and it will take a generation to recover from that man's incompetence.
Or several, if Corbyn gets in.
People tried to warn conservatives like you where this was heading.
The Brexit campaign, with its anti-politics demagoguery, is laying the ground for an unexpected Corbyn majority if they're hubristic enough to go for a quick general election after winning the referendum.
Er.. there was no Corbyn majority in the quick general election after winning the referendum. So you were wrong - as ever.
Wrong only in degree. In fact I wish I'd stuck to my guns because when the election was first called I got carried away with thinking it would be a Tory landslide.
Wrong in 180 degrees. We still have a Conservative Prime Minister. We still have a Labour Leader of the Opposition. You were wronger than Wrongy McWrong of Wrongsville, on the wrongest day of the year.
As with Brexit.
Brexit, with its sunny uplands and no downsides, paved the way he world, and you have every chance of success.
Corbyn is the same beneficiary of anti austerity populism as Bernie Sanders, Tsipras, Melenchon, Jacinda Ardern, Die Linke and Podemos. Brexit was the same beneficiary of anti immigration populism as Trump, Le Pen, Pauline Hanson, the AdD and Wilders. Brexit did not cause Corbyn anti austerity did
Bit unfair to lump Ardern and Sanders in there. They are mainstream figures (of the Left), who could have been around any time in the past 100 years. That said, I think you are right. The 2 groups are the 2 sides of the same coin, blaming different people. To defeat them we need rising real wages for a sustained period, which is easier said than done. Conventional measures are not working.
Sanders would be the most left-wing candidate ever nominated by the Democrats, he also endorsed Corbyn in June
The one thing that has become apparent that over the summer Corbyn has become a cult figure that has revitalised the youth and with the help of momentum has seen him grow in confidence to follow his hard left agenda.
However, this is the first time I have witnessed anything like this and it is possible Corbyn, McDonnell et al have put too much faith in how much the voting public will endorse them.
Unless they get the youth to vote early and vote often, which would be a Northern Ireland-scale scandal I don't think they'll get a majority of 50. Hung parliament but the reverse of the current Tory/Labour split?
If Labour is the largest party, it still has to get its programme past Lib.Dems, Greens, Plaid, SNP ... and the House of Lords. The Lords have a reasonable record of trying to block mad legislation.
I agree with but would include the conservatives and the DUP in both houses and also the prospect of countless appeals to the High Courts as per Gina Miller on rights over share values etc
Unlike you, I'm a non-Tory who tolerates the views of some Tories (Grieve, Soubry, Clarke, Heseltine, Patten if he still is a Tory, Gummer) and disagrees with the views of others (Tebbit, Howard, Mogg, Bone, Cash, Redwood, IDS). When Clarke uses the word headbangers he seems to refer to the latter group!
The Lords also had a reasonable record in the 1980s of acting as the official opposition to Thatcher and her 'headbanger' policies. I think under FPTP it would be dangerous to abolish it as McD probably wants to do.
Of course he does. He's war gaming what will stop him and I reckon there's a bloomin good chance HoL has come up repeatedly.
Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently) Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
Having committed to buying back the PFI deals on the nation's credit card yesterday (on top of the earlier policies and the likely withdrawal of overseas investment in e.g. London property), that seems a fair expectation.
Labour Govt., Day One: complete ban on transfer of capital out of the UK. Back to taking a tenner a day spending money on holiday.
Day Two: the start of the biggest buyer's remorse in the history of democracy.
Can I Godwin that one? Can I? Pleeease.
The restoration of Exchange Controls was in Labour's 1987 Manifesto so it would hardly be new territory at all.In the 1960s the need to support the pound under the Bretton Woods system did lead to tight control on how much currency could be taken out of the UK , but most people felt able to live with that despite the associated inconveniences.
We're in a very different world from 1987 now though. I'm not sure how practical it would even be to impose exchange controls at short notice. How would if affect the use of debit and credit cards, for example - things which people take absolutely for granted now but which were all but unusable abroad (if you had them at all) thirty years ago?
Plus controlling bitcoin is going to be fun....
On the contrary, controlling credit cards or bitcoins is much easier than controlling the export of cash was in the 1970s. You just introduce the appropriate regulations on banks and credit card companies. In the case of bitcoins, you just ban banks from transferring money to purchase them. Easy as pie.
Of course, it's not so easy to control bitcoins once they have been obtained, but you don't need to.
The issue isn't so much technical, it's political. The freedom to transfer money abroad is completely taken for granted, rather more so even than the right to use and Uber. Reimposing exchange controls in 1987 might have seemed a bit retro but was still something that would have been familiar to most adults who'd travelled abroad. That's not at all the case now.
The issue isn't so much technical, it's political. The freedom to transfer money abroad is completely taken for granted, rather more so even than the right to use and Uber. Reimposing exchange controls in 1987 might have seemed a bit retro but was still something that would have been familiar to most adults who'd travelled abroad. That's not at all the case now.
Oh, absolutely. The youngsters voting for Corbyn won't know what's hit them, but by that time it will be too late.
Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently) Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
Poor old Paris, what a shame.
Yeah, we nixed our Paris move, the trouble with France is that it is full of French people.
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English.
Good Energy have spent years building a 100% renewable electricity supply. Most of the shareholders are little guys and customers.
This could be gone within minutes of a Labour government.
Is this really what the Glastonbury crowd want? Buyers remorse awaits big time.
There seems to be a massive gulf between my interpretation of what the likes of Corbyn are saying and what "young people" think he is saying. I have no doubt that a Corbyn government would absolutely trash many of the things young people like most.
I don't believe it Charlotte!! I'm suppose to be flying to Barcelona for the weekend for a city break with Oliver, and I can only get €100 out at the airport.
That message sent using Facebook Messenger on their iPhone, whilst streaming Spotify, the holiday booked using Kayak, and they plan to user Uber at the airport when they arrive.
The very things young people love most are created by businesses that look for low regulation, low taxes, and an ease of raising capital. Things that make a country an attractive place to invest, and things that will cease to be if Corbyn become PM.
Anti-capitalist rioters always take their selfies on the latest iPhone!!
Steve Jobs may have been a fruit-eating buddist, but he was no anti-capitalist.
I posted some questions a few weeks ago about exchange controls - many thought it was pie in the sky but some posters took the prospect seriously.
There were a number of helpful replies about, in particular, the practicalities of opening a bank account in various other countries.
A bit of chat on an internet forum is fine but if a Corbyn Government looks a serious imminent prospect then many people are surely going to need proper professional advice re the most sensible, practical steps to take.
Will eg solicitors be providing this for people who have significant savings but aren't in the multi millionaire bracket?
Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently) Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
Poor old Paris, what a shame.
Yeah, we nixed our Paris move, the trouble with France is that it is full of French people.
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English.
Germans have better English than the Dutch?!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????
Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently) Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
Poor old Paris, what a shame.
After heavy deliberation they were chosen by Crédit Agricole!
Yeah, we nixed our Paris move, the trouble with France is that it is full of French people.
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English.
I'm surprised on the last point - I used to do a lot of business both in Holland and in Germany, and I always found the Dutch spoke excellent English (and were easier to deal with than the Germans). Mind you, that was a few years ago and perhaps it's changed.
Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently) Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
Poor old Paris, what a shame.
Yeah, we nixed our Paris move, the trouble with France is that it is full of French people.
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English.
Germans have better English than the Dutch?!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????
In totality and the support services.
There's already a brouhaha over some bars in Berlin and Bonn that speak exclusively in English.
The Tories have long since given up on the centre ground. Like Labour, they are moving to their extreme.
Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true. It's evident nonsense; inasmuch as it is doing anything other than Brexit, the government is continuing with a mainstream centrist programme:
The main non-Brexit proposals of the [Queen's] speech include: - A Civil Liability Bill, designed to address the "compensation culture" around motoring insurance claims - A Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, establishing a Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner to stand up for victims and survivors and monitor the response of the authorities - A Tenant's Fees Bill, banning landlords from charging "letting fees" - A High-Speed Two Bill to authorise the second leg of the rail link from Birmingham to Crewe - A Data Protection Bill to strengthen individuals' rights and introduce a "right to be forgotten". - An Armed Forces Bill allowing people to serve on a part-time and flexible basis
Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently) Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
Poor old Paris, what a shame.
Yeah, we nixed our Paris move, the trouble with France is that it is full of French people.
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English.
Germans have better English than the Dutch?!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????
In totality and the support services.
There's already a brouhaha over some bars in Berlin and Bonn that speak exclusively in English.
Sorry you can rule out Berlin and Bonn. Too racy for you, young lad. You'll be stuck in Frankfurt.
Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently) Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
Poor old Paris, what a shame.
Yeah, we nixed our Paris move, the trouble with France is that it is full of French people.
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English.
If we Rejoin, our laws will be made (at least in part) by the French
Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently) Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
Poor old Paris, what a shame.
Yeah, we nixed our Paris move, the trouble with France is that it is full of French people.
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English.
Germans have better English than the Dutch?!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????
In totality and the support services.
There's already a brouhaha over some bars in Berlin and Bonn that speak exclusively in English.
Sorry you can rule out Berlin and Bonn. Too racy for you, young lad. You'll be stuck in Frankfurt.
The most interesting thing is that no one (as far as I am aware) is looking to move to Bruxelles.
No - more like the Major government, they are embracing their inner aimlessness, and just Pootering around.
It's not really aimlessness. You can have whatever aims you like, but if you haven't got the numbers you haven't got the numbers. I think Theresa May did have some big ambitions, but she blew the chance to implement them.
< I am doubtful even the worst excesses of Corbyn and McDonnell could even begin to provoke the amount of damage on the country as the Tory wreckers have done with Brexit.
Exactly.
I am a long-standing Labour moderate, I have been in the party since the 1970s and remember well the battles against the left the last time round in the 80s and early 90s. I have grave doubts about Corbyn and McDonnell in policy terms and also about their competence.
I agree with that. Labour is not as far to the left today as it was back in 1974 - never mind 1983.
With the greatest of respect they are putting forward the most hard left marxist style programme for government I have ever seen, only equalled by Hatton when Kinnock won that battle.
I am sorry but I disagree. What Labour is proposing would still leave the public sector significantly smaller than was the case in 1974. Increasing the top rate of Income Tax to 50% is a very modest commitment - well below the 60% level considered acceptable by Thatcher until 1988. There are no proposals to take over the Top 100 companies such as Tony Benn mooted before the 1974 elections. In what way is Labour policy more left wing today than in the early to mid 1970s?
You are being very naive. What they "are proposing" is not what they will "actually do". A Corbyn/Mcdonnell government would be way to the left of Callaghan, Wilson and even Foot.
Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently) Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
Poor old Paris, what a shame.
Yeah, we nixed our Paris move, the trouble with France is that it is full of French people.
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English.
If we Rejoin, our laws will be made (at least in part) by the French
Well our laws are passed in (Norman) French, so it would be a nice symmetry.
Your PB quiz question of the day: Who said this, and about what?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that this is one more reckless, precipitate and doctrinaire action, which the Government will regret no sooner than those who lose their jobs or go bankrupt as a result.
Not the day McD had in mind no doubt. The cat is out of the bag and running around...
Next thing, they'll be discussing the new policy that you must declare the £5 in your wallet when you go abroad. It applied from the 1940s to the late 1970s but you only remember the experience if you're aged over about 55, i.e. Corbyn will but most of Momentum won't.
Not the day McD had in mind no doubt. The cat is out of the bag and running around...
Am fairly sure it was exactly as he intended. Firstly, Labour is leading the news (no such thing as bad publicity). Secondly it shows to the troops that they are serious about power. Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, it sets up the betrayal myth. If the economy goes tits up he can point to the warnings about evil bankers and markets.
The Tories have long since given up on the centre ground. Like Labour, they are moving to their extreme.
Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true. It's evident nonsense; inasmuch as it is doing anything other than Brexit, the government is continuing with a mainstream centrist programme:
The main non-Brexit proposals of the [Queen's] speech include: - A Civil Liability Bill, designed to address the "compensation culture" around motoring insurance claims - A Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, establishing a Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner to stand up for victims and survivors and monitor the response of the authorities - A Tenant's Fees Bill, banning landlords from charging "letting fees" - A High-Speed Two Bill to authorise the second leg of the rail link from Birmingham to Crewe - A Data Protection Bill to strengthen individuals' rights and introduce a "right to be forgotten". - An Armed Forces Bill allowing people to serve on a part-time and flexible basis
No - more like the Major government, they are embracing their inner aimlessness, and just Pootering around.
Great. I wish more politicians would be cured of the urge to "do things and be seen to be doing things". I'm convinced because they have no job spec or key result eras or whatever like normal folk they are gripped by an inner terror that they might be caught "doing nothing".
Take a leaf out of the Texas constitution and limit the number of days you sit, and remember a lot of us really wouldn't mind one jot if they did less and just left us all alone a lot more.
Ireland is a different case but had those seeking independence kept to the rule of law, there's a good chance that Home Rule would have been delivered in the early 1920s. Whether that would then have drifted to independence is an open question and would have probably depended on the political skill of the respective leaders.
Similarly, India was already on the route to Responsible Government in the 1930s. Would that have happened had campaigning kept to petitions, letter-writing and lobbying? Who knows - but the fact that the protests were overwhelmingly peaceful gave them considerable power, so a peaceful, lawful campaign might have ended up somewhere similar, if not quite so quickly. Dominion status followed by full independence would probably have come, even without WWII and the winds of change.
As for the ANC, did their violence in the 1980s help or hinder their campaign? I suspect the latter. An international campaign based on the injustice of apartheid would probably have been more effective if the cynical, the worried and the closet racists didn't have the argument that it was a necessary evil because the ANC's antics proved that blacks couldn't be trusted with power - an argument that carried some weight both inside and outside the country. Internal and international pressure would almost certainly have brought apartheid to an end anyway.
There was a chance for India to become a fully self-governing dominion, like Australia, South Africa, Canada and NZ, as many Indians expected post WWI, and that chance ended in 1919.
You are right to imply India probably would have ditched the King-Emperor and Maharajas eventually, anyway, but probably not until the 1950s/1960s. The path would have been smoother and more peaceful, and we'd have had an even closer relationship with them today.
Ireland is very hard to call. But I think it might have been possible to prevent full Republicanism and a split in the island of Ireland, provided the right constitutional settlement had been devised, but the 1916 uprising, the British response, and the Irish War of 1920-1921 put an end to that for good.
On Ireland, a less extreme response to the Easter 1916 events could well have seen the IRA marginalised and split, leading to no Sinn Fein landslide, de facto independence or civil war. Home Rule would have been necessary though. Easy in hindsight; harder to do in the middle of a world war.
I'm not convinced the window closed on India in 1919 - though that was clearly one opportunity. The India Act was putting the pieces in place for the move to Responsible Government in the mid-1930s but WWII overtook its implementation.
The current Constitution of India (the longest in the world!) is not much different from the Government of India Act, 1935.
Tories not as good on the economy as they think they are. I remember when only the Tories could save our AAA rating. Oh dear.
After 2007 nothing could save our AAA rating. The country is deep in the brown stuff and it will take a generation to recover from that man's incompetence.
Or several, if Corbyn gets in.
People tried to warn conservatives like you where this was heading.
Er.. there was no Corbyn majority in the quick general election after winning the referendum. So you were wrong - as ever.
Wrong only in degree. In fact I wish I'd stuck to my guns because when the election was first called I got carried away with thinking it would be a Tory landslide.
As with Brexit.
Brexit, with its sunny uplands and no downsides, paved the way for Cake And Eat It politics. The Labour party's leadership learned an important lesson from a campaign they played no part in: when people feel alienated and their living standards are slipping, if you tell them what they want to hear, they will vote for you; cry Project Fear and promise the world, and you have every chance of success.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Brexit has given a boost to Corbyn's vote, but it's not the cause of his rise.
It's not the cause of his rise, but it's the reason why the Conservatives are fairly powerless to oppose it. When the Tories lose their minds over Europe, they leave the field clear for Labour. It was the same in the 90s. Only a united pro-European Tory party can deliver stable centre-right government.
William: you are a restless fanatic on the EU. You think attitudes to it are the cause of every problem, and itself is the solution, and, in attacking those that disagree, and rejecting any form of nuance, you are guilty of just the same level of fanaticism as the Corbynites and Redwoods you criticise.
Your only line of innovation is trying to find an angle on any poster who appears eurosceptic (who desires something else, politically) and then explaining why being pro-EU is the answer to that.
You have zero credibility with me, and I take your posts with that level of seriousness.
The issue isn't so much technical, it's political. The freedom to transfer money abroad is completely taken for granted, rather more so even than the right to use and Uber. Reimposing exchange controls in 1987 might have seemed a bit retro but was still something that would have been familiar to most adults who'd travelled abroad. That's not at all the case now.
Oh, absolutely. The youngsters voting for Corbyn won't know what's hit them, but by that time it will be too late.
The Uber furore gives a preview of that.
The little cherubs still can't make the link. Bless.
Not the day McD had in mind no doubt. The cat is out of the bag and running around...
Anybody with any sense should allow for the fact that anytime after 8.00 day one of PM Corbyn where there are no exchange controls is bonus time.
Anyone born after about 1970 probably only has a hazy idea of the concept if they've heard of it at all. To be fair to them why should they, it's 38 years since they went. However be prepared folks.
Tories not as good on the economy as they think they are. I remember when only the Tories could save our AAA rating. Oh dear.
After 2007 nothing could save our AAA rating. The country is deep in the brown stuff and it will take a generation to recover from that man's incompetence.
Or several, if Corbyn gets in.
People tried to warn conservatives like you where this was heading.
Er.. there was no Corbyn majority in the quick general election after winning the referendum. So you were wrong - as ever.
Wrong only in degree. In fact I wislide.
As with Brexit.
Brexit, with its sunny uplands and if you tell them what they want to hear, they will vote for you; cry Project Fear and promise the world, and you have every chance of success.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Brexit has given a boost to Corbyn's vote, but it's not the cause of his rise.
It's not the cause of his rise, but it's the reason why the Conservatives are fairly powerless to oppose it. When the Tories lose their minds over Europe, they leave the field clear for Labour. It was the same in the 90s. Only a united pro-European Tory party can deliver stable centre-right government.
William: you are a restless fanatic on the EU. You think attitudes to it are the cause of every problem, and itself is the solution, and, in attacking those that disagree, and rejecting any form of nuance, you are guilty of just the same level of fanaticism as the Corbynites and Redwoods you criticise.
Your only line of innovation is trying to find an angle on any poster who appears eurosceptic (who desires something else, politically) and then explaining why being pro-EU is the answer to that.
You have zero credibility with me, and I take your posts with that level of seriousness.
I thought it was a fairly astute post, regardless of his views on the EU. When the Cons tear themselves apart over Europe (or do you think they never do?!) then it leaves the way open for Labour.
The Tories have long since given up on the centre ground. Like Labour, they are moving to their extreme.
Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true. It's evident nonsense; inasmuch as it is doing anything other than Brexit, the government is continuing with a mainstream centrist programme:
The main non-Brexit proposals of the [Queen's] speech include: - A Civil Liability Bill, designed to address the "compensation culture" around motoring insurance claims - A Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, establishing a Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner to stand up for victims and survivors and monitor the response of the authorities - A Tenant's Fees Bill, banning landlords from charging "letting fees" - A High-Speed Two Bill to authorise the second leg of the rail link from Birmingham to Crewe - A Data Protection Bill to strengthen individuals' rights and introduce a "right to be forgotten". - An Armed Forces Bill allowing people to serve on a part-time and flexible basis
No - more like the Major government, they are embracing their inner aimlessness, and just Pootering around.
Great. I wish more politicians would be cured of the urge to "do things and be seen to be doing things". I'm convinced because they have no job spec or key result eras or whatever like normal folk they are gripped by an inner terror that they might be caught "doing nothing".
Take a leaf out of the Texas constitution and limit the number of days you sit, and remember a lot of us really wouldn't mind one jot if they did less and just left us all alone a lot more.
End of soapbox.
Rather more important that they recognise which tasks actually do matter, and get on with them.
May, notoriously, said she did not wish her administration to be defined by Brexit....
Having committed to buying back the PFI deals on the nation's credit card yesterday (on top of the earlier policies and the likely withdrawal of overseas investment in e.g. London property), that seems a fair expectation.
Labour Govt., Day One: complete ban on transfer of capital out of the UK. Back to taking a tenner a day spending money on holiday.
Day Two: the start of the biggest buyer's remorse in the history of democracy.
Can I Godwin that one? Can I? Pleeease.
The restoration of Exchange Controls was in Labour's 1987 Manifesto so it would hardly be new territory at all.In the 1960s the need to support the pound under the Bretton Woods system did lead to tight control on how much currency could be taken out of the UK , but most people felt able to live with that despite the associated inconveniences.
We're in a very different world from 1987 now though. I'm not sure how practical it would even be to impose exchange controls at short notice. How would if affect the use of debit and credit cards, for example - things which people take absolutely for granted now but which were all but unusable abroad (if you had them at all) thirty years ago?
Plus controlling bitcoin is going to be fun....
On the contrary, controlling credit cards or bitcoins is much easier than controlling the export of cash was in the 1970s. You just introduce the appropriate regulations on banks and credit card companies. In the case of bitcoins, you just ban banks from transferring money to purchase them. Easy as pie.
Of course, it's not so easy to control bitcoins once they have been obtained, but you don't need to.
Which banks? UK? Or will you stop transfer of funds to foreign, or dare I say it, I must, I must, an off shore bank account? You won't be popular with a couple of recent ex-PM's, a CoE or two, and many movers and shakers in the City of London. If there is a market, someone will find a way to serve it. And if the government of which ever point of view, makes a law which is ignored by the majority, then they become irrelevant, and certainly if it loses control of the currency, then the game becomes very interesting, to say the least.
The one thing that has become apparent that over the summer Corbyn has become a cult figure that has revitalised the youth and with the help of momentum has seen him grow in confidence to follow his hard left agenda.
However, this is the first time I have witnessed anything like this and it is possible Corbyn, McDonnell et al have put too much faith in how much the voting public will endorse them.
Unless they get the youth to vote early and vote often, which would be a Northern Ireland-scale scandal I don't think they'll get a majority of 50. Hung parliament but the reverse of the current Tory/Labour split?
If Labour is the largest party, it still has to get its programme past Lib.Dems, Greens, Plaid, SNP ... and the House of Lords. The Lords have a reasonable record of trying to block mad legislation.
I agree with but would include the conservatives and the DUP in both houses and also the prospect of countless appeals to the High Courts as per Gina Miller on rights over share values etc
Unlike you, I'm a non-Tory who tolerates the views of some Tories (Grieve, Soubry, Clarke, Heseltine, Patten if he still is a Tory, Gummer) and disagrees with the views of others (Tebbit, Howard, Mogg, Bone, Cash, Redwood, IDS). When Clarke uses the word headbangers he seems to refer to the latter group!
The Lords also had a reasonable record in the 1980s of acting as the official opposition to Thatcher and her 'headbanger' policies. I think under FPTP it would be dangerous to abolish it as McD probably wants to do.
Of course he does. He's war gaming what will stop him and I reckon there's a bloomin good chance HoL has come up repeatedly.
The Lords should appoint a committee of Patten, Steel and respected people from othere parties and the cross benchers (obviously Patten, I think) to lead the opposition to abolition and the case for steady reform. The latter is opposed by a lot of vested interests which must be why duds continue to be appointed to the Lords.
The obvious next stage in steady reform, it seems to me, is to abolish the elections for new hereditary peers when the old ones die off. So when for instance Lord Carrington who's nearly 100 finally leaves this world he wouldn't be replaced.
The Tories have long since given up on the centre ground. Like Labour, they are moving to their extreme.
Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true. It's evident nonsense; inasmuch as it is doing anything other than Brexit, the government is continuing with a mainstream centrist programme:
The main non-Brexit proposals of the [Queen's] speech include: - A Civil Liability Bill, designed to address the "compensation culture" around motoring insurance claims - A Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, establishing a Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner to stand up for victims and survivors and monitor the response of the authorities - A Tenant's Fees Bill, banning landlords from charging "letting fees" - A High-Speed Two Bill to authorise the second leg of the rail link from Birmingham to Crewe - A Data Protection Bill to strengthen individuals' rights and introduce a "right to be forgotten". - An Armed Forces Bill allowing people to serve on a part-time and flexible basis
No - more like the Major government, they are embracing their inner aimlessness, and just Pootering around.
Great. I wish more politicians would be cured of the urge to "do things and be seen to be doing things". I'm convinced because they have no job spec or key result eras or whatever like normal folk they are gripped by an inner terror that they might be caught "doing nothing".
Take a leaf out of the Texas constitution and limit the number of days you sit, and remember a lot of us really wouldn't mind one jot if they did less and just left us all alone a lot more.
End of soapbox.
Rather more important that they recognise which tasks actually do matter, and get on with them.
May, notoriously, said she did not wish her administration to be defined by Brexit....
True of course, but I always feel there's a default mode "to do" rather than "not to do".
Not doing has a lot of virtues. Hammond for instance is doing a great job not being McDonnell. I struggle to see what he could achieve that's better than "not being" at present. That's perfectly fine.
Which banks? UK? Or will you stop transfer of funds to foreign, or dare I say it, I must, I must, an off shore bank account? You won't be popular with a couple of recent ex-PM's, a CoE or two, and many movers and shakers in the City of London. If there is a market, someone will find a way to serve it. And if the government of which ever point of view, makes a law which is ignored by the majority, then they become irrelevant, and certainly if it loses control of the currency, then the game becomes very interesting, to say the least.
Err, you need to address those questions to John McDonnell, not to me.
However, I can answer the technical points on his behalf: Of course if he introduces exchange controls the restrictions will apply to any foreign bank operating here. They operate here under UK financial regulation, after all. If it's like the 1970s (which seems to be the model Corbyn and McDonnell want to follow), UK citizens won't be allowed to hold bank accounts offshore.
I am sorry but I disagree. What Labour is proposing would still leave the public sector significantly smaller than was the case in 1974. Increasing the top rate of Income Tax to 50% is a very modest commitment - well below the 60% level considered acceptable by Thatcher until 1988. There are no proposals to take over the Top 100 companies such as Tony Benn mooted before the 1974 elections. In what way is Labour policy more left wing today than in the early to mid 1970s?
Ignoring general shifts in society since then (e.g. on minority rights):
1. Direction and speed of travel 2. Relative position to the electorate 3. Foreign policy 4. Defence policy 5. N Ireland (not so much Labour as Corbyn / McDonnell personally) 6. Monetary policy 7. Willingness to consider confiscation / requisitioning 8. Freedom of speech, in practice 9. Attitude to the nation and its history. 10. Positive discrimination.
I thought it was a fairly astute post, regardless of his views on the EU. When the Cons tear themselves apart over Europe (or do you think they never do?!) then it leaves the way open for Labour.
Surely even small children in Bruges see that.
Tory divisions over Europe destroyed the premierships of Cameron, Major and Thatcher. They will certainly destroy what remains of May.
"As a senior Labour politician recently told me: "There is simply no historical model anywhere in the world for what we want to do, which has been successful. A left government being elected in a post-industrial society and then successfully managing to transition into a major new settlement, whether a new form of capitalism or socialism: this is not easy to achieve."
Polly's warming to Jezza since the election is fast approaching a full embrace:
Labour has indeed become the nation’s adults, the sensibles, the party least likely to wreck the country’s future. How short a time ago Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell were regarded as delinquent adolescents who had never grown out of the 1970s. They may be the masters soon [...] Labour looks more credible by the day, its senior team more impressive: one reminder here is the roster of excellent Labour mayors and leaders running the country’s best councils, while Kensington and Chelsea stands as the Tory’s sorry emblem.
"As a senior Labour politician recently told me: "There is simply no historical model anywhere in the world for what we want to do, which has been successful. A left government being elected in a post-industrial society and then successfully managing to transition into a major new settlement, whether a new form of capitalism or socialism: this is not easy to achieve."
The issue isn't so much technical, it's political. The freedom to transfer money abroad is completely taken for granted, rather more so even than the right to use and Uber. Reimposing exchange controls in 1987 might have seemed a bit retro but was still something that would have been familiar to most adults who'd travelled abroad. That's not at all the case now.
Oh, absolutely. The youngsters voting for Corbyn won't know what's hit them, but by that time it will be too late.
The Uber furore gives a preview of that.
The little cherubs still can't make the link. Bless.
Whereas we see countless Brexiteers who promised that leaving the EU would solve the problems of migrants undercutting British service providers cheering on a company whose business model is largely dependent on the use of migrant labour to undercut British service providers. It turns out that the interests of expensive British plumbers and electricians are worth protecting, but those of expensive British black cab drivers are not. Go figure!!
I thought it was a fairly astute post, regardless of his views on the EU. When the Cons tear themselves apart over Europe (or do you think they never do?!) then it leaves the way open for Labour.
Surely even small children in Bruges see that.
Tory divisions over Europe destroyed the premierships of Cameron, Major and Thatcher. They will certainly destroy what remains of May.
More accurate to say European divisions over Tories.
The direction of the EU post 1988 simply wasn't (and isn't) politically sustainable for the UK.
Smart Europhiles will, of course, do the logical reverse thinking: that that means that a reversion to some sort of associate membership of the EU, together with membership of the single market and customs union, and a voice in both, but with a brake on excessive movement of people, and a full opt-out of anything from Maastricht and beyond, would be.
Which banks? UK? Or will you stop transfer of funds to foreign, or dare I say it, I must, I must, an off shore bank account? You won't be popular with a couple of recent ex-PM's, a CoE or two, and many movers and shakers in the City of London. If there is a market, someone will find a way to serve it. And if the government of which ever point of view, makes a law which is ignored by the majority, then they become irrelevant, and certainly if it loses control of the currency, then the game becomes very interesting, to say the least.
Err, you need to address those questions to John McDonnell, not to me.
However, I can answer the technical points on his behalf: Of course if he introduces exchange controls the restrictions will apply to any foreign bank operating here. They operate here under UK financial regulation, after all. If it's like the 1970s (which seems to be the model Corbyn and McDonnell want to follow), UK citizens won't be allowed to hold bank accounts offshore.
Has anybody told McD that City contribues £70b a year in tax.
Has he wargamed that declining massively in a hurry?
The one thing that has become apparent that over the summer Corbyn has become a cult figure that has revitalised the youth and with the help of momentum has seen him grow in confidence to follow his hard left agenda.
However, this is the first time I have witnessed anything like this and it is possible Corbyn, McDonnell et al have put too much faith in how much the voting public will endorse them.
Unless they get the youth to vote early and vote often, which would be a Northern Ireland-scale scandal I don't think they'll get a majority of 50. Hung parliament but the reverse of the current Tory/Labour split?
If Labour is the largest party, it still has to get its programme past Lib.Dems, Greens, Plaid, SNP ... and the House of Lords. The Lords have a reasonable record of trying to block mad legislation.
I agree with but would include the conservatives and the DUP in both houses and also the prospect of countless appeals to the High Courts as per Gina Miller on rights over share values etc
Unlike you, I'm a non-Tory who tolerates the views of some Tories (Grieve, Soubry, Clarke, Heseltine, Patten if he still is a Tory, Gummer) and disagrees with the views of others (Tebbit, Howard, Mogg, Bone, Cash, Redwood, IDS). When Clarke uses the word headbangers he seems to refer to the latter group!
The Lords also had a reasonable record in the 1980s of acting as the official opposition to Thatcher and her 'headbanger' policies. I think under FPTP it would be dangerous to abolish it as McD probably wants to do.
Of course he does. He's war gaming what will stop him and I reckon there's a bloomin good chance HoL has come up repeatedly.
If he's gaming properly, he'll keep the Lords as it is. Yes, it might create trouble but nothing that can't be overcome - with the Parliament Act if necessary but it rarely goes that far. However, promoting the abolition will likely produce a demand for it to be replaced with an elected second chamber: a demand that will be hard to ignore (not least because Labour could use that as a check on future Tory governments). A Senate, elected by PR, would be a much greater threat than the Lords as currently constituted.
Which banks? UK? Or will you stop transfer of funds to foreign, or dare I say it, I must, I must, an off shore bank account? You won't be popular with a couple of recent ex-PM's, a CoE or two, and many movers and shakers in the City of London. If there is a market, someone will find a way to serve it. And if the government of which ever point of view, makes a law which is ignored by the majority, then they become irrelevant, and certainly if it loses control of the currency, then the game becomes very interesting, to say the least.
Err, you need to address those questions to John McDonnell, not to me.
However, I can answer the technical points on his behalf: Of course if he introduces exchange controls the restrictions will apply to any foreign bank operating here. They operate here under UK financial regulation, after all. If it's like the 1970s (which seems to be the model Corbyn and McDonnell want to follow), UK citizens won't be allowed to hold bank accounts offshore.
What will happen is that UK citizens will give money to their relatives to hold in their own names, in trust.
I have cousins in Australia, Canada and New Zealand that I trust, plus an Uncle in the USA, and a relative in Bulgaria I also trust.
The Tories have long since given up on the centre ground. Like Labour, they are moving to their extreme.
Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true. It's evident nonsense; inasmuch as it is doing anything other than Brexit, the government is continuing with a mainstream centrist programme:
The main non-Brexit proposals of the [Queen's] speech include: - A Civil Liability Bill, designed to address the "compensation culture" around motoring insurance claims - A Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, establishing a Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner to stand up for victims and survivors and monitor the response of the authorities - A Tenant's Fees Bill, banning landlords from charging "letting fees" - A High-Speed Two Bill to authorise the second leg of the rail link from Birmingham to Crewe - A Data Protection Bill to strengthen individuals' rights and introduce a "right to be forgotten". - An Armed Forces Bill allowing people to serve on a part-time and flexible basis
Tories not as good on the economy as they think they are. I remember when only the Tories could save our AAA rating. Oh dear.
After 2007 nothing could save our AAA rating. The country is deep in the brown stuff and it will take a generation to recover from that man's incompetence.
Or several, if Corbyn gets in.
People tried to warn conservatives like you where this was heading.
Er.. there was no Corbyn majority in the quick general election after winning the referendum. So you were wrong - as ever.
Wrong only in degree. In fact I wislide.
As with Brexit.
Brexit, with its sunny uplands and if you tell them what they want to hear, they will vote for you; cry Project Fear and promise the world, and you have every chance of success.
Correlation does not equal causation.
Brexit has given a boost to Corbyn's vote, but it's not the cause of his rise.
It's not the cause of his rise, but it's the reason why the Conservatives are fairly powerless to oppose it. When the Tories lose their minds over Europe, they leave the field clear for Labour. It was the same in the 90s. Only a united pro-European Tory party can deliver stable centre-right government.
William: you are a restless fanatic on the EU. You think attitudes to it are the cause of every problem, and itself is the solution, and, in attacking those that disagree, and rejecting any form of nuance, you are guilty of just the same level of fanaticism as the Corbynites and Redwoods you criticise.
Your only line of innovation is trying to find an angle on any poster who appears eurosceptic (who desires something else, politically) and then explaining why being pro-EU is the answer to that.
You have zero credibility with me, and I take your posts with that level of seriousness.
I thought it was a fairly astute post, regardless of his views on the EU. When the Cons tear themselves apart over Europe (or do you think they never do?!) then it leaves the way open for Labour.
Surely even small children in Bruges see that.
He would be right if he said divided parties lose elections.
The UK has got itself into a situation where it has no good choices. The worst government and the worst opposition in living memory at a time of maximum peacetime need and exposure. What a mess.
IDS was worse in opposition for sure I think.
I think you're a bit harsh on TM also - she was left a really tough situation by Cam and Osborne... I'd argue their government from 2015 was worse in many ways.
She triggered Article 50 before having an EU exit strategy and a settled final destination; she labelled those who disagreed with her as citizens of nowhere; stood by as her media cheerleaders labelled judges with the temerity to enforce the law enemies of the people; and then accused the EU of trying to fix the outcome of the totally unnecessary general election she called. What's more she made Boris Johnson foreign secretary and is now too weak to fire him. Her incompetence, embrace of the Tory right and manifest inability to lead has set the UK on a path to a cliff-edge Brexit that will cause seious, sustained damage to our economy and international standing.
And don't start me on the ludicrous Jeremy Corbyn, whose intolerant Labour party will bankrupt Britain and drive away the wealth creators this country so drsperately needs.
What a mess.
It was aimed firmly at the tax dodging global super rich who pollute London
Corbyn has become a cult figure that has revitalised the youth and with the help of momentum has seen him grow in confidence to follow his hard left agenda.
However, this is the first time I have witnessed anything like this and it is possible Corbyn, McDonnell et al have put too much faith in how much the voting public will endorse them.
Unless they get the youth to vote early and vote often, which would be a Northern Ireland-scale scandal I don't think they'll get a majority of 50. Hung parliament but the reverse of the current Tory/Labour split?
If Labour is the largest party, it still has to get its programme past Lib.Dems, Greens, Plaid, SNP ... and the House of Lords. The Lords have a reasonable record of trying to block mad legislation.
I agree with but would include the conservatives and the DUP in both houses and also the prospect of countless appeals to the High Courts as per Gina Miller on rights over share values etc
Unlike you, I'm a non-Tory who tolerates the views of some Tories (Grieve, Soubry, Clarke, Heseltine, Patten if he still is a Tory, Gummer) and disagrees with the views of others (Tebbit, Howard, Mogg, Bone, Cash, Redwood, IDS). When Clarke uses the word headbangers he seems to refer to the latter group!
The Lords also had a reasonable record in the 1980s of acting as the official opposition to Thatcher and her 'headbanger' policies. I think under FPTP it would be dangerous to abolish it as McD probably wants to do.
Of course he does. He's war gaming what will stop him and I reckon there's a bloomin good chance HoL has come up repeatedly.
The Lords should appoint a committee of Patten, Steel and respected people from othere parties and the cross benchers (obviously Patten, I think) to lead the opposition to abolition and the case for steady reform. The latter is opposed by a lot of vested interests which must be why duds continue to be appointed to the Lords.
The obvious next stage in steady reform, it seems to me, is to abolish the elections for new hereditary peers when the old ones die off. So when for instance Lord Carrington who's nearly 100 finally leaves this world he wouldn't be replaced.
I'm really not sure that I find a chum, buddie, mate, party loyalist or ex MP moved upstairs any more worthy or in any way better than a hereditary.
The heraditaries are a smoke screen. Sure there is no justification for them (except Historical, and that fails the democratic test).
The equal lunacy is appointments. Appointments are worse when they get to the position through arse licking and sycophantic means.
Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
The issue isn't so much technical, it's political. The freedom to transfer money abroad is completely taken for granted, rather more so even than the right to use and Uber. Reimposing exchange controls in 1987 might have seemed a bit retro but was still something that would have been familiar to most adults who'd travelled abroad. That's not at all the case now.
Oh, absolutely. The youngsters voting for Corbyn won't know what's hit them, but by that time it will be too late.
The Uber furore gives a preview of that.
The little cherubs still can't make the link. Bless.
Whereas we see countless Brexiteers who promised that leaving the EU would solve the problems of migrants undercutting British service providers cheering on a company whose business model is largely dependent on the use of migrant labour to undercut British service providers. It turns out that the interests of expensive British plumbers and electricians are worth protecting, but those of expensive British black cab drivers are not. Go figure!!
I had noted that too. Decent pay and conditions for WWC folk doesnt matter if they are cabbies.
But as we all know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even when having very short memories:
The one thing that has become apparent that over the summer Corbyn has become a cult figure that has revitalised the youth and with the help of momentum has seen him grow in confidence to follow his hard left agenda.
However, this is the first time I have witnessed anything like this and it is possible Corbyn, McDonnell et al have put too much faith in how much the voting public will endorse them.
Unless they get the youth to vote early and vote often, which would be a Northern Ireland-scale scandal I don't think they'll get a majority of 50. Hung parliament but the reverse of the current Tory/Labour split?
If Labour is the largest party, it still has to get its programme past Lib.Dems, Greens, Plaid, SNP ... and the House of Lords. The Lords have a reasonable record of trying to block mad legislation.
I agree with but would include the conservatives and the DUP in both houses and also the prospect of countless appeals to the High Courts as per Gina Miller on rights over share values etc
Unlike you, I'm a non-Tory who tolerates the views of some Tories (Grieve, Soubry, Clarke, Heseltine, Patten if he still is a Tory, Gummer) and disagrees with the views of others (Tebbit, Howard, Mogg, Bone, Cash, Redwood, IDS). When Clarke uses the word headbangers he seems to refer to the latter group!
The Lords also had a reasonable record in the 1980s of acting as the official opposition to Thatcher and her 'headbanger' policies. I think under FPTP it would be dangerous to abolish it as McD probably wants to do.
Of course he does. He's war gaming what will stop him and I reckon there's a bloomin good chance HoL has come up repeatedly.
If he's gaming properly, he'll keep the Lords as it is. Yes, it might create trouble but nothing that can't be overcome - with the Parliament Act if necessary but it rarely goes that far. However, promoting the abolition will likely produce a demand for it to be replaced with an elected second chamber: a demand that will be hard to ignore (not least because Labour could use that as a check on future Tory governments). A Senate, elected by PR, would be a much greater threat than the Lords as currently constituted.
Possibly. But HoL will be able to block/delay non-manifesto proposals. These are precisely the things McD probably has up his sleeve. Too extreme to be in a manifesto.
Plus hubris is in the air already. Imagine if they win. Completing the hundred year battle to reform the Lords - they would go for it imho.
Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
As a US resident with a British bank account, I have a very bad feeling about this.
About a year ago our UK bank (First Direct) asked us to do video calls with them to show proof of ID and address. It wasn't mandatory but if you didn't your online access would be significantly down-graded. I did it but my wife didn't bother as we barely use the account anyway and she lets me manage it. I can't help but feel this may prove to be a mistake come January, even though as an Irish citizen my wife has an unqualified right to travel to and settle in the UK.
The Tories have long since given up on the centre ground. Like Labour, they are moving to their extreme.
Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true. It's evident nonsense; inasmuch as it is doing anything other than Brexit, the government is continuing with a mainstream centrist programme:
The main non-Brexit proposals of the [Queen's] speech include: - A Civil Liability Bill, designed to address the "compensation culture" around motoring insurance claims - A Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, establishing a Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner to stand up for victims and survivors and monitor the response of the authorities - A Tenant's Fees Bill, banning landlords from charging "letting fees" - A High-Speed Two Bill to authorise the second leg of the rail link from Birmingham to Crewe - A Data Protection Bill to strengthen individuals' rights and introduce a "right to be forgotten". - An Armed Forces Bill allowing people to serve on a part-time and flexible basis
No - more like the Major government, they are embracing their inner aimlessness, and just Pootering around.
Great. I wish more politicians would be cured of the urge to "do things and be seen to be doing things". I'm convinced because they have no job spec or key result eras or whatever like normal folk they are gripped by an inner terror that they might be caught "doing nothing".
Take a leaf out of the Texas constitution and limit the number of days you sit, and remember a lot of us really wouldn't mind one jot if they did less and just left us all alone a lot more.
End of soapbox.
Rather more important that they recognise which tasks actually do matter, and get on with them.
May, notoriously, said she did not wish her administration to be defined by Brexit....
True of course, but I always feel there's a default mode "to do" rather than "not to do".
Not doing has a lot of virtues. Hammond for instance is doing a great job not being McDonnell. I struggle to see what he could achieve that's better than "not being" at present. That's perfectly fine.
An example... the government might attempt seriously to address the pathetically low level of house building ?
It's not a particularly party political issue, but it has national salience. And it has the merit that spending on this could genuinely described as 'investment'.
Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
The issue isn't so much technical, it's political. The freedom to transfer money abroad is completely taken for granted, rather more so even than the right to use and Uber. Reimposing exchange controls in 1987 might have seemed a bit retro but was still something that would have been familiar to most adults who'd travelled abroad. That's not at all the case now.
Oh, absolutely. The youngsters voting for Corbyn won't know what's hit them, but by that time it will be too late.
The Uber furore gives a preview of that.
The little cherubs still can't make the link. Bless.
Whereas we see countless Brexiteers who promised that leaving the EU would solve the problems of migrants undercutting British service providers cheering on a company whose business model is largely dependent on the use of migrant labour to undercut British service providers. It turns out that the interests of expensive British plumbers and electricians are worth protecting, but those of expensive British black cab drivers are not. Go figure!!
I had noted that too. Decent pay and conditions for WWC folk doesnt matter if they are cabbies.
But as we all know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even when having very short memories:
I remember when it was only sneering, latte drinking, metropolitan elitists who benefited from cheap migrant labour that lowered the living standards of good, salt-of-the-earth, patriotic Brits. But, it seems, we are all sneering, latte drinking, metropolitan elitists now!!
Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
Reality is starting to dawn (or bite). The shrill, febrile atmosphere post-Brexit, stoked up by the likes of Boris and Farage, now just seems juvenile. Thankfully, Boris has been sidelined and Farage is hanging around with American evangelical fundamentalists. There's a route for Theresa to engineer a revival, but she has to stay sensible and cool.
I thought it was a fairly astute post, regardless of his views on the EU. When the Cons tear themselves apart over Europe (or do you think they never do?!) then it leaves the way open for Labour.
Surely even small children in Bruges see that.
He would be right if he said divided parties lose elections.
It’s deeper than that. Euroscepticism is particularly toxic to the British centre-right, and when it morphs into delegitimising our membership of the EU altogether it becomes fatal. Events are demonstrating in a brutally humiliating fashion that the people who believe our national interest would be best pursued outside the EU are simply wrong.
I am sorry but I disagree. What Labour is proposing would still leave the public sector significantly smaller than was the case in 1974. Increasing the top rate of Income Tax to 50% is a very modest commitment - well below the 60% level considered acceptable by Thatcher until 1988. There are no proposals to take over the Top 100 companies such as Tony Benn mooted before the 1974 elections. In what way is Labour policy more left wing today than in the early to mid 1970s?
Ignoring general shifts in society since then (e.g. on minority rights):
1. Direction and speed of travel 2. Relative position to the electorate 3. Foreign policy 4. Defence policy 5. N Ireland (not so much Labour as Corbyn / McDonnell personally) 6. Monetary policy 7. Willingness to consider confiscation / requisitioning 8. Freedom of speech, in practice 9. Attitude to the nation and its history. 10. Positive discrimination.
But most of those points are very subjective and depend on where one starts from. I am not a Corbynite and have concerns regarding point 8. I have never believed in 10 either , but that cannot be pinned on Corbyn - Blair brought in All Women Shortlists etc.The other points are all fair game and should be up for discussion via our political processes. But I cannot accept that reverting to policy positions which were very mainstream in both political parties until the mid-1980s amounts to an extreme policy programme. It would be radical - but so was Thatcher's programme - and after effectively 40 years of Neoliberalism under all Governments it seems entirely reasonable to seek to push back in the other direction when the status quo has been found wanting. Corbyn & Mcdonnell seeking in the 2020s to reverse some of the privatisation of the 1980s and 1990s is no different to Thatcher & Major - and to some extent Blair - undoing the Attlee Govt's nationalisation policies from the late 1940s.
Brexit is all. And to keep her right wing happy Theresa May has spent the last year followings its playbook. To predictably poor effect.
No she hasn't. There might be a valid criticism that she has been over-optimistic, but she's been completely clear from the start that she wants a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, wants the EU to succeed, and wants to set up structures for continuing cooperation in security and lots of other areas. She's also prepared to pay a reasonable sum for all this. In fact, the same as Sir Keir Starmer wants. I really don't know how you conclude that this is extreme, it's a straightforward implementation of the referendum result with as much mitigation as possible (or more mitigation than is possible - as I just said, she might be over-optimistic).
But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.
Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
Which banks? UK? Or will you stop transfer of funds to foreign, or dare I say it, I must, I must, an off shore bank account? You won't be popular with a couple of recent ex-PM's, a CoE or two, and many movers and shakers in the City of London. If there is a market, someone will find a way to serve it. And if the government of which ever point of view, makes a law which is ignored by the majority, then they become irrelevant, and certainly if it loses control of the currency, then the game becomes very interesting, to say the least.
Err, you need to address those questions to John McDonnell, not to me.
However, I can answer the technical points on his behalf: Of course if he introduces exchange controls the restrictions will apply to any foreign bank operating here. They operate here under UK financial regulation, after all. If it's like the 1970s (which seems to be the model Corbyn and McDonnell want to follow), UK citizens won't be allowed to hold bank accounts offshore.
Has anybody told McD that City contribues £70b a year in tax.
Has he wargamed that declining massively in a hurry?
I guess he'll just print the difference.
McDonnell is far more interested in the politics of taxation, rather than the economics.
The UK has got itself into a situation where it has no good choices. The worst government and the worst opposition in living memory at a time of maximum peacetime need and exposure. What a mess.
Could be worse. At least May isn't trying to provoke a nuclear war.
Given the previous poll was taken before the general election hardly surprising there has been a shift.
The biggest ones are on pensioners, which the Tories having scrapped the ending of the triple lock and winter fuel allowance have begun to redress and on students where Hammond is set to raise the threshold for fees and likely cut fees for courses with a lower earnings premium and maybe the interest rate too
I cannot recall such a time when the "winning" party ripped up its manifesto so completely. It is now implementing a very different set of policies. Right or wrong, this is not going to restore faith in the honesty of politicians. It also makes Corbyn look an authentic and sage leader.
A genuine question this: what is Labour's policy on Brexit?
Good. Why shouldn't the Government try and enforce its immigration law?
Nothing wrong with enforcing the laws, but I expect that an awful lot of innocent people are going to get caught in the net.
Some mistakes will be made - and boy oh boy will they be heavily covered in The Guardian - but most won't be, and the Home Office will catch a lot of illegal immigrants.
Given the previous poll was taken before the general election hardly surprising there has been a shift.
The biggest ones are on pensioners, which the Tories having scrapped the ending of the triple lock and winter fuel allowance have begun to redress and on students where Hammond is set to raise the threshold for fees and likely cut fees for courses with a lower earnings premium and maybe the interest rate too
I cannot recall such a time when the "winning" party ripped up its manifesto so completely. It is now implementing a very different set of policies. Right or wrong, this is not going to restore faith in the honesty of politicians. It also makes Corbyn look an authentic and sage leader.
A genuine question this: what is Labour's policy on Brexit?
Brexit is all. And to keep her right wing happy Theresa May has spent the last year followings its playbook. To predictably poor effect.
No she hasn't. There might be a valid criticism that she has been over-optimistic, but she's been completely clear from the start that she wants a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, wants the EU to succeed, and wants to set up structures for continuing cooperation in security and lots of other areas. She's also prepared to pay a reasonable sum for all this. In fact, the same as Sir Keir Starmer wants. I really don't know how you conclude that this is extreme, it's a straightforward implementation of the referendum result with as much mitigation as possible (or more mitigation than is possible - as I just said, she might be over-optimistic).
The EU don't want that as much as they want Brexit to be seen as anything but a success.
Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
Brexit is all. And to keep her right wing happy Theresa May has spent the last year followings its playbook. To predictably poor effect.
No she hasn't. There might be a valid criticism that she has been over-optimistic, but she's been completely clear from the start that she wants a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, wants the EU to succeed, and wants to set up structures for continuing cooperation in security and lots of other areas. She's also prepared to pay a reasonable sum for all this. In fact, the same as Sir Keir Starmer wants. I really don't know how you conclude that this is extreme, it's a straightforward implementation of the referendum result with as much mitigation as possible (or more mitigation than is possible - as I just said, she might be over-optimistic).
The EU don't want that as much as they want Brexit to be seen as anything but a success.
Well, yes, that is the huge risk factor in all of this. As I've said before, I recommend taking whatever measures one can to protect oneself. The same measures will probably help protect against McDonnell, so it's a no-brainer really.
Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
The issue isn't so much technical, it's political. The freedom to transfer money abroad is completely taken for granted, rather more so even than the right to use and Uber. Reimposing exchange controls in 1987 might have seemed a bit retro but was still something that would have been familiar to most adults who'd travelled abroad. That's not at all the case now.
Oh, absolutely. The youngsters voting for Corbyn won't know what's hit them, but by that time it will be too late.
The Uber furore gives a preview of that.
The little cherubs still can't make the link. Bless.
Whereas we see countless Brexiteers who promised that leaving the EU would solve the problems of migrants undercutting British service providers cheering on a company whose business model is largely dependent on the use of migrant labour to undercut British service providers. It turns out that the interests of expensive British plumbers and electricians are worth protecting, but those of expensive British black cab drivers are not. Go figure!!
I have figured, thank you Joff.
You can be critical of a closed shop, protected and outdated working practices, and also of unrestricted immigration that doesn't have popular consent. And, of course, there are the cultural and social angles, as well as economic ones.
Like most things in life, these are all complex factors that need to be debated and traded off.
Who's to say Uber still wouldn't have established itself successfully in London if, say, we'd restricted EU net immigration to 75,000 per year over the last 10 years?
If you've read my posts recently, you'll see I've been critical of both black cabs, and some of the practices of Uber.
Brexit is all. And to keep her right wing happy Theresa May has spent the last year followings its playbook. To predictably poor effect.
No she hasn't. There might be a valid criticism that she has been over-optimistic, but she's been completely clear from the start that she wants a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, wants the EU to succeed, and wants to set up structures for continuing cooperation in security and lots of other areas. She's also prepared to pay a reasonable sum for all this. In fact, the same as Sir Keir Starmer wants. I really don't know how you conclude that this is extreme, it's a straightforward implementation of the referendum result with as much mitigation as possible (or more mitigation than is possible - as I just said, she might be over-optimistic).
It was only a few months ago that she was accusing the Commission of interfering in the general election and standing by as her cheerleaders in the press accused judges of being enemies of the people. The government has approached Brexit as if the UK really did have less to lose than the EU and in the serious expectation that German car manufacturers would be beating down Angela Merkel's door to demand a deal. It could just be that May is finally beginning to understand reality - or perhaps she's preparing the way for a UK walkout and that ultimate right wing fantasy, the cliff-edge departure. We shall see.
I thought it was a fairly astute post, regardless of his views on the EU. When the Cons tear themselves apart over Europe (or do you think they never do?!) then it leaves the way open for Labour.
Surely even small children in Bruges see that.
He would be right if he said divided parties lose elections.
It’s deeper than that. Euroscepticism is particularly toxic to the British centre-right, and when it morphs into delegitimising our membership of the EU altogether it becomes fatal. Events are demonstrating in a brutally humiliating fashion that the people who believe our national interest would be best pursued outside the EU are simply wrong.
But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.
So will they cover lost opportunities, house deal collapses, or inability to pay for school fees, so little Joshua has to go to the state comprehensive instead?
As many as one in 10 people refused a new account because they failed an immigration status check were wrongly denied access to Britain’s banking system because of mistakes in Home Office records, according to an official watchdog.
An examination of Theresa May’s existing “hostile environment” measures against illegal immigrants by the chief inspector of borders also found that hundreds of driving licences had been wrongly revoked after Home Office mistakes in identifying people as remaining in Britain unlawfully.
David Bolt, the chief inspector of borders and immigration, said – after uncovering the 10% error rate in refusing new bank accounts in his 2016 report – that the Home Office “failed to appreciate the potential impact of such wrong decisions on those affected”.
But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.
So will they cover lost opportunities, house deal collapses, or inability to pay for school fees, so little Joshua has to go to the state comprehensive instead?
No, probably not. Maybe there should be an additional automatic payment of £1000 a day to encourage them to get it right first time.
Comments
Of course, it's not so easy to control bitcoins once they have been obtained, but you don't need to.
But their tables say 4.3%
Though the Mail figure had UKIP on 4% up more than 2% on GE
https://twitter.com/ASPolice/status/912652942645301249
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently)
Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays
Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
The Lords also had a reasonable record in the 1980s of acting as the official opposition to Thatcher and her 'headbanger' policies. I think under FPTP it would be dangerous to abolish it as McD probably wants to do.
That said, I think you are right. The 2 groups are the 2 sides of the same coin, blaming different people.
To defeat them we need rising real wages for a sustained period, which is easier said than done. Conventional measures are not working.
But the basic point - about controlling the flow of 'money' - in the digital age is right: it's extremely difficult. The days of cash and travellers cheques are long gone.
The main non-Brexit proposals of the [Queen's] speech include:
- A Civil Liability Bill, designed to address the "compensation culture" around motoring insurance claims
- A Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, establishing a Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner to stand up for victims and survivors and monitor the response of the authorities
- A Tenant's Fees Bill, banning landlords from charging "letting fees"
- A High-Speed Two Bill to authorise the second leg of the rail link from Birmingham to Crewe
- A Data Protection Bill to strengthen individuals' rights and introduce a "right to be forgotten".
- An Armed Forces Bill allowing people to serve on a part-time and flexible basis
Hardly extreme right wing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40345280
Not the day McD had in mind no doubt. The cat is out of the bag and running around...
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English.
Steve Jobs may have been a fruit-eating buddist, but he was no anti-capitalist.
There were a number of helpful replies about, in particular, the practicalities of opening a bank account in various other countries.
A bit of chat on an internet forum is fine but if a Corbyn Government looks a serious imminent prospect then many people are surely going to need proper professional advice re the most sensible, practical steps to take.
Will eg solicitors be providing this for people who have significant savings but aren't in the multi millionaire bracket?
There's already a brouhaha over some bars in Berlin and Bonn that speak exclusively in English.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-41382494
They did make a pitch a while back.
Le Roy le veult.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that this is one more reckless, precipitate and doctrinaire action, which the Government will regret no sooner than those who lose their jobs or go bankrupt as a result.
(No Googling!)
Secondly it shows to the troops that they are serious about power.
Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, it sets up the betrayal myth. If the economy goes tits up he can point to the warnings about evil bankers and markets.
Take a leaf out of the Texas constitution and limit the number of days you sit, and remember a lot of us really wouldn't mind one jot if they did less and just left us all alone a lot more.
End of soapbox.
Your only line of innovation is trying to find an angle on any poster who appears eurosceptic (who desires something else, politically) and then explaining why being pro-EU is the answer to that.
You have zero credibility with me, and I take your posts with that level of seriousness.
The little cherubs still can't make the link. Bless.
Anyone born after about 1970 probably only has a hazy idea of the concept if they've heard of it at all. To be fair to them why should they, it's 38 years since they went. However be prepared folks.
Surely even small children in Bruges see that.
May, notoriously, said she did not wish her administration to be defined by Brexit....
The obvious next stage in steady reform, it seems to me, is to abolish the elections for new hereditary peers when the old ones die off. So when for instance Lord Carrington who's nearly 100 finally leaves this world he wouldn't be replaced.
Not doing has a lot of virtues. Hammond for instance is doing a great job not being McDonnell. I struggle to see what he could achieve that's better than "not being" at present. That's perfectly fine.
However, I can answer the technical points on his behalf: Of course if he introduces exchange controls the restrictions will apply to any foreign bank operating here. They operate here under UK financial regulation, after all. If it's like the 1970s (which seems to be the model Corbyn and McDonnell want to follow), UK citizens won't be allowed to hold bank accounts offshore.
1. Direction and speed of travel
2. Relative position to the electorate
3. Foreign policy
4. Defence policy
5. N Ireland (not so much Labour as Corbyn / McDonnell personally)
6. Monetary policy
7. Willingness to consider confiscation / requisitioning
8. Freedom of speech, in practice
9. Attitude to the nation and its history.
10. Positive discrimination.
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/912412333791678465
Labour has indeed become the nation’s adults, the sensibles, the party least likely to wreck the country’s future. How short a time ago Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell were regarded as delinquent adolescents who had never grown out of the 1970s. They may be the masters soon [...] Labour looks more credible by the day, its senior team more impressive: one reminder here is the roster of excellent Labour mayors and leaders running the country’s best councils, while Kensington and Chelsea stands as the Tory’s sorry emblem.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/25/jeremy-corbyn-power-labour-brexit
The direction of the EU post 1988 simply wasn't (and isn't) politically sustainable for the UK.
Smart Europhiles will, of course, do the logical reverse thinking: that that means that a reversion to some sort of associate membership of the EU, together with membership of the single market and customs union, and a voice in both, but with a brake on excessive movement of people, and a full opt-out of anything from Maastricht and beyond, would be.
Has he wargamed that declining massively in a hurry?
I guess he'll just print the difference.
I have cousins in Australia, Canada and New Zealand that I trust, plus an Uncle in the USA, and a relative in Bulgaria I also trust.
The heraditaries are a smoke screen. Sure there is no justification for them (except Historical, and that fails the democratic test).
The equal lunacy is appointments. Appointments are worse when they get to the position through arse licking and sycophantic means.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/21/uk-banks-to-check-70m-bank-accounts-in-search-for-illegal-immigrants
But as we all know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even when having very short memories:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/912323395819368449
Plus hubris is in the air already. Imagine if they win. Completing the hundred year battle to reform the Lords - they would go for it imho.
About a year ago our UK bank (First Direct) asked us to do video calls with them to show proof of ID and address. It wasn't mandatory but if you didn't your online access would be significantly down-graded. I did it but my wife didn't bother as we barely use the account anyway and she lets me manage it. I can't help but feel this may prove to be a mistake come January, even though as an Irish citizen my wife has an unqualified right to travel to and settle in the UK.
It's not a particularly party political issue, but it has national salience. And it has the merit that spending on this could genuinely described as 'investment'.
Which, of course, is the real objection.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/26/leave-uk-immediately-scientist-is-latest-victim-of-home-office-blunder
Add to that the additional paperwork burden imposed on 70m account holders...
You can be critical of a closed shop, protected and outdated working practices, and also of unrestricted immigration that doesn't have popular consent. And, of course, there are the cultural and social angles, as well as economic ones.
Like most things in life, these are all complex factors that need to be debated and traded off.
Who's to say Uber still wouldn't have established itself successfully in London if, say, we'd restricted EU net immigration to 75,000 per year over the last 10 years?
If you've read my posts recently, you'll see I've been critical of both black cabs, and some of the practices of Uber.
Not many of the most talented end up there.
As many as one in 10 people refused a new account because they failed an immigration status check were wrongly denied access to Britain’s banking system because of mistakes in Home Office records, according to an official watchdog.
An examination of Theresa May’s existing “hostile environment” measures against illegal immigrants by the chief inspector of borders also found that hundreds of driving licences had been wrongly revoked after Home Office mistakes in identifying people as remaining in Britain unlawfully.
David Bolt, the chief inspector of borders and immigration, said – after uncovering the 10% error rate in refusing new bank accounts in his 2016 report – that the Home Office “failed to appreciate the potential impact of such wrong decisions on those affected”.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/22/home-office-errors-already-leading-to-people-being-denied-bank-accounts