So a real piece of work......Whatever anyone might think about Corbyn's leadership abilities and judgement there's a lot to be said for someone with basically decent values. Not a scale Mrs May scores very highly on.
There's nothing basically decent about looking the other way when tyrants are gassing children.
Nor about tolerating anti-semitism in the party you lead.
On topic, I suspect May will just about get away with the Windrush scandal, much as her critics wish it brought her down. Most people will support both the 2014 immigration reforms and regret the fact that some Windrush migrants were unfairly affected, which they will they will put down to a combination of politicians from both sides getting it wrong and Home Office incompetence going back decades. They won’t think Theresa May has the Mark of Cain upon her.
Also, the story only lasted one or two news cycles, and there have been too many other things going on this week - like CHOG, the hot weather, or Dale Winton.
Agree, the put down at PMQ's changed the narrative, and the news cycle has moved on. It is still a very sorry, and sad stain on our country.
The put down at PMQs didn’t change the narrative, as the evening news yesterday illustrated...
It does colour the narrative though, as it demonstrates the previous Labour government had very similar attitudes on immigration for similarly self-serving reasons...
Of course Corbyn isn’t the last Labour government, but he manages to be crap in his own special way.
Incidentally, can someone explain to me why it is that Jeremy Corbyn's proposed 'crackdown' on 'rogue employers' hiring illegal immigrants is any different from Gordon Brown's or Theresa May's crackdown on employers hiring illegal immigrants?
So a real piece of work......Whatever anyone might think about Corbyn's leadership abilities and judgement there's a lot to be said for someone with basically decent values. Not a scale Mrs May scores very highly on.
He may have decent values, but he has supported plenty of indecent causes.
So a real piece of work......Whatever anyone might think about Corbyn's leadership abilities and judgement there's a lot to be said for someone with basically decent values. Not a scale Mrs May scores very highly on.
He may have decent values, but he has supported plenty of indecent causes.
Only trouble is with Theresa, Hammond and Olly Robbins running the show you just *know* who will blink first...
Yes, we know from experience that the Brexiteers will blink first when presented with what May, Hammond and Robbins give them.
Any update on who is paying for this hard border with 350 checkpoints William ?
Is it he ROI or the EU ? Should imagine Irish taxpayers will be concerned at the costs no ?
There isn’t the political will to do what is required in practical terms for the UK to leave the customs union and single market, and the EU isn’t willing to let us pretend.
Incidentally, can someone explain to me why it is that Jeremy Corbyn's proposed 'crackdown' on 'rogue employers' hiring illegal immigrants is any different from Gordon Brown's or Theresa May's crackdown on employers hiring illegal immigrants?
The point about Kerslakes intervention, as well as the intervention by the civil service unions today, is that the responsibility for this lies squarely with Ministers. Or rather, a proportion of Ministers.
“The real lessons from this scandal need to be learned by the politicians who got exactly what they asked for from the civil service, even if that fact is now a little inconvenient.”
I thought they wanted a hard line taken against illegal immigrants not legal immigrants ?
Yeah but the point is that it is the role of civil servants to advise Ministers on the consequences of their policy. One easily foreseeable consequence of the 'hostile environment' policy aimed at forcing out illegal immigrants is that legal immigrants have to prove their status, when there is no easy way of doing that.
In which case the Home Office should have prepared advice on how legal immigrants could prove their status.
But that would have required the Home Office to be 'fit for purpose'.
Simply saying that the Home Office shouldn't have done anything against illegal immigrants because it is too incompetent to tell the difference between legal and illegal immigrants is just going to cause a different set of problems. See this as an example:
On topic, I suspect May will just about get away with the Windrush scandal, much as her critics wish it brought her down. Most people will support both the 2014 immigration reforms and regret the fact that some Windrush migrants were unfairly affected, which they will they will put down to a combination of politicians from both sides getting it wrong and Home Office incompetence going back decades. They won’t think Theresa May has the Mark of Cain upon her.
Also, the story only lasted one or two news cycles, and there have been too many other things going on this week - like CHOG, the hot weather, or Dale Winton.
Agree, the put down at PMQ's changed the narrative, and the news cycle has moved on. It is still a very sorry, and sad stain on our country.
The put down at PMQs didn’t change the narrative, as the evening news yesterday illustrated...
It does colour the narrative though, as it demonstrates the previous Labour government had very similar attitudes on immigration for similarly self-serving reasons...
Of course Corbyn isn’t the last Labour government, but he manages to be crap in his own special way.
He continues to poll 40% in the polls though.
Yes he does. The repulsiveness of the Tories makes for that forced choice.
If you buy food at a shop and eat it at home that counts as retail sales.
But if you eat at a restaurant that doesn't count as retail sales but as general service sector activity.
In which case the shift towards eating out during the last couple of decades should have had a dampening effect on retail sales growth.
Is that right ?
Even if it's right, drink has been going the other way, with declining sales in pubs and a significant rise in supermarket (and latterly online) buying for consumption at home.
Not surprised, the price of a pint in a pub is getting ludicrously expensive, some lagers are heading towards £6 a pint, beer is 4.50 to 5.00 in lots of places ... no thanks.. I'll visit my micro-brewery and buy it for half that.
You need to find a Sam Smiths pub.They have them in London.Owned by an eccentric gent in Tadcaster.No music , or sports in his establishments but all his own beer , lager and spirits , really cheap.
The Chandos and Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese are Sam Smith pubs in London.
But the prices are nearer to standard London prices than Yorkshire prices.
Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese is right next to Goldman Sachs. On a Friday evening at 6pm, pretty much everyone in there from Goldman.
On topic, I suspect May will just about get away with the Windrush scandal, much as her critics wish it brought her down. Most people will support both the 2014 immigration reforms and regret the fact that some Windrush migrants were unfairly affected, which they will they will put down to a combination of politicians from both sides getting it wrong and Home Office incompetence going back decades. They won’t think Theresa May has the Mark of Cain upon her.
Also, the story only lasted one or two news cycles, and there have been too many other things going on this week - like CHOG, the hot weather, or Dale Winton.
Agree, the put down at PMQ's changed the narrative, and the news cycle has moved on. It is still a very sorry, and sad stain on our country.
The put down at PMQs didn’t change the narrative, as the evening news yesterday illustrated...
It does colour the narrative though, as it demonstrates the previous Labour government had very similar attitudes on immigration for similarly self-serving reasons...
Of course Corbyn isn’t the last Labour government, but he manages to be crap in his own special way.
He continues to poll 40% in the polls though.
Yes he does. The repulsiveness of the Tories makes for that forced choice.
If the QT audience are in any way representative of the wider national opinion, then Windrush generated a "pox on all your houses" and "stop point scoring and show some leadership for a change" to both parties.
Compassionate centrist leadership seems to be a vacuum they want filled.
Of course Corbyn isn’t the last Labour government, but he manages to be crap in his own special way.
A number of Corbyn's positions which seemed very niche at the time have turned out to be remarkably far-sighted ...
Such as?
I can't think of any.
As Big John has said, opposing a series of wars from which we turned out to gain no net benefit(and although there were quite a few Iraq rebels, there weren't many on Afghanistan and Libya); opposing the "Hostile environment" for illegal immigrants that led directly to the Windrush scandal, supporting renationalisation of the railways, which is now a pretty mainstream view with majority support, opposing PFI (which everyone opposes in retrospect but was the accepted wisdom at the time), and, I'd argue, maintaining a healthy scepticism about the Special Relationship, which has repeatedly led us into trouble.
Of course Corbyn isn’t the last Labour government, but he manages to be crap in his own special way.
A number of Corbyn's positions which seemed very niche at the time have turned out to be remarkably far-sighted ...
Such as?
I can't think of any.
As Big John has said, opposing a series of wars from which we turned out to gain no net benefit(and although there were quite a few Iraq rebels, there weren't many on Afghanistan and Libya); opposing the "Hostile environment" for illegal immigrants that led directly to the Windrush scandal, supporting renationalisation of the railways, which is now a pretty mainstream view with majority support, opposing PFI (which everyone opposes in retrospect but was the accepted wisdom at the time), and, I'd argue, maintaining a healthy scepticism about the Special Relationship, which has repeatedly led us into trouble.
I'd disagree with basically all of that.
On the wars the notion that after 9/11 we shouldn't stand by America is farcical and Corbyn still isn't right for being pathologically anti-American even in those circumstances. Afghanistan has been difficult but what came before wasn't better.
The Windrush scandal predates the hostile environment (which I too oppose as do many) its just reaching an apex now. As has been said repeatedly on this thread many of these issues date back to 1998.
Renationalising railways makes no economic sense whatsoever. Just because it has a populist appeal for those who haven't paid attention to the fact that railway usage has surged post privatisation doesn't make it right.
PFI was done disastrously.
The Special Relationship has done far, far more good than harm. Again Corbyn has a pathological hatred for all things American, Israeli and if not British but that doesn't make him right.
On topic, I suspect May will just about get away with the Windrush scandal, much as her critics wish it brought her down. Most people will support both the 2014 immigration reforms and regret the fact that some Windrush migrants were unfairly affected, which they will they will put down to a combination of politicians from both sides getting it wrong and Home Office incompetence going back decades. They won’t think Theresa May has the Mark of Cain upon her.
Also, the story only lasted one or two news cycles, and there have been too many other things going on this week - like CHOG, the hot weather, or Dale Winton.
Agree, the put down at PMQ's changed the narrative, and the news cycle has moved on. It is still a very sorry, and sad stain on our country.
The put down at PMQs didn’t change the narrative, as the evening news yesterday illustrated...
It does colour the narrative though, as it demonstrates the previous Labour government had very similar attitudes on immigration for similarly self-serving reasons...
Of course Corbyn isn’t the last Labour government, but he manages to be crap in his own special way.
He continues to poll 40% in the polls though.
Yes he does. The repulsiveness of the Tories makes for that forced choice.
If the QT audience are in any way representative of the wider national opinion, then Windrush generated a "pox on all your houses" and "stop point scoring and show some leadership for a change" to both parties.
Compassionate centrist leadership seems to be a vacuum they want filled.
Strange then that when offered the chance to vote for it, less than a year ago, they turned out in droves not to do so.
On topic, I suspect May will just about get away with the Windrush scandal, much as her critics wish it brought her down. Most people will support both the 2014 immigration reforms and regret the fact that some Windrush migrants were unfairly affected, which they will they will put down to a combination of politicians from both sides getting it wrong and Home Office incompetence going back decades. They won’t think Theresa May has the Mark of Cain upon her.
Also, the story only lasted one or two news cycles, and there have been too many other things going on this week - like CHOG, the hot weather, or Dale Winton.
Agree, the put down at PMQ's changed the narrative, and the news cycle has moved on. It is still a very sorry, and sad stain on our country.
The put down at PMQs didn’t change the narrative, as the evening news yesterday illustrated...
It does colour the narrative though, as it demonstrates the previous Labour government had very similar attitudes on immigration for similarly self-serving reasons...
Of course Corbyn isn’t the last Labour government, but he manages to be crap in his own special way.
He continues to poll 40% in the polls though.
Yes he does. The repulsiveness of the Tories makes for that forced choice.
If the QT audience are in any way representative of the wider national opinion, then Windrush generated a "pox on all your houses" and "stop point scoring and show some leadership for a change" to both parties.
Compassionate centrist leadership seems to be a vacuum they want filled.
But of course QT audiences are not representative. Politics in recent years has shown people might say they want centrism, in the same way they say they want parties to work together and stop being so partisan all the time, but that is not what we are rewarding electorally.
I simply cannot marry together the oft theorized vacuum of centrism that the public supposedly wants filled, with how the public is actually acting, and the centrists it avoids.
Yay! We get to not write a cheque for tens of billions....
(Are you sure this is what you want, Brussels?)
If they want to put up a hard border, we can't stop them. It's entirely up to them (it's called 'sovereignty', although the Irish might not see it that way).
Well yes, but in that case we get a no deal brexit, which we're rather keen to avoid
Incidentally, can someone explain to me why it is that Jeremy Corbyn's proposed 'crackdown' on 'rogue employers' hiring illegal immigrants is any different from Gordon Brown's or Theresa May's crackdown on employers hiring illegal immigrants?
It might be that it doesn't involve deporting the illegal immigrants afterwards - this denying them any protection from the law (on the twin assumptions that the present rules do lead to that and that Labour would change them). Anyway, it's a logical possibility.
Of course Corbyn isn’t the last Labour government, but he manages to be crap in his own special way.
A number of Corbyn's positions which seemed very niche at the time have turned out to be remarkably far-sighted ...
Such as?
I can't think of any.
As Big John has said, opposing a series of wars from which we turned out to gain no net benefit(and although there were quite a few Iraq rebels, there weren't many on Afghanistan and Libya); opposing the "Hostile environment" for illegal immigrants that led directly to the Windrush scandal, supporting renationalisation of the railways, which is now a pretty mainstream view with majority support, opposing PFI (which everyone opposes in retrospect but was the accepted wisdom at the time), and, I'd argue, maintaining a healthy scepticism about the Special Relationship, which has repeatedly led us into trouble.
None of these are “niche but far-sighted” though.
It was Ed Milliband’s actions which led to no action on Libya. And on Afghanistan, 3 days after 9/11, Stop the War of which Corbyn became Chair was created to oppose any US action to defend itself against an appalling attack. Niche certainly. Far-sighted? Well we will have to disagree but I think countries should be able to defend themselves against attack but, as we’ve seen from the Skripal affair, we cannot even be certain that Corbyn agrees with this basic principle.
There is no appetite whatsoever for unlimited immigration into this country, which is Corbyn’s position and, as another poster previously pointed out, Corbyn’s main concern at the time of the bill was the possibility that terrorists might lose their passports, which is hardly far-sighted.
Heath had a healthy scepticism about the Special Relationship.
Labour consistently opposed any form of privatisation until Blair.
I can’t comment on railway renationalisation. I suspect that if it happens, as before, railways will fall down the givernment’s list of investment priorities and become mediocre again. But it’s certainly popular.
Far from being niche and far-sighted, Corbyn is absolutely predictable in his views.
On topic, I suspect May will just about get away with the Windrush scandal, much as her critics wish it brought her down. Most people will support both the 2014 immigration reforms and regret the fact that some Windrush migrants were unfairly affected, which they will they will put down to a combination of politicians from both sides getting it wrong and Home Office incompetence going back decades. They won’t think Theresa May has the Mark of Cain upon her.
Also, the story only lasted one or two news cycles, and there have been too many other things going on this week - like CHOG, the hot weather, or Dale Winton.
Agree, the put down at PMQ's changed the narrative, and the news cycle has moved on. It is still a very sorry, and sad stain on our country.
The put down at PMQs didn’t change the narrative, as the evening news yesterday illustrated...
It does colour the narrative though, as it demonstrates the previous Labour government had very similar attitudes on immigration for similarly self-serving reasons...
Of course Corbyn isn’t the last Labour government, but he manages to be crap in his own special way.
He continues to poll 40% in the polls though.
Yes he does. The repulsiveness of the Tories makes for that forced choice.
If the QT audience are in any way representative of the wider national opinion, then Windrush generated a "pox on all your houses" and "stop point scoring and show some leadership for a change" to both parties.
Compassionate centrist leadership seems to be a vacuum they want filled.
Perhaps worth noting that at last year's general election the Tories got their highest share of the vote in Chesterfield for 62 years.
Yay! We get to not write a cheque for tens of billions....
(Are you sure this is what you want, Brussels?)
If they want to put up a hard border, we can't stop them. It's entirely up to them (it's called 'sovereignty', although the Irish might not see it that way).
It's an inevitable logical consequence of Theresa May's stated Brexit policy as detailed in her Lancaster House speech, but I don't expect either you or her to take responsibility for the defects of that policy.
Yay! We get to not write a cheque for tens of billions....
(Are you sure this is what you want, Brussels?)
If they want to put up a hard border, we can't stop them. It's entirely up to them (it's called 'sovereignty', although the Irish might not see it that way).
Well yes, but in that case we get a no deal brexit, which we're rather keen to avoid
Except if we get a no deal Brexit then the Irish would be desperate for a deal. As would we.
This is a convoluted game of the prisoners dilemma. Both the Irish and the British want a deal. Both the Irish and the British want no hard border. A deal is thus eminently agreeable. The question is simply how it is reached.
Yay! We get to not write a cheque for tens of billions....
(Are you sure this is what you want, Brussels?)
If they want to put up a hard border, we can't stop them. It's entirely up to them (it's called 'sovereignty', although the Irish might not see it that way).
It's an inevitable logical consequence of Theresa May's stated Brexit policy as detailed in her Lancaster House speech, but I don't expect either you or her to take responsibility for the defects of that policy.
Theresa May's stated Brexit policy was itself the inevitable logical consequence of the EU's insistence that the 4 freedoms of the EU were inviolable. If the EU compromises on that then May can change her position but they won't so she has no choice but to take the position she has in her eyes.
Of course Corbyn isn’t the last Labour government, but he manages to be crap in his own special way.
A number of Corbyn's positions which seemed very niche at the time have turned out to be remarkably far-sighted ...
Such as?
I can't think of any.
As Big John has said, opposing a series of wars from which we turned out to gain no net benefit(and although there were quite a few Iraq rebels, there weren't many on Afghanistan and Libya); opposing the "Hostile environment" for illegal immigrants that led directly to the Windrush scandal, supporting renationalisation of the railways, which is now a pretty mainstream view with majority support, opposing PFI (which everyone opposes in retrospect but was the accepted wisdom at the time), and, I'd argue, maintaining a healthy scepticism about the Special Relationship, which has repeatedly led us into trouble.
None of these are “niche but far-sighted” though.
Indeed. I'm prepared to accept, when others do not, that Corbyn is a pleasant seeming chap, not as loony as someone like Williamson, and has a certain level of fortitude and dignity, but there is a hefty amount of revisionism that goes on with him, and personally I think when people try to paint his every utterance of the last 30 years as if he is some kind of all seeing, wise yoda like figure, they rather over do it, and don't realise how partisan it comes across.
It's unrealistic for one thing, and the ultimate message seems to be 'he was right all along, so must be right now', and the significance and/or uniqueness of his views severely overplayed to make that be true. I opposed the Iraq war as well, and I was 17, does that make me a youthful political prodigy as well as being a far sighted dispenser of wisdom like Corbyn?
These are not unique political defenses of course, but we saw with May and we see with Corbyn, that even non-cultists really get overly swept up in how bloody great their leader is. It's not enough they be good, they must be great, and even mundane things become evidence to that. When he fails, as all political figures do in the end, many of those who praise him now will recoil at the memory. It's not as extreme, but it puts me in mind of the ANC in South Africa, fighting on behalf of Zuma for so many years, then as soon as he could offer them no more, tossed to the curb.
And granted, I don't much like Corbyn, I'm perhaps not the best person to decide if he really is great, but when pretty mundane stuff is included as proof of 'remarkable far sightedness' I feel relatively confident people are getting a bit caught up.
Yay! We get to not write a cheque for tens of billions....
(Are you sure this is what you want, Brussels?)
If they want to put up a hard border, we can't stop them. It's entirely up to them (it's called 'sovereignty', although the Irish might not see it that way).
It's an inevitable logical consequence of Theresa May's stated Brexit policy as detailed in her Lancaster House speech, but I don't expect either you or her to take responsibility for the defects of that policy.
Theresa May's stated Brexit policy was itself the inevitable logical consequence of the EU's insistence that the 4 freedoms of the EU were inviolable. If the EU compromises on that then May can change her position but they won't so she has no choice but to take the position she has in her eyes.
Of course the EU did offer some flexibility on the 4 freedoms when it offered transition controls on free movement from the new accession nations but Blair refused to take up their offer
Yay! We get to not write a cheque for tens of billions....
(Are you sure this is what you want, Brussels?)
If they want to put up a hard border, we can't stop them. It's entirely up to them (it's called 'sovereignty', although the Irish might not see it that way).
Well yes, but in that case we get a no deal brexit, which we're rather keen to avoid
Keen to avoid, yes, and the EU, even though it supposedly does not want that either, is in the stronger position so can play harder ball, but that does not mean there is no price to avoid it that we would not accept.
It might be the case the price of all this becomes such Brexit itself is not accepted, certainly some still dream that, but I'd put it at just as likely, that there are prices to secure a deal which politically we cannot accept, leading to a crash out, even though neither side wants.
More likely than both is that some deal is hashed out, and whoever concedes more, likely us, will grumble more.
Yay! We get to not write a cheque for tens of billions....
(Are you sure this is what you want, Brussels?)
If they want to put up a hard border, we can't stop them. It's entirely up to them (it's called 'sovereignty', although the Irish might not see it that way).
Well yes, but in that case we get a no deal brexit, which we're rather keen to avoid
Except if we get a no deal Brexit then the Irish would be desperate for a deal. As would we.
This is a convoluted game of the prisoners dilemma. Both the Irish and the British want a deal. Both the Irish and the British want no hard border. A deal is thus eminently agreeable. The question is simply how it is reached.
And there will be a deal.
The EU is very good at getting its stories into the British press. (Like with the 100bn plus transition period we were going to pay for... which turned out to be 40bn including the transition period, and with some of the payments not for many decades.)
But, even if there wasn't, a "hard border" does not mean barbed wire, machine guns, passport checks and watch towers. It means that there will be customs posts - often as minimal as a couple of guys in a portacabin - on the main roads. A hard border means it will look like the Swiss/EU border: not that big a deal for 99% of people.
Yay! We get to not write a cheque for tens of billions....
(Are you sure this is what you want, Brussels?)
If they want to put up a hard border, we can't stop them. It's entirely up to them (it's called 'sovereignty', although the Irish might not see it that way).
Well yes, but in that case we get a no deal brexit, which we're rather keen to avoid
Except if we get a no deal Brexit then the Irish would be desperate for a deal. As would we.
This is a convoluted game of the prisoners dilemma. Both the Irish and the British want a deal. Both the Irish and the British want no hard border. A deal is thus eminently agreeable. The question is simply how it is reached.
And there will be a deal.
The EU is very good at getting its stories into the British press. (Like with the 100bn plus transition period we were going to pay for... which turned out to be 40bn including the transition period, and with some of the payments not for many decades.)
But, even if there wasn't, a "hard border" does not mean barbed wire, machine guns, passport checks and watch towers. It means that there will be customs posts - often as minimal as a couple of guys in a portacabin - on the main roads. A hard border means it will look like the Swiss/EU border: not that big a deal for 99% of people.
If you're so convinced this will be the case, explain why the UK government has categorically ruled it out, not only in its rhetoric but in the phase one agreement with the EU?
Yay! We get to not write a cheque for tens of billions....
(Are you sure this is what you want, Brussels?)
If they want to put up a hard border, we can't stop them. It's entirely up to them (it's called 'sovereignty', although the Irish might not see it that way).
It's an inevitable logical consequence of Theresa May's stated Brexit policy as detailed in her Lancaster House speech, but I don't expect either you or her to take responsibility for the defects of that policy.
Theresa May's stated Brexit policy was itself the inevitable logical consequence of the EU's insistence that the 4 freedoms of the EU were inviolable. If the EU compromises on that then May can change her position but they won't so she has no choice but to take the position she has in her eyes.
Of course the EU did offer some flexibility on the 4 freedoms when it offered transition controls on free movement from the new accession nations but Blair refused to take up their offer
Here's something weird: I think I've seen you mention that Blair did not go for transition controls in approximately 10,000 of your 39,000 posts.
Yay! We get to not write a cheque for tens of billions....
(Are you sure this is what you want, Brussels?)
If they want to put up a hard border, we can't stop them. It's entirely up to them (it's called 'sovereignty', although the Irish might not see it that way).
Well yes, but in that case we get a no deal brexit, which we're rather keen to avoid
Except if we get a no deal Brexit then the Irish would be desperate for a deal. As would we.
This is a convoluted game of the prisoners dilemma. Both the Irish and the British want a deal. Both the Irish and the British want no hard border. A deal is thus eminently agreeable. The question is simply how it is reached.
And there will be a deal.
The EU is very good at getting its stories into the British press. (Like with the 100bn plus transition period we were going to pay for... which turned out to be 40bn including the transition period, and with some of the payments not for many decades.)
But, even if there wasn't, a "hard border" does not mean barbed wire, machine guns, passport checks and watch towers. It means that there will be customs posts - often as minimal as a couple of guys in a portacabin - on the main roads. A hard border means it will look like the Swiss/EU border: not that big a deal for 99% of people.
'We are the 1%' will be the rallying cry for those for who it is a big deal.
Yay! We get to not write a cheque for tens of billions....
(Are you sure this is what you want, Brussels?)
If they want to put up a hard border, we can't stop them. It's entirely up to them (it's called 'sovereignty', although the Irish might not see it that way).
It's an inevitable logical consequence of Theresa May's stated Brexit policy as detailed in her Lancaster House speech, but I don't expect either you or her to take responsibility for the defects of that policy.
Theresa May's stated Brexit policy was itself the inevitable logical consequence of the EU's insistence that the 4 freedoms of the EU were inviolable. If the EU compromises on that then May can change her position but they won't so she has no choice but to take the position she has in her eyes.
Of course the EU did offer some flexibility on the 4 freedoms when it offered transition controls on free movement from the new accession nations but Blair refused to take up their offer
Here's something weird: I think I've seen you mention that Blair did not go for transition controls in approximately 10,000 of your 39,000 posts.
Hopefully the message will eventually get through!
Yay! We get to not write a cheque for tens of billions....
(Are you sure this is what you want, Brussels?)
If they want to put up a hard border, we can't stop them. It's entirely up to them (it's called 'sovereignty', although the Irish might not see it that way).
It's an inevitable logical consequence of Theresa May's stated Brexit policy as detailed in her Lancaster House speech, but I don't expect either you or her to take responsibility for the defects of that policy.
Theresa May's stated Brexit policy was itself the inevitable logical consequence of the EU's insistence that the 4 freedoms of the EU were inviolable. If the EU compromises on that then May can change her position but they won't so she has no choice but to take the position she has in her eyes.
Of course the EU did offer some flexibility on the 4 freedoms when it offered transition controls on free movement from the new accession nations but Blair refused to take up their offer
Here's something weird: I think I've seen you mention that Blair did not go for transition controls in approximately 10,000 of your 39,000 posts.
Vince Cable coming across a bit.....doddery. I'm sure he used to be more impressive a few years back.
No, he was never impressive.
'More impressive' than now does not necessarily mean he was objectively impressive before, just more so than at present
Amazing how short people's memories are. Back in 2010 Vince was very popular. I suppose one has to remember that the government's credibility was shot after the 2008 bail outs and the best the Tories could manage was George Osborne.
Yay! We get to not write a cheque for tens of billions....
(Are you sure this is what you want, Brussels?)
If they want to put up a hard border, we can't stop them. It's entirely up to them (it's called 'sovereignty', although the Irish might not see it that way).
It's an inevitable logical consequence of Theresa May's stated Brexit policy as detailed in her Lancaster House speech, but I don't expect either you or her to take responsibility for the defects of that policy.
Theresa May's stated Brexit policy was itself the inevitable logical consequence of the EU's insistence that the 4 freedoms of the EU were inviolable. If the EU compromises on that then May can change her position but they won't so she has no choice but to take the position she has in her eyes.
Of course the EU did offer some flexibility on the 4 freedoms when it offered transition controls on free movement from the new accession nations but Blair refused to take up their offer
Here's something weird: I think I've seen you mention that Blair did not go for transition controls in approximately 10,000 of your 39,000 posts.
Hopefully the message will eventually get through!
Vince Cable coming across a bit.....doddery. I'm sure he used to be more impressive a few years back.
No, he was never impressive.
'More impressive' than now does not necessarily mean he was objectively impressive before, just more so than at present
Amazing how short people's memories are. Back in 2010 Vince was very popular. I suppose one has to remember that the government's credibility was shot after the 2008 bail outs and the best the Tories could manage was George Osborne.
Oh I remember him being popular and liking him. I was just pointing out the two positions were not contradictory.
On topic, I suspect May will just about get away with the Windrush scandal, much as her critics wish it brought her down. Most people will support both the 2014 immigration reforms and regret the fact that some Windrush migrants were unfairly affected, which they will they will put down to a combination of politicians from both sides getting it wrong and Home Office incompetence going back decades. They won’t think Theresa May has the Mark of Cain upon her.
Also, the story only lasted one or two news cycles, and there have been too many other things going on this week - like CHOG, the hot weather, or Dale Winton.
Agree, the put down at PMQ's changed the narrative, and the news cycle has moved on. It is still a very sorry, and sad stain on our country.
The put down at PMQs didn’t change the narrative, as the evening news yesterday illustrated...
It does colour the narrative though, as it demonstrates the previous Labour government had very similar attitudes on immigration for similarly self-serving reasons...
Of course Corbyn isn’t the last Labour government, but he manages to be crap in his own special way.
He continues to poll 40% in the polls though.
Yes he does. The repulsiveness of the Tories makes for that forced choice.
If the QT audience are in any way representative of the wider national opinion, then Windrush generated a "pox on all your houses" and "stop point scoring and show some leadership for a change" to both parties.
Compassionate centrist leadership seems to be a vacuum they want filled.
Perhaps worth noting that at last year's general election the Tories got their highest share of the vote in Chesterfield for 62 years.
Without looking I expect they did likewise in nearby constituencies such as Amber Valley, Ashfield, Bolsover, Derbyshire NE, Mansfield, Rother Valley and Sherwood as well.
So a real piece of work......Whatever anyone might think about Corbyn's leadership abilities and judgement there's a lot to be said for someone with basically decent values. Not a scale Mrs May scores very highly on.
On topic, I suspect May will just about get away with the Windrush scandal, much as her critics wish it brought her down. Most people will support both the 2014 immigration reforms and regret the fact that some Windrush migrants were unfairly affected, which they will they will put down to a combination of politicians from both sides getting it wrong and Home Office incompetence going back decades. They won’t think Theresa May has the Mark of Cain upon her.
Also, the story only lasted one or two news cycles, and there have been too many other things going on this week - like CHOG, the hot weather, or Dale Winton.
Agree, the put down at PMQ's changed the narrative, and the news cycle has moved on. It is still a very sorry, and sad stain on our country.
The put down at PMQs didn’t change the narrative, as the evening news yesterday illustrated...
It does colour the narrative though, as it demonstrates the previous Labour government had very similar attitudes on immigration for similarly self-serving reasons...
Of course Corbyn isn’t the last Labour government, but he manages to be crap in his own special way.
He continues to poll 40% in the polls though.
Yes he does. The repulsiveness of the Tories makes for that forced choice.
If the QT audience are in any way representative of the wider national opinion, then Windrush generated a "pox on all your houses" and "stop point scoring and show some leadership for a change" to both parties.
Compassionate centrist leadership seems to be a vacuum they want filled.
Perhaps worth noting that at last year's general election the Tories got their highest share of the vote in Chesterfield for 62 years.
Without looking I expect they did likewise in nearby constituencies such as Amber Valley, Ashfield, Bolsover, Derbyshire NE, Mansfield, Rother Valley and Sherwood as well.
Any East Mids coalfield site was v good for the Tories in terms of historical vote share. But the problem was it turned into limited gains as the Lib Dems had an appalling night around here.
One wonders if the EU, egged on by Remainers have possibly overplayed their hand....
This would be the supremely powerful, massively influential Remainers, yes? Who may move mountains at a touch, and make the very stars dance a quadrille at their whim.
On a tangential note, Sean T has gone off on one again. Again.
One wonders if the EU, egged on by Remainers have possibly overplayed their hand....
This would be the supremely powerful, massively influential Remainers, yes? Who may move mountains at a touch, and make the very stars dance a quadrille at their whim.
On a tangential note, Sean T has gone off on one again. Again.
That’s certainly how they see themselves, that and “defending the proles from their own folly”.
I expect tomorrow Mr T will be back on “national humiliation, why bother leaving....”
In the substance, one of Mrs May’s reported weaknesses (or strengths depending on your view) is stubbornness.....I wonder whether Brussels has factored this in.....
One wonders if the EU, egged on by Remainers have possibly overplayed their hand....
This would be the supremely powerful, massively influential Remainers, yes? Who may move mountains at a touch, and make the very stars dance a quadrille at their whim.
On a tangential note, Sean T has gone off on one again. Again.
That’s certainly how they see themselves, that and “defending the proles from their own folly”.
I expect tomorrow Mr T will be back on “national humiliation, why bother leaving....”
In the substance, one of Mrs May’s reported weaknesses (or strengths depending on your view) is stubbornness.....I wonder whether Brussels has factored this in.....
In the substance, one of Mrs May’s reported weaknesses (or strengths depending on your view) is stubbornness.....I wonder whether Brussels has factored this in.....
They have. That's why they propped her up so she can face down all the loons.
Of course Corbyn isn’t the last Labour government, but he manages to be crap in his own special way.
A number of Corbyn's positions which seemed very niche at the time have turned out to be remarkably far-sighted ...
Such as?
I can't think of any.
None of these are “niche but far-sighted” though.
Indeed. I'm prepared to accept, when others do not, that Corbyn is a pleasant seeming chap, not as loony as someone like Williamson, and has a certain level of fortitude and dignity, but there is a hefty amount of revisionism that goes on with him, and personally I think when people try to paint his every utterance of the last 30 years as if he is some kind of all seeing, wise yoda like figure, they rather over do it, and don't realise how partisan it comes across.
It's unrealistic for one thing, and the ultimate message seems to be 'he was right all along, so must be right now', and the significance and/or uniqueness of his views severely overplayed to make that be true. I opposed the Iraq war as well, and I was 17, does that make me a youthful political prodigy as well as being a far sighted dispenser of wisdom like Corbyn?
These are not unique political defenses of course, but we saw with May and we see with Corbyn, that even non-cultists really get overly swept up in how bloody great their leader is. It's not enough they be good, they must be great, and even mundane things become evidence to that. When he fails, as all political figures do in the end, many of those who praise him now will recoil at the memory. It's not as extreme, but it puts me in mind of the ANC in South Africa, fighting on behalf of Zuma for so many years, then as soon as he could offer them no more, tossed to the curb.
And granted, I don't much like Corbyn, I'm perhaps not the best person to decide if he really is great, but when pretty mundane stuff is included as proof of 'remarkable far sightedness' I feel relatively confident people are getting a bit caught up.
He was also an early adapter of gay rights and anti-racism when such things weren't as politically helpful as they are today. It is not just his 'remarkable far sightedness' so much, though I have been impressed in that regard but also adopting the correct position in an environment hostile to that decision.
Which is probably where the idea of him being principled comes from, it doesn't to my mind mean never changing your mind. Though I'm sure everyone has their own take.
In the substance, one of Mrs May’s reported weaknesses (or strengths depending on your view) is stubbornness.....I wonder whether Brussels has factored this in.....
They have. That's why they propped her up so she can face down all the loons.
If the EU isn’t willing to negotiate, why don’t we just leave the customs union and then hold a referendum in Northern Ireland on reunification with the Republic? If they vote Yes - fine. If they vote No, then having border posts is entirely legitimate...
If the EU isn’t willing to negotiate, why don’t we just leave the customs union and then hold a referendum in Northern Ireland on reunification with the Republic? If they vote Yes - fine. If they vote No, then having border posts is entirely legitimate...
Because it's "utterly unrealistic" to have customs checks in Dover (according to cabinet Brexiteer Chris Grayling). Northern Ireland is only half the story.
If the EU isn’t willing to negotiate, why don’t we just leave the customs union and then hold a referendum in Northern Ireland on reunification with the Republic? If they vote Yes - fine. If they vote No, then having border posts is entirely legitimate...
Because it's "utterly unrealistic" to have customs checks in Dover (according to cabinet Brexiteer Chris Grayling). Northern Ireland is only half the story.
Of course Corbyn isn’t the last Labour government, but he manages to be crap in his own special way.
A number of Corbyn's positions which seemed very niche at the time have turned out to be remarkably far-sighted ...
Such as?
I can't think of any.
As Big John has said, opposing a series of wars from which we turned out to gain no net benefit(and although there were quite a few Iraq rebels, there weren't many on Afghanistan and Libya); opposing the "Hostile environment" for illegal immigrants that led directly to the Windrush scandal, supporting renationalisation of the railways, which is now a pretty mainstream view with majority support, opposing PFI (which everyone opposes in retrospect but was the accepted wisdom at the time), and, I'd argue, maintaining a healthy scepticism about the Special Relationship, which has repeatedly led us into trouble.
So much wrong in that, but I'd like to concentrate on one thing: "opposing PFI (which everyone opposes in retrospect but was the accepted wisdom at the time)"
I don't oppose it. PFI / DBFO etc are a tool in the toolbox. They have their uses, and can be used to advantage. The issue is how they were used, and the contracts signed - and most of these were done under a Labour government.
I agree that PFI is probably best not used for things like hospitals and schools - although AIUI some of these have been successful for the taxpayer. But for other things, such as roads, they can be very practical.
It all depends on how good the people are at negotiating and organising the contracts. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Mr Gove ought to understand this, having been caught up in a hostile environment of his own. Along with his buddies Boris Johnson, Daniel Hannan and Liam Fox, Mr Gove advocated departure from the EU so that Britain could buccaneer through the globe, extending open arms to the huddled masses. Well, I am sorry Mr Gove, but you have to stop running away from the victory you won. You cannot have your picture over an article which promises that, by 2030, a population the size of Scotland will have turned up from Turkey to bankrupt the NHS and pretend that your referendum win was not the product of a hostile environment.
If you buy food at a shop and eat it at home that counts as retail sales.
But if you eat at a restaurant that doesn't count as retail sales but as general service sector activity.
In which case the shift towards eating out during the last couple of decades should have had a dampening effect on retail sales growth.
Is that right ?
Even if it's right, drink has been going the other way, with declining sales in pubs and a significant rise in supermarket (and latterly online) buying for consumption at home.
Not surprised, the price of a pint in a pub is getting ludicrously expensive, some lagers are heading towards £6 a pint, beer is 4.50 to 5.00 in lots of places ... no thanks.. I'll visit my micro-brewery and buy it for half that.
You need to find a Sam Smiths pub.They have them in London.Owned by an eccentric gent in Tadcaster.No music , or sports in his establishments but all his own beer , lager and spirits , really cheap.
The Chandos and Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese are Sam Smith pubs in London.
But the prices are nearer to standard London prices than Yorkshire prices.
Two of my favourite pubs!
(My six year old loves the Cheshire Cheese as well)
That's a different pub! There's three Cheshire cheese pubs in almost the same part of London.
Unless you mean the one on Fleet Street which is "Ye olde". It's a maze on the inside and the entrance is on a random little alley.
One would have expected to run into Robert in there a few years ago...
Was meaning the "Ye Olde".
She's obsessed with the Plague and the Great Fire...
If you buy food at a shop and eat it at home that counts as retail sales.
But if you eat at a restaurant that doesn't count as retail sales but as general service sector activity.
In which case the shift towards eating out during the last couple of decades should have had a dampening effect on retail sales growth.
Is that right ?
Even if it's right, drink has been going the other way, with declining sales in pubs and a significant rise in supermarket (and latterly online) buying for consumption at home.
Not surprised, the price of a pint in a pub is getting ludicrously expensive, some lagers are heading towards £6 a pint, beer is 4.50 to 5.00 in lots of places ... no thanks.. I'll visit my micro-brewery and buy it for half that.
You need to find a Sam Smiths pub.They have them in London.Owned by an eccentric gent in Tadcaster.No music , or sports in his establishments but all his own beer , lager and spirits , really cheap.
The Chandos and Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese are Sam Smith pubs in London.
But the prices are nearer to standard London prices than Yorkshire prices.
Two of my favourite pubs!
(My six year old loves the Cheshire Cheese as well)
That's a different pub! There's three Cheshire cheese pubs in almost the same part of London.
Unless you mean the one on Fleet Street which is "Ye olde". It's a maze on the inside and the entrance is on a random little alley.
One would have expected to run into Robert in there a few years ago...
Was meaning the "Ye Olde".
She's obsessed with the Plague and the Great Fire...
And dreams of working next door at Goldman, right?
I thought it was shown it was under a Labour Home Secretary that the Windrush records were destroyed
Destroying the records only matters because of the subsequent legislation requiring the Windrush cohort to prove their residential status. A point that struck me within seconds of May's statement and made me gasp at her cynicism. I flipped from thinking she was okay compared to the alternatives to she should go straight away right then.
If the EU isn’t willing to negotiate, why don’t we just leave the customs union and then hold a referendum in Northern Ireland on reunification with the Republic? If they vote Yes - fine. If they vote No, then having border posts is entirely legitimate...
Because it's "utterly unrealistic" to have customs checks in Dover (according to cabinet Brexiteer Chris Grayling). Northern Ireland is only half the story.
If the EU isn’t willing to negotiate, why don’t we just leave the customs union and then hold a referendum in Northern Ireland on reunification with the Republic? If they vote Yes - fine. If they vote No, then having border posts is entirely legitimate...
Because it's "utterly unrealistic" to have customs checks in Dover (according to cabinet Brexiteer Chris Grayling). Northern Ireland is only half the story.
If the EU isn’t willing to negotiate, why don’t we just leave the customs union and then hold a referendum in Northern Ireland on reunification with the Republic? If they vote Yes - fine. If they vote No, then having border posts is entirely legitimate...
I think a Yes vote in a border poll would trigger violence.
Incidentally, can someone explain to me why it is that Jeremy Corbyn's proposed 'crackdown' on 'rogue employers' hiring illegal immigrants is any different from Gordon Brown's or Theresa May's crackdown on employers hiring illegal immigrants?
Yes, he will say he’s cracking down on them without doing any cracking down whatsoever.
Unless by that he means through taxation or reestablishing the closed shop.
Yay! We get to not write a cheque for tens of billions....
(Are you sure this is what you want, Brussels?)
If they want to put up a hard border, we can't stop them. It's entirely up to them (it's called 'sovereignty', although the Irish might not see it that way).
Well yes, but in that case we get a no deal brexit, which we're rather keen to avoid
Except if we get a no deal Brexit then the Irish would be desperate for a deal. As would we.
This is a convoluted game of the prisoners dilemma. Both the Irish and the British want a deal. Both the Irish and the British want no hard border. A deal is thus eminently agreeable. The question is simply how it is reached.
I expect there will be a number of such stories over the next 5 months.
Whether it’s called a customs arrangement or a customs union there will be close alignment on goods. What I’m not sure on is why - when we’re outside CAP - we can’t have our own tariff schedule on Argentine Beef, New Zealand lamb or Aussie/ SA wine. I can only imagine the U.K. is looking to differentiate UK products from extra-EU products for the U.K. market via rules of origin.
We cannot be official members of the EU customs union as it would invalidate the DfIT, a corner of May’s Brexit strategy, and all the money/work spent on it over the last 18 months.
I note your regular Thursday vitriol against Vince Cable invariably leads to LibDem by-election gains a few hours later.
Are you a devilish yellow peril sleeper agent? .... It's a very good disguise.
Any idea of turnout in Thatcham West and Lymm South, and how does that compare with turnout the last time the seats were contested?
No info as yet on the Vote UK Forum. The Jacobite Counter Intelligence Service will swing into action shortly after its had a full breakfast. Priorities don't you know ....
Yay! We get to not write a cheque for tens of billions....
(Are you sure this is what you want, Brussels?)
If they want to put up a hard border, we can't stop them. It's entirely up to them (it's called 'sovereignty', although the Irish might not see it that way).
Well yes, but in that case we get a no deal brexit, which we're rather keen to avoid
Except if we get a no deal Brexit then the Irish would be desperate for a deal. As would we.
This is a convoluted game of the prisoners dilemma. Both the Irish and the British want a deal. Both the Irish and the British want no hard border. A deal is thus eminently agreeable. The question is simply how it is reached.
I expect there will be a number of such stories over the next 5 months.
Whether it’s called a customs arrangement or a customs union there will be close alignment on goods. What I’m not sure on is why - when we’re outside CAP - we can’t have our own tariff schedule on Argentine Beef, New Zealand lamb or Aussie/ SA wine. I can only imagine the U.K. is looking to differentiate UK products from extra-EU products for the U.K. market via rules of origin.
We cannot be official members of the EU customs union as it would invalidate the DfIT, a corner of May’s Brexit strategy, and all the money/work spent on it over the last 18 months.
It hasn't been clear from the start that there would be an agreement on the free trade of goods - our market is too important to the EU. It is one of the many reasons why I, as an exporting business owner, didn't worry about voting Leave affecting my business.
However, it is also clear from every speech made by May since the referendum that we will be leaving the EU and it's deeply unpopular political systems and its obsession with freedom of movement.
Thus, we cannot be in the Customs union, but will probably have one of the closest customs arrangements possible.
I note your regular Thursday vitriol against Vince Cable invariably leads to LibDem by-election gains a few hours later.
Are you a devilish yellow peril sleeper agent? .... It's a very good disguise.
Any idea of turnout in Thatcham West and Lymm South, and how does that compare with turnout the last time the seats were contested?
No info as yet on the Vote UK Forum. The Jacobite Counter Intelligence Service will swing into action shortly after its had a full breakfast. Priorities don't you know ....
If the EU isn’t willing to negotiate, why don’t we just leave the customs union and then hold a referendum in Northern Ireland on reunification with the Republic? If they vote Yes - fine. If they vote No, then having border posts is entirely legitimate...
Because it's "utterly unrealistic" to have customs checks in Dover (according to cabinet Brexiteer Chris Grayling). Northern Ireland is only half the story.
Well if that’s the case, why is the discussion even happening at all? We clearly cant leave the customs union...
But we clearly cannot remain in the Customs Union since the EU will not allow it. The only customs union thstvwould be available to us is the Turkey option which allows third party countries to import their goods into our country without customs checks but prevents the same arrangement for our goods.
In the end no matter how much the HoL might want it or pass amendments about it, what they want is not possible.
Of course Corbyn isn’t the last Labour government, but he manages to be crap in his own special way.
A number of Corbyn's positions which seemed very niche at the time have turned out to be remarkably far-sighted ...
Such as?
I can't think of any.
As Big John has said, opposing a series of wars from which we turned out to gain no net benefit(and although there were quite a few Iraq rebels, there weren't many on Afghanistan and Libya); opposing the "Hostile environment" for illegal immigrants that led directly to the Windrush scandal, supporting renationalisation of the railways, which is now a pretty mainstream view with majority support, opposing PFI (which everyone opposes in retrospect but was the accepted wisdom at the time), and, I'd argue, maintaining a healthy scepticism about the Special Relationship, which has repeatedly led us into trouble.
If the EU isn’t willing to negotiate, why don’t we just leave the customs union and then hold a referendum in Northern Ireland on reunification with the Republic? If they vote Yes - fine. If they vote No, then having border posts is entirely legitimate...
Because it's "utterly unrealistic" to have customs checks in Dover (according to cabinet Brexiteer Chris Grayling). Northern Ireland is only half the story.
Well if that’s the case, why is the discussion even happening at all? We clearly cant leave the customs union...
But we clearly cannot remain in the Customs Union since the EU will not allow it. The only customs union thstvwould be available to us is the Turkey option which allows third party countries to import their goods into our country without customs checks but prevents the same arrangement for our goods.
In the end no matter how much the HoL might want it or pass amendments about it, what they want is not possible.
Huh? The EU will let us remain in the customs union if we ask won't they? I thought they were arguing that N. Ireland should do so in order to resolve the border. Don't see why they would have a problem with the rest of the UK doing so also.
If the EU isn’t willing to negotiate, why don’t we just leave the customs union and then hold a referendum in Northern Ireland on reunification with the Republic? If they vote Yes - fine. If they vote No, then having border posts is entirely legitimate...
Because it's "utterly unrealistic" to have customs checks in Dover (according to cabinet Brexiteer Chris Grayling). Northern Ireland is only half the story.
Well if that’s the case, why is the discussion even happening at all? We clearly cant leave the customs union...
But we clearly cannot remain in the Customs Union since the EU will not allow it. The only customs union thstvwould be available to us is the Turkey option which allows third party countries to import their goods into our country without customs checks but prevents the same arrangement for our goods.
In the end no matter how much the HoL might want it or pass amendments about it, what they want is not possible.
Huh? The EU will let us remain in the customs union if we ask won't they? I thought they were arguing that N. Ireland should do so in order to resolve the border. Don't see why they would have a problem with the rest of the UK doing so also.
And as an alternative there is an arrangement like Turkey's but on a reciprocal basis.
Comments
Try again.
Is it he ROI or the EU ? Should imagine Irish taxpayers will be concerned at the costs no ?
But that would have required the Home Office to be 'fit for purpose'.
Simply saying that the Home Office shouldn't have done anything against illegal immigrants because it is too incompetent to tell the difference between legal and illegal immigrants is just going to cause a different set of problems. See this as an example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Clarke#Foreign_prisoners_scandal
Vince Cable coming across a bit.....doddery. I'm sure he used to be more impressive a few years back.
Edit: Person forgot about Prince Harry:
https://twitter.com/peston/status/987075319579496448
Compassionate centrist leadership seems to be a vacuum they want filled.
On the wars the notion that after 9/11 we shouldn't stand by America is farcical and Corbyn still isn't right for being pathologically anti-American even in those circumstances. Afghanistan has been difficult but what came before wasn't better.
The Windrush scandal predates the hostile environment (which I too oppose as do many) its just reaching an apex now. As has been said repeatedly on this thread many of these issues date back to 1998.
Renationalising railways makes no economic sense whatsoever. Just because it has a populist appeal for those who haven't paid attention to the fact that railway usage has surged post privatisation doesn't make it right.
PFI was done disastrously.
The Special Relationship has done far, far more good than harm. Again Corbyn has a pathological hatred for all things American, Israeli and if not British but that doesn't make him right.
We are taking control of our own nation, not other countries nations. You seem to have confused sovereignty for imperialism.
I simply cannot marry together the oft theorized vacuum of centrism that the public supposedly wants filled, with how the public is actually acting, and the centrists it avoids.
It was Ed Milliband’s actions which led to no action on Libya. And on Afghanistan, 3 days after 9/11, Stop the War of which Corbyn became Chair was created to oppose any US action to defend itself against an appalling attack. Niche certainly. Far-sighted? Well we will have to disagree but I think countries should be able to defend themselves against attack but, as we’ve seen from the Skripal affair, we cannot even be certain that Corbyn agrees with this basic principle.
There is no appetite whatsoever for unlimited immigration into this country, which is Corbyn’s position and, as another poster previously pointed out, Corbyn’s main concern at the time of the bill was the possibility that terrorists might lose their passports, which is hardly far-sighted.
Heath had a healthy scepticism about the Special Relationship.
Labour consistently opposed any form of privatisation until Blair.
I can’t comment on railway renationalisation. I suspect that if it happens, as before, railways will fall down the givernment’s list of investment priorities and become mediocre again. But it’s certainly popular.
Far from being niche and far-sighted, Corbyn is absolutely predictable in his views.
This is a convoluted game of the prisoners dilemma. Both the Irish and the British want a deal. Both the Irish and the British want no hard border. A deal is thus eminently agreeable. The question is simply how it is reached.
It's unrealistic for one thing, and the ultimate message seems to be 'he was right all along, so must be right now', and the significance and/or uniqueness of his views severely overplayed to make that be true. I opposed the Iraq war as well, and I was 17, does that make me a youthful political prodigy as well as being a far sighted dispenser of wisdom like Corbyn?
These are not unique political defenses of course, but we saw with May and we see with Corbyn, that even non-cultists really get overly swept up in how bloody great their leader is. It's not enough they be good, they must be great, and even mundane things become evidence to that. When he fails, as all political figures do in the end, many of those who praise him now will recoil at the memory. It's not as extreme, but it puts me in mind of the ANC in South Africa, fighting on behalf of Zuma for so many years, then as soon as he could offer them no more, tossed to the curb.
And granted, I don't much like Corbyn, I'm perhaps not the best person to decide if he really is great, but when pretty mundane stuff is included as proof of 'remarkable far sightedness' I feel relatively confident people are getting a bit caught up.
It might be the case the price of all this becomes such Brexit itself is not accepted, certainly some still dream that, but I'd put it at just as likely, that there are prices to secure a deal which politically we cannot accept, leading to a crash out, even though neither side wants.
More likely than both is that some deal is hashed out, and whoever concedes more, likely us, will grumble more.
The EU is very good at getting its stories into the British press. (Like with the 100bn plus transition period we were going to pay for... which turned out to be 40bn including the transition period, and with some of the payments not for many decades.)
But, even if there wasn't, a "hard border" does not mean barbed wire, machine guns, passport checks and watch towers. It means that there will be customs posts - often as minimal as a couple of guys in a portacabin - on the main roads. A hard border means it will look like the Swiss/EU border: not that big a deal for 99% of people.
Good night all.
https://twitter.com/GroomB/status/987081284081070080?s=20
https://twitter.com/thomasknox/status/987119931769737217?s=20
https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/987077294480150531?s=20
On a tangential note, Sean T has gone off on one again. Again.
I expect tomorrow Mr T will be back on “national humiliation, why bother leaving....”
In the substance, one of Mrs May’s reported weaknesses (or strengths depending on your view) is stubbornness.....I wonder whether Brussels has factored this in.....
Which is probably where the idea of him being principled comes from, it doesn't to my mind mean never changing your mind. Though I'm sure everyone has their own take.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-43425055/chris-grayling-no-post-brexit-lorry-checks-at-dover
I don't oppose it. PFI / DBFO etc are a tool in the toolbox. They have their uses, and can be used to advantage. The issue is how they were used, and the contracts signed - and most of these were done under a Labour government.
I agree that PFI is probably best not used for things like hospitals and schools - although AIUI some of these have been successful for the taxpayer. But for other things, such as roads, they can be very practical.
It all depends on how good the people are at negotiating and organising the contracts. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/windrush-mess-will-be-worse-after-brexit-2vt588dcq
She's obsessed with the Plague and the Great Fire...
https://www.nationalreview.com/2007/12/bush-boom-continues-larry-kudlow/
I note your regular Thursday vitriol against Vince Cable invariably leads to LibDem by-election gains a few hours later.
Are you a devilish yellow peril sleeper agent? .... It's a very good disguise.
Unless by that he means through taxation or reestablishing the closed shop.
Whether it’s called a customs arrangement or a customs union there will be close alignment on goods. What I’m not sure on is why - when we’re outside CAP - we can’t have our own tariff schedule on Argentine Beef, New Zealand lamb or Aussie/ SA wine. I can only imagine the U.K. is looking to differentiate UK products from extra-EU products for the U.K. market via rules of origin.
We cannot be official members of the EU customs union as it would invalidate the DfIT, a corner of May’s Brexit strategy, and all the money/work spent on it over the last 18 months.
Talking to the other side (in defiance of conventional wisdom) is very much his approach normally...
Thatcham West (West Berkshire) result:
LDEM: 48.4% (+9.7)
CON: 30.9% (-16.9)
GRN: 7.7% (+7.7)
LAB: 7.7% (-5.9)
UKIP: 5.4% (+5.4)
LDem GAIN from Con.
Lymm South (Warrington) result:
LDEM: 42.8% (+10.4)
CON: 36.2% (-2.3)
LAB: 18.3% (-1.1)
UKIP: 1.4% (-8.3)
GRN: 1.3% (+1.3)
LDem GAIN from Con.
Perth and Kinross result still to come.
However, it is also clear from every speech made by May since the referendum that we will be leaving the EU and it's deeply unpopular political systems and its obsession with freedom of movement.
Thus, we cannot be in the Customs union, but will probably have one of the closest customs arrangements possible.
In the end no matter how much the HoL might want it or pass amendments about it, what they want is not possible.
I thought they were arguing that N. Ireland should do so in order to resolve the border.
Don't see why they would have a problem with the rest of the UK doing so also.
Agree with the sentiments of the thread opener.
Going to cool down after today, I think. Which is good.
Grimond, Thorpe (for all his faults), Steel, Ashdown, Kennedy, ............
No I don’t and didn’t, rate Clegg.
Oh, and as Mr D would say, morning all!