That said I wonder whether a parallel with 1992 might be appropriate for the next election. Perhaps Corbyn did so well in 2017 because few realistically expected him to perform so well and accordingly the punters thought of the general election as a massive by-election risk free option. However the actual prospect of PM Corbyn might have voters in the marginals hold their nose and opt for the Tories as they did in 92 when faced with the very real vision of Kinnock in Number 10.
You said in effect that his position in the Order of Precedence (which is a medieval thing) depended on his impartiality. I was pointing out this is not correct.
As for the last sixty years, in that time we've had the following speakers: Hylton-Foster (solicitor General at the time of appointment) King (Deputy Speaker and one of the best appointments so far as I can judge) Selwyn Lloyd (former Foreign Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer) George Thomas (former Welsh Secretary who spent much of his time in the chair abusing Plaid Cymru) Bernard Wetherill (whom Clare Short described as the best Speaker in her time in Parliament and a former whip, FFS) Boothroyd and Martin (both deputy speakers) and now Bercow (opposition backbencher).
Now you might point out with justice it's not what they did before but how they behaved at the time they were Speaker that matters. That's true. However, for all this myth of 'neutrality' the fact is that the whips would stitch up an election between them (known as the 'usual channels') and the Govenrment would always try to get an acceptable candidate. They didn't always succeed - Thatcher wanted anyone but Wetherill, although why she suggested Pym instead I don't know, unless she saw him as a rival - but generally the office of Speaker has been one the government controls to at least a limited extent.
I also have to say, I don't get why Bercow comes in for such stick. True, he's not perfect, but he's sharp, he's on the ball, he's willing to tell people off (on all sides) and he's a million times better than the abject Martin. The irony is that if he really is there to be independent of the government the criticism suggests he's doing a magnificent job!
Bercow is a bit of a curate’s egg. I don’t like his habit of making snide remarks about individual MPs, while censuring them for doing much the same... there is always a feeling that his independence of government would be less pronounced under a Labour administration... and the bullying allegations seem credible. And he can be a pompous git.
But you are quite right that at his best he’s a very decent Speaker.
I think we’ve done rather well. Day to day spending is back in the black.
We need a successful end to Brexit negotiations, so we can move on, and then go hell for leather for growth in 2021 and early 2022 to spike Corbyn for good prior to GE2022.
As I
A genuine here?
Ther.
Why quickly.
That no sense to me.
For the same reasons why they chose to remain in the UK after we chose not to join the Single Currency despite that being a "friction" in your "frictionless" system.
Hmmm - now we are looking to increase the cost of trade further, though, and - crucially - its timeliness. A weak currency may help persuade them to stay in the short term, but that weak currency has significant costs elsewhere, doesn't it? As David implies, it will all come down to tax breaks and subsidies.
Or efficiencies we can create elsewhere that mean we're better suited rather than increasing costs further like you assume.
Would you want to live in a single monolithic global nation covering Europe, the USA, Russia, North Korea etc with a single set of rules globally? I wouldn't as my vote would be irrelevant and meaningless - so why assume that its better and more cost effective in Europe to be part of a single state?
Well I'd rather live in that hypothetical state than be killed in a hypothetical nuclear war. Luckily neither are in prospect at the moment.
But the non-hypothetical EU isn't primarily about economics. It's a political project. And I like living in a union with other countries that share our values and traditions and with whom we have a long and shared history.
If you say "other countries that share our values and traditions" I think of countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. None of which we are in a union with.
Yorkshire look as though they might win despite being bowled out for 50 in the first innings. Ben Coad might just be a replacement for Anderson in a couple of years’ time...
That said I wonder whether a parallel with 1992 might be appropriate for the next election. Perhaps Corbyn did so well in 2017 because few realistically expected him to perform so well and accordingly the punters thought of the general election as a massive by-election risk free option. However the actual prospect of PM Corbyn might have voters in the marginals hold their nose and opt for the Tories as they did in 92 when faced with the very real vision of Kinnock in Number 10.
And of course Theresa won't be fighting 2022...
Who else do the Tories have who could win Mansfield?
I think we’ve done rather well. Day to day spending is back in the black.
We need a successful end to Brexit negotiations, so we can move on, and then go hell for leather for growth in 2021 and early 2022 to spike Corbyn for good prior to GE2022.
As I
A genuine here?
Ther.
Why quickly.
That no sense to me.
For the same reasons why they chose to remain in the UK after we chose not to join the Single Currency despite that being a "friction" in your "frictionless" system.
Hmmm - now we are looking to increase the cost of trade further, though, and - crucially - its timeliness. A weak currency may help persuade them to stay in the short term, but that weak currency has significant costs elsewhere, doesn't it? As David implies, it will all come down to tax breaks and subsidies.
Or efficiencies we can create elsewhere that mean we're better suited rather than increasing costs further like you assume.
Would you want to live in a single monolithic global nation covering Europe, the USA, Russia, North Korea etc with a single set of rules globally? I wouldn't as my vote would be irrelevant and meaningless - so why assume that its better and more cost effective in Europe to be part of a single state?
Well I'd rather live in that hypothetical state than be killed in a hypothetical nuclear war. Luckily neither are in prospect at the moment.
But the non-hypothetical EU isn't primarily about economics. It's a political project. And I like living in a union with other countries that share our values and traditions and with whom we have a long and shared history.
If you say "other countries that share our values and traditions" I think of countries like Australia, New Zealand and Canada. None of which we are in a union with.
Change can bring both opportunities and problems, advantages and disadvantages.
But continuing on the road of failure which the UK has been on since 2000 guaranteed further failure.
So we've been on the road of failure ever since we made the decision to stay out of the Euro? The change we need should be obvious.
Joining the Euro would likely have pushed the UK even faster down the road of failure just as joining the ERM was damaging for the UK.
Unless that is you think the UK would have joined the Euro with a much lower exchange rate than it had at the time.
Interest rates would have been even lower, resulting in an even bigger house price and consumer boom. It would have been ugly.
Just like Eire but with an economy large enough to wreak the EZ. A bullet dodged beyond a doubt.
I can’t detect anything that would have been better for the UK, either political or economic, that would have resulted from our membership of the euro.
It would have started very sceptical and with sullen resignation, and ended up extremely hostile.
They realise that 'frictionless trade' will not occur after Brexit (which, lets face it, is the only benefit of the SM that anyone seems to be able to name). They think that trade between major partners should be as frictionless as possible, just as is the case with the US and Canada, Australia and NZ etc etc, but under an FTA framework which everyone else uses. The ERG don't think that in the end the loss of 'frictionless trade' is that big a deal, and I agree.
Idiots.
Our economy depends on International JIT supply chains. These are in jeopardy.
Why, in that case, can these suppliers not make arrangements with UK and EU customs to have their goods cleared very quickly? It is not impossible. Almost all customs regimes have special arrangements for perishable goods. Given that both the UK and EU have companies that rely on these supply chains it should be easy to agree (if they were serious about solving the problem).
As you should know (given that you think we are all idiots) components used in JIT supply chains are usually not subject to tariffs anyway, since tariffs are usually only levied on finished goods. And it is not going to be hard for them to prove compliance with relevant regulations given they send them all the time. So coming up with a solution for this would be very, very easy as they could easily be pre-cleared at both ends.
The question is not what is possible, the question is what can be put into place by Brexit Day, which is less than 12 months away. What can be agreed by the UK and EU by then or (in the absence of an agreement) what can be imposed by the UK that would work?
My concern is that the current government are too busy arguing with themselves about what is desirable, whilst they should be spending time with the EU to work out what can be agreed and/or spending time establishing a system that will function without an agreement.
Change can bring both opportunities and problems, advantages and disadvantages.
But continuing on the road of failure which the UK has been on since 2000 guaranteed further failure.
So we've been on the road of failure ever since we made the decision to stay out of the Euro? The change we need should be obvious.
Joining the Euro would likely have pushed the UK even faster down the road of failure just as joining the ERM was damaging for the UK.
Unless that is you think the UK would have joined the Euro with a much lower exchange rate than it had at the time.
Isn't your rationale for Brexit partially to instigate some creative destruction?
I agree that all things being equal the consequences of Brown's mismanagement during the 2000-2006 period could have been worse had we been in the Euro, but it's a counterfactual and I think it's quite likely that things would have played out very differently if we had been in the Eurozone.
Brown was always going to shovel money into the public sector and welfare spending to ensure he became PM.
Add that to lower interest rates and a fixed overvalued exchange rate would have led to a massive housing and consumption bubble followed by the whole UK economy busting and likely bringing down the whole EZ.
Change can bring both opportunities and problems, advantages and disadvantages.
But continuing on the road of failure which the UK has been on since 2000 guaranteed further failure.
So we've been on the road of failure ever since we made the decision to stay out of the Euro? The change we need should be obvious.
Joining the Euro would likely have pushed the UK even faster down the road of failure just as joining the ERM was damaging for the UK.
Unless that is you think the UK would have joined the Euro with a much lower exchange rate than it had at the time.
Interest rates would have been even lower, resulting in an even bigger house price and consumer boom. It would have been ugly.
Just like Eire but with an economy large enough to wreak the EZ. A bullet dodged beyond a doubt.
I can’t detect anything that would have been better for the UK, either political or economic, that would have resulted from our membership of the euro.
It would have started very sceptical and with sullen resignation, and ended up extremely hostile.
Perhaps that's right. In the long run we needed some kind of catharsis to reconcile ourselves to playing a full role in the EU. The failure of Brexit will provide it.
How many Tory Westminster seats in Liverpool do you think Corbyn is going to win in the next General Election in order to be able to become PM?
Results like Labour winning popular vote in Wandsworth should be a huge concern for the Tories.
Surely they cant underestimate Corbyn AGAIN.
Probably not but by the same token might we be overestimating Jezza ?
There is little doubt that Corbyn enjoys the campaign and the cut and thrust of personal voter interaction in contrast to the Prime Minister who'd rather be in a snake pit with President Trump as company than mix with the electorate or appear in a debate with Jezza.
That said I wonder whether a parallel with 1992 might be appropriate for the next election. Perhaps Corbyn did so well in 2017 because few realistically expected him to perform so well and accordingly the punters thought of the general election as a massive by-election risk free option. However the actual prospect of PM Corbyn might have voters in the marginals hold their nose and opt for the Tories as they did in 92 when faced with the very real vision of Kinnock in Number 10.
I think you have probably got something their. It is very dangerous to underestimate anybody, so all this comes with caveats.
Corbyn is a (fairly) good campaigner, he appeared to be amazing at the 2017, partly because, May was so bad, and partly because everybody was so underestimating him, including CCHQ.
Some of the mistakes of the 2017 election are unlikely to be repeated again, e.g. not sending the leader to the TV debate!!!, targeting what termed out to be unwinnable seats, while ignoring many marginal seats, the whole bloody Tory Manifesto.
But whether the Torys biggest mi-stack Teresa May herself, will still be there is yet to be decided.
And what may tern out to be the biggest deciding factor, is the economic, who know how that will go? do the state of the LibDems and how they position themselves.
Change can bring both opportunities and problems, advantages and disadvantages.
But continuing on the road of failure which the UK has been on since 2000 guaranteed further failure.
So we've been on the road of failure ever since we made the decision to stay out of the Euro? The change we need should be obvious.
Joining the Euro would likely have pushed the UK even faster down the road of failure just as joining the ERM was damaging for the UK.
Unless that is you think the UK would have joined the Euro with a much lower exchange rate than it had at the time.
Isn't your rationale for Brexit partially to instigate some creative destruction?
I agree that all things being equal the consequences of Brown's mismanagement during the 2000-2006 period could have been worse had we been in the Euro, but it's a counterfactual and I think it's quite likely that things would have played out very differently if we had been in the Eurozone.
Brown was always going to shovel money into the public sector and welfare spending to ensure he became PM.
Add that to lower interest rates and a fixed overvalued exchange rate would have led to a massive housing and consumption bubble followed by the whole UK economy busting and likely bringing down the whole EZ.
If Blair had achieved his epoch-defining victory by taking us into the Euro he may have been more inclined to fire Brown.
Change can bring both opportunities and problems, advantages and disadvantages.
But continuing on the road of failure which the UK has been on since 2000 guaranteed further failure.
So we've been on the road of failure ever since we made the decision to stay out of the Euro? The change we need should be obvious.
Joining the Euro would likely have pushed the UK even faster down the road of failure just as joining the ERM was damaging for the UK.
Unless that is you think the UK would have joined the Euro with a much lower exchange rate than it had at the time.
Interest rates would have been even lower, resulting in an even bigger house price and consumer boom. It would have been ugly.
Just like Eire but with an economy large enough to wreak the EZ. A bullet dodged beyond a doubt.
I can’t detect anything that would have been better for the UK, either political or economic, that would have resulted from our membership of the euro.
It would have started very sceptical and with sullen resignation, and ended up extremely hostile.
We would have been trapped. Getting out of a currency Union is way more difficult than getting into it. Ask Greece. Or Italy. Or even Scotland. Leaving the EU would no longer have been an option. But the damage would not have been one way. The ECB would not have been able to cope with London in 2008 along with all its other problems.
You said in effect that his position in the Order of Precedence (which is a medieval thing) depended on his impartiality. I was pointing out this is not correct.
As for the last sixty years, in that time we've had the following speakers: Hylton-Foster (solicitor General at the time of appointment) King (Deputy Speaker and one of the best appointments so far as I can judge) Selwyn Lloyd (former Foreign Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer) George Thomas (former Welsh Secretary who spent much of his time in the chair abusing Plaid Cymru) Bernard Wetherill (whom Clare Short described as the best Speaker in her time in Parliament and a former whip, FFS) Boothroyd and Martin (both deputy speakers) and now Bercow (opposition backbencher).
Now you might point out with justice it's not what they did before but how they behaved at the time they were Speaker that matters. That's true. However, for all this myth of 'neutrality' the fact is that the whips would stitch up an election between them (known as the 'usual channels') and the Govenrment would always try to get an acceptable candidate. They didn't always succeed - Thatcher wanted anyone but Wetherill, although why she suggested Pym instead I don't know, unless she saw him as a rival - but generally the office of Speaker has been one the government controls to at least a limited extent.
I also have to say, I don't get why Bercow comes in for such stick. True, he's not perfect, but he's sharp, he's on the ball, he's willing to tell people off (on all sides) and he's a million times better than the abject Martin. The irony is that if he really is there to be independent of the government the criticism suggests he's doing a magnificent job!
When a speaker openly advertises his partiality on a range of issues his position is compromised and his credibility is shot. He also is facing serious allegations which require investigation.
Yorkshire look as though they might win despite being bowled out for 50 in the first innings. Ben Coad might just be a replacement for Anderson in a couple of years’ time...
How about as a replacement for Broad this year.
Still developing physically, so it’s too soon - as his coaches have emphasised.* The next twelve months or so for England don’t look great....
* No doubt bearing in mind England’s propensity to mess up young seamers.
You said in effect that his position in the Order of Precedence (which is a medieval thing) depended on his impartiality. I was pointing out this is not correct.
As for the last sixty years, in that time we've had the following speakers: Hylton-Foster (solicitor General at the time of appointment) King (Deputy Speaker and one of the best appointments so far as I can judge) Selwyn Lloyd (former Foreign Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer) George Thomas (former Welsh Secretary who spent much of his time in the chair abusing Plaid Cymru) Bernard Wetherill (whom Clare Short described as the best Speaker in her time in Parliament and a former whip, FFS) Boothroyd and Martin (both deputy speakers) and now Bercow (opposition backbencher).
Now you might point out with justice it's not what they did before but how they behaved at the time they were Speaker that matters. That's true. However, for all this myth of 'neutrality' the fact is that the whips would stitch up an election between them (known as the 'usual channels') and the Govenrment would always try to get an acceptable candidate. They didn't always succeed - Thatcher wanted anyone but Wetherill, although why she suggested Pym instead I don't know, unless she saw him as a rival - but generally the office of Speaker has been one the government controls to at least a limited extent.
I also have to say, I don't get why Bercow comes in for such stick. True, he's not perfect, but he's sharp, he's on the ball, he's willing to tell people off (on all sides) and he's a million times better than the abject Martin. The irony is that if he really is there to be independent of the government the criticism suggests he's doing a magnificent job!
When a speaker openly advertises his partiality on a range of issues his position is compromised and his credibility is shot. He also is facing serious allegations which require investigation.
None of which is relevant to your original point.
I fully agree the allegations of bullying against him need investigating. That said, I think you're going much too far with the rest simply because you dislike him. Fair enough to dislike him, he seems a basically unlikeable person. But maybe just draw back a little and consider whether maybe you are yourself biased?
Change can bring both opportunities and problems, advantages and disadvantages.
But continuing on the road of failure which the UK has been on since 2000 guaranteed further failure.
So we've been on the road of failure ever since we made the decision to stay out of the Euro? The change we need should be obvious.
Joining the Euro would likely have pushed the UK even faster down the road of failure just as joining the ERM was damaging for the UK.
Unless that is you think the UK would have joined the Euro with a much lower exchange rate than it had at the time.
Isn't your rationale for Brexit partially to instigate some creative destruction?
I agree that all things being equal the consequences of Brown's mismanagement during the 2000-2006 period could have been worse had we been in the Euro, but it's a counterfactual and I think it's quite likely that things would have played out very differently if we had been in the Eurozone.
Brown was always going to shovel money into the public sector and welfare spending to ensure he became PM.
Add that to lower interest rates and a fixed overvalued exchange rate would have led to a massive housing and consumption bubble followed by the whole UK economy busting and likely bringing down the whole EZ.
If Blair had achieved his epoch-defining victory by taking us into the Euro he may have been more inclined to fire Brown.
You're getting into multiple ifs dependent upon other ifs.
There was no way that a Labour government was going to enter the EZ to boost exports and to keep public spending and domestic consumption down.
A Heseltine-Clarke government perhaps but never a Labour government.
And the problem that a Conservative government would have had in joining the EZ is that they would have wanted to do so at too high an exchange rate, just as they did with the ERM.
I think that’s because too many posters are interested in pushing their own lines on Brexit rather than objectively analysing what’s actually going on.
Fair enough. Try this.
The current government are engaged in a debate between factions of itself about what is desirable instead of negotiating with their counterparty about what is achievable. Due to personal wealth, naivete and supportive polls they believe they can continue with this debate indefinitely, assuming that if things go badly they can simply blame the EU ("failing and blaming") and retain power regardless, without personal loss to themselves. Given the polls and the limited appeal of the opposition, they may be correct in this.
Yorkshire look as though they might win despite being bowled out for 50 in the first innings. Ben Coad might just be a replacement for Anderson in a couple of years’ time...
How about as a replacement for Broad this year.
Still developing physically, so it’s too soon - as his coaches have emphasised.* The next twelve months or so for England don’t look great....
* No doubt bearing in mind England’s propensity to mess up young seamers.
Yorkshire look as though they might win despite being bowled out for 50 in the first innings. Ben Coad might just be a replacement for Anderson in a couple of years’ time...
How about as a replacement for Broad this year.
Still developing physically, so it’s too soon - as his coaches have emphasised.* The next twelve months or so for England don’t look great....
* No doubt bearing in mind England’s propensity to mess up young seamers.
Change can bring both opportunities and problems, advantages and disadvantages.
But continuing on the road of failure which the UK has been on since 2000 guaranteed further failure.
So we've been on the road of failure ever since we made the decision to stay out of the Euro? The change we need should be obvious.
Joining the Euro would likely have pushed the UK even faster down the road of failure just as joining the ERM was damaging for the UK.
Unless that is you think the UK would have joined the Euro with a much lower exchange rate than it had at the time.
Interest rates would have been even lower, resulting in an even bigger house price and consumer boom. It would have been ugly.
Just like Eire but with an economy large enough to wreak the EZ. A bullet dodged beyond a doubt.
I can’t detect anything that would have been better for the UK, either political or economic, that would have resulted from our membership of the euro.
It would have started very sceptical and with sullen resignation, and ended up extremely hostile.
We would have been trapped. Getting out of a currency Union is way more difficult than getting into it. Ask Greece. Or Italy. Or even Scotland. Leaving the EU would no longer have been an option. But the damage would not have been one way. The ECB would not have been able to cope with London in 2008 along with all its other problems.
Thankfully our experience with the ERM in 1992 showed us the negatives of monetary union. If the UK had been in the EZ in 2008 it would have been considerably worse for everyone involved. It would have required some seriously drastic action to prevent a total collapse of the currency. Even as it is, we still can’t balance the government budget nearly a decade later.
Change can bring both opportunities and problems, advantages and disadvantages.
But continuing on the road of failure which the UK has been on since 2000 guaranteed further failure.
So we've been on the road of failure ever since we made the decision to stay out of the Euro? The change we need should be obvious.
Joining the Euro would likely have pushed the UK even faster down the road of failure just as joining the ERM was damaging for the UK.
Unless that is you think the UK would have joined the Euro with a much lower exchange rate than it had at the time.
Interest rates would have been even lower, resulting in an even bigger house price and consumer boom. It would have been ugly.
Just like Eire but with an economy large enough to wreak the EZ. A bullet dodged beyond a doubt.
I can’t detect anything that would have been better for the UK, either political or economic, that would have resulted from our membership of the euro.
It would have started very sceptical and with sullen resignation, and ended up extremely hostile.
We would have been trapped. Getting out of a currency Union is way more difficult than getting into it. Ask Greece. Or Italy. Or even Scotland. Leaving the EU would no longer have been an option. But the damage would not have been one way. The ECB would not have been able to cope with London in 2008 along with all its other problems.
Thankfully our experience with the ERM in 1992 showed us the negatives of monetary union. If the UK had been in the EZ in 2008 it would have been considerably worse for everyone involved. It would have required some seriously drastic action to prevent a total collapse of the currency. Even as it is, we still can’t balance the government budget nearly a decade later.
How would a speculative attack on the Pound work in the Euro? Perhaps we learnt the wrong lessons.
Change can bring both opportunities and problems, advantages and disadvantages.
But continuing on the road of failure which the UK has been on since 2000 guaranteed further failure.
So we've been on the road of failure ever since we made the decision to stay out of the Euro? The change we need should be obvious.
Joining the Euro would likely have pushed the UK even faster down the road of failure just as joining the ERM was damaging for the UK.
Unless that is you think the UK would have joined the Euro with a much lower exchange rate than it had at the time.
Interest rates would have been even lower, resulting in an even bigger house price and consumer boom. It would have been ugly.
Just like Eire but with an economy large enough to wreak the EZ. A bullet dodged beyond a doubt.
I can’t detect anything that would have been better for the UK, either political or economic, that would have resulted from our membership of the euro.
It would have started very sceptical and with sullen resignation, and ended up extremely hostile.
We would have been trapped. Getting out of a currency Union is way more difficult than getting into it. Ask Greece. Or Italy. Or even Scotland. Leaving the EU would no longer have been an option. But the damage would not have been one way. The ECB would not have been able to cope with London in 2008 along with all its other problems.
Thankfully our experience with the ERM in 1992 showed us the negatives of monetary union. If the UK had been in the EZ in 2008 it would have been considerably worse for everyone involved. It would have required some seriously drastic action to prevent a total collapse of the currency. Even as it is, we still can’t balance the government budget nearly a decade later.
How would a speculative attack on the Pound work in the Euro? Perhaps we learnt the wrong lessons.
The more pertinent question is, 'could we have rescued RBS and HBOS while in the Eurozone?'
It would not have been impossible - there were solutions to Ireland's problems that the ECB chose to ignore - but for that reason alone it would have been very much more difficult.
Change can bring both opportunities and problems, advantages and disadvantages.
But continuing on the road of failure which the UK has been on since 2000 guaranteed further failure.
So we've been on the road of failure ever since we made the decision to stay out of the Euro? The change we need should be obvious.
Joining the Euro would likely have pushed the UK even faster down the road of failure just as joining the ERM was damaging for the UK.
Unless that is you think the UK would have joined the Euro with a much lower exchange rate than it had at the time.
Interest rates would have been even lower, resulting in an even bigger house price and consumer boom. It would have been ugly.
Just like Eire but with an economy large enough to wreak the EZ. A bullet dodged beyond a doubt.
I can’t detect anything that would have been better for the UK, either political or economic, that would have resulted from our membership of the euro.
It would have started very sceptical and with sullen resignation, and ended up extremely hostile.
We would have been trapped. Getting out of a currency Union is way more difficult than getting into it. Ask Greece. Or Italy. Or even Scotland. Leaving the EU would no longer have been an option. But the damage would not have been one way. The ECB would not have been able to cope with London in 2008 along with all its other problems.
Thankfully our experience with the ERM in 1992 showed us the negatives of monetary union. If the UK had been in the EZ in 2008 it would have been considerably worse for everyone involved. It would have required some seriously drastic action to prevent a total collapse of the currency. Even as it is, we still can’t balance the government budget nearly a decade later.
But another lesson of 2008 is that being a big currency is an advantage during a crisis. The pound is obviously a pretty big one, but leaving the EU has weakened it. So paradoxically Brexit makes joining the European more advantageous. All other things being equal.
As to whether or not we would be better off out or in the Eurozone, I don't know. Neither do you.
Change can bring both opportunities and problems, advantages and disadvantages.
But continuing on the road of failure which the UK has been on since 2000 guaranteed further failure.
So we've been on the road of failure ever since we made the decision to stay out of the Euro? The change we need should be obvious.
Joining the Euro would likely have pushed the UK even faster down the road of failure just as joining the ERM was damaging for the UK.
Unless that is you think the UK would have joined the Euro with a much lower exchange rate than it had at the time.
Interest rates would have been even lower, resulting in an even bigger house price and consumer boom. It would have been ugly.
Just like Eire but with an economy large enough to wreak the EZ. A bullet dodged beyond a doubt.
I can’t detect anything that would have been better for the UK, either political or economic, that would have resulted from our membership of the euro.
It would have started very sceptical and with sullen resignation, and ended up extremely hostile.
We would have been trapped. Getting out of a currency Union is way more difficult than getting into it. Ask Greece. Or Italy. Or even Scotland. Leaving the EU would no longer have been an option. But the damage would not have been one way. The ECB would not have been able to cope with London in 2008 along with all its other problems.
Thankfully our experience with the ERM in 1992 showed us the negatives of monetary union. If the UK had been in the EZ in 2008 it would have been considerably worse for everyone involved. It would have required some seriously drastic action to prevent a total collapse of the currency. Even as it is, we still can’t balance the government budget nearly a decade later.
But another lesson of 2008 is that being a big currency is an advantage during a crisis. The pound is obviously a pretty big one, but leaving the EU has weakened it. So paradoxically Brexit makes joining the European more advantageous. All other things being equal.
As to whether or not we would be better off out or in the Eurozone, I don't know. Neither do you.
No that is not a lesson. Where have you drawn that from?
The lesson from 2008 is that flexibility is an advantage during a crisis.
Change can bring both opportunities and problems, advantages and disadvantages.
But continuing on the road of failure which the UK has been on since 2000 guaranteed further failure.
So we've been on the road of failure ever since we made the decision to stay out of the Euro? The change we need should be obvious.
Joining the Euro would likely have pushed the UK even faster down the road of failure just as joining the ERM was damaging for the UK.
Unless that is you think the UK would have joined the Euro with a much lower exchange rate than it had at the time.
Interest rates would have been even lower, resulting in an even bigger house price and consumer boom. It would have been ugly.
Just like Eire but with an economy large enough to wreak the EZ. A bullet dodged beyond a doubt.
I can’t detect anything that wro.
It would have started very sceptical and with sullen resignation, and ended up extremely hostile.
We wo.
Thankfully our experience with the ERM in 1992 showed us the negatives of monetary union. If the UK hat is, we still can’t balance the government budget nearly a decade later.
But another lesson of 2008 is that being a big currency is an advantage during a crisis. The pound is obviously a pretty big one, but leaving the EU has weakened it. So paradoxically Brexit makes joining the European more advantageous. All other things being equal.
As to whether or not we would be better off out or in the Eurozone, I don't know. Neither do you.
No that is not a lesson. Where have you drawn that from?
The lesson from 2008 is that flexibility is an advantage during a crisis.
So the three worst affected countries, Brazil, Pakistan and Iceland, where all very inflexible and just happened to have weak currencies and small economies?
You said in effect that his position in the Order of Precedence (which is a medieval thing) depended on his impartiality. I was pointing out this is not correct.
As for the last sixty years, in that time we've had the following speakers: Hylton-Foster (solicitor General at the time of appointment) King (Deputy Speaker and one of the best appointments so far as I can judge) Selwyn Lloyd (former Foreign Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer) George Thomas (former Welsh Secretary who spent much of his time in the chair abusing Plaid Cymru) Bernard Wetherill (whom Clare Short described as the best Speaker in her time in Parliament and a former whip, FFS) Boothroyd and Martin (both deputy speakers) and now Bercow (opposition backbencher).
Now you might point out with justice it's not what they did before but how they behaved at the time they were Speaker that matters. That's true. However, for all this myth of 'neutrality' the fact is that the whips would stitch up an election between them (known as the 'usual channels') and the Govenrment would always try to get an acceptable candidate. They didn't always succeed - Thatcher wanted anyone but Wetherill, although why she suggested Pym instead I don't know, unless she saw him as a rival - but generally the office of Speaker has been one the government controls to at least a limited extent.
I also have to say, I don't get why Bercow comes in for such stick. True, he's not perfect, but he's sharp, he's on the ball, he's willing to tell people off (on all sides) and he's a million times better than the abject Martin. The irony is that if he really is there to be independent of the government the criticism suggests he's doing a magnificent job!
When a speaker openly advertises his partiality on a range of issues his position is compromised and his credibility is shot. He also is facing serious allegations which require investigation.
None of which is relevant to your original point.
I fully agree the allegations of bullying against him need investigating. That said, I think you're going much too far with the rest simply because you dislike him. Fair enough to dislike him, he seems a basically unlikeable person. But maybe just draw back a little and consider whether maybe you are yourself biased?
Of course I have a view - I expect the Speaker to be a neutral chair while promoting Parliament and democracy not himself. I maintain that in recent times most speakers have achieved that. Bercow has spectacularly failed and going back to Charles 1 isn't going to change it. We have different views. Life goes on as will Bercow, damaging further a role which wasn't broken as Martin had the good sense to quit.
See the latest ruse from the elite is to extend the "transition" period for the customs union for another two years!!!
How many people who voted for Brexit will actually be dead before it happens? I'm 40 and even starting to wonder if I'll ever actually see it...
Brexit is a state of mind - it's fairly clear that the Government intends the reality to be as similar as possible to the current arrangement, with the potential to be different one day. Whether you feel that's what you voted for, only you can say! But it's arguably a fair interpretation of a 52-48 vote.
Change can bring both opportunities and problems, advantages and disadvantages.
But continuing on the road of failure which the UK has been on since 2000 guaranteed further failure.
So we've been on the road of failure ever since we made the decision to stay out of the Euro? The change we need should be obvious.
Joining the Euro would likely have pushed the UK even faster down the road of failure just as joining the ERM was damaging for the UK.
Unless that is you think the UK would have joined the Euro with a much lower exchange rate than it had at the time.
Interest rates would have been even lower, resulting in an even bigger house price and consumer boom. It would have been ugly.
Just like Eire but with an economy large enough to wreak the EZ. A bullet dodged beyond a doubt.
I can’t detect anything that would have been better for the UK, either political or economic, that would have resulted from our membership of the euro.
It would have started very sceptical and with sullen resignation, and ended up extremely hostile.
We would have been trapped. Getting out of a currency Union is way more difficult than getting into it. Ask Greece. Or Italy. Or even Scotland. Leaving the EU would no longer have been an option. But the damage would not have been one way. The ECB would not have been able to cope with London in 2008 along with all its other problems.
Thankfully our experience with the ERM in 1992 showed us the negatives of monetary union. If the UK had been in the EZ in 2008 it would have been considerably worse for everyone involved. It would have required some seriously drastic action to prevent a total collapse of the currency. Even as it is, we still can’t balance the government budget nearly a decade later.
But another lesson of 2008 is that being a big currency is an advantage during a crisis. The pound is obviously a pretty big one, but leaving the EU has weakened it. So paradoxically Brexit makes joining the European more advantageous. All other things being equal.
As to whether or not we would be better off out or in the Eurozone, I don't know. Neither do you.
No that is not a lesson. Where have you drawn that from?
The lesson from 2008 is that flexibility is an advantage during a crisis.
I think many in Spain , Greece , Portugal, Ireland would agree with that.
Change can bring both opportunities and problems, advantages and disadvantages.
But continuing on the road of failure which the UK has been on since 2000 guaranteed further failure.
So we've been on the road of failure ever since we made the decision to stay out of the Euro? The change we need should be obvious.
Joining the Euro would likely have pushed the UK even faster down the road of failure just as joining the ERM was damaging for the UK.
Unless that is you think the UK would have joined the Euro with a much lower exchange rate than it had at the time.
Interest rates would have been even lower, resulting in an ewould have been ugly.
Just like Eire but with an economy large enough to wreak the EZ. A bullet dodged beyond a doubt.
I can’t detect anything that would have been better for the UK, either political or economic, that would have resulted from our membership of the euro.
It would have started very sceptical and with sullen resignation, and ended up extremely hostile.
We would have been trapped. Getting out of a currency Union is way more difficult than getting into it. Ask Greece. Or Italy. Or even Scotland. Leaving the EU would no longer have been an option. But the damage would not have been one way. The ECB would not have been able to cope with London in 2008 along with all its other problems.
Thankfully our experience with the ERM in 1992 showed us the negatives of monetary union. If the UK had been in the EZ in 2008 it would have been considerably worse for everyone involved. It would have required some seriously drastic action to prevent a total collapse of the currency. Even as it is, we still can’t balance the government budget nearly a decade later.
But another lesson of 2008 is that being a big currency is an advantage during a crisis. The pound is obviously a pretty big one, but leaving the EU has weakened it. So paradoxically Brexit makes joining the European more advantageous. All other things being equal.
As to whether or not we would be better off out or in the Eurozone, I don't know. Neither do you.
No that is not a lesson. Where have you drawn that from?
The lesson from 2008 is that flexibility is an advantage during a crisis.
I think many in Spain , Greece , Portugal, Ireland would agree with that.
Change can bring both opportunities and problems, advantages and disadvantages.
But continuing on the road of failure which the UK has been on since 2000 guaranteed further failure.
So we've been on the road of failure ever since we made the decision to stay out of the Euro? The change we need should be obvious.
Joining the Euro would likely have pushed the UK even faster down the road of failure just as joining the ERM was damaging for the UK.
Unless that is you think the UK would have joined the Euro with a much lower exchange rate than it had at the time.
Interest rates would have been even lower, resulting in an even bigger house price and consumer boom. It would have been ugly.
Just like Eire but with an economy large enough to wreak the EZ. A bullet dodged beyond a doubt.
I can’t detect anything that would have been better for the UK, either political or economic, that would have resulted from our membership of the euro.
It would have started very sceptical and with sullen resignation, and ended up extremely hostile.
We would have been trapped. Getting out of a currency Union is way more difficult than getting into it. Ask Greece. Or Italy. Or even Scotland. Leaving the EU would no longer have been an option. But the damage would not have been one way. The ECB would not have been able to cope with London in 2008 along with all its other problems.
Thankfully our experience with the ERM in 1992 showed us the negatives of monetary union. If the UK had been in the EZ in 2008 it would have been considerably worse for everyone involved. It would have required some seriously drastic action to prevent a total collapse of the currency. Even as it is, we still can’t balance the government budget nearly a decade later.
As to whether or not we would be better off out or in the Eurozone, I don't know. Neither do you.
No that is not a lesson. Where have you drawn that from?
The lesson from 2008 is that flexibility is an advantage during a crisis.
I think many in Spain , Greece , Portugal, Ireland would agree with that.
Yorkshire look as though they might win despite being bowled out for 50 in the first innings. Ben Coad might just be a replacement for Anderson in a couple of years’ time...
How about as a replacement for Broad this year.
Still developing physically, so it’s too soon - as his coaches have emphasised.* The next twelve months or so for England don’t look great....
* No doubt bearing in mind England’s propensity to mess up young seamers.
Comments
I don’t like his habit of making snide remarks about individual MPs, while censuring them for doing much the same... there is always a feeling that his independence of government would be less pronounced under a Labour administration... and the bullying allegations seem credible. And he can be a pompous git.
But you are quite right that at his best he’s a very decent Speaker.
It would have been very painful though for those in the public sector and pensioners.
Some still haven't learnt that lesson.
It would have started very sceptical and with sullen resignation, and ended up extremely hostile.
My concern is that the current government are too busy arguing with themselves about what is desirable, whilst they should be spending time with the EU to work out what can be agreed and/or spending time establishing a system that will function without an agreement.
Add that to lower interest rates and a fixed overvalued exchange rate would have led to a massive housing and consumption bubble followed by the whole UK economy busting and likely bringing down the whole EZ.
Corbyn is a (fairly) good campaigner, he appeared to be amazing at the 2017, partly because, May was so bad, and partly because everybody was so underestimating him, including CCHQ.
Some of the mistakes of the 2017 election are unlikely to be repeated again, e.g. not sending the leader to the TV debate!!!, targeting what termed out to be unwinnable seats, while ignoring many marginal seats, the whole bloody Tory Manifesto.
But whether the Torys biggest mi-stack Teresa May herself, will still be there is yet to be decided.
And what may tern out to be the biggest deciding factor, is the economic, who know how that will go? do the state of the LibDems and how they position themselves.
The next twelve months or so for England don’t look great....
* No doubt bearing in mind England’s propensity to mess up young seamers.
I fully agree the allegations of bullying against him need investigating. That said, I think you're going much too far with the rest simply because you dislike him. Fair enough to dislike him, he seems a basically unlikeable person. But maybe just draw back a little and consider whether maybe you are yourself biased?
There was no way that a Labour government was going to enter the EZ to boost exports and to keep public spending and domestic consumption down.
A Heseltine-Clarke government perhaps but never a Labour government.
And the problem that a Conservative government would have had in joining the EZ is that they would have wanted to do so at too high an exchange rate, just as they did with the ERM.
The current government are engaged in a debate between factions of itself about what is desirable instead of negotiating with their counterparty about what is achievable. Due to personal wealth, naivete and supportive polls they believe they can continue with this debate indefinitely, assuming that if things go badly they can simply blame the EU ("failing and blaming") and retain power regardless, without personal loss to themselves. Given the polls and the limited appeal of the opposition, they may be correct in this.
Him indoors and her outdoors at Westminster?
It would not have been impossible - there were solutions to Ireland's problems that the ECB chose to ignore - but for that reason alone it would have been very much more difficult.
As to whether or not we would be better off out or in the Eurozone, I don't know. Neither do you.
The lesson from 2008 is that flexibility is an advantage during a crisis.
How many people who voted for Brexit will actually be dead before it happens? I'm 40 and even starting to wonder if I'll ever actually see it...
NEW THREAD