Will all three big national parties survive this intact? I doubt it, but it’s hard to tell who is most vulnerable. Clearly the LDs are weakest now.
Well, of course all 3 parties will survive the Lewisham East result intact. Of course the LibDems are the weakest of the 3 parties, they're the 3rd party in England and Wales. However, Lewisham East has shown that they are improving their situation. Labour were lucky to have chosen, against the wishes of the leadership, a very pro-EU candidate. That must have spiked the LibDems guns and saved Labour from a worse result.
Will all three parties exist in their current form, with no splits, mergers, renames or repositioning in 10 years? I doubt it.
The Conservative Party name will exist, but will it be the same party?
Yes. This meme is played out year after year, but the main parties are remarkably resilient, and flexible.
29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.
I suspect that if you look at Non-EU countries, particularly OECD ones, you would come up with a similar list of issues. Immigration is a major issue in USA, Canada, Australia and NZ, as well as a number of Middle Income countries.
It is an issue of globalisation, rather than one of the EU. Indeed in almost all of the countries mentioned, it is the Non-EU immigration that is the issue.
Global issues have an impact, but as far as I know the other countries you mention have full control of all immigration policy levers. Unlike them we had lost control of a significant proportion of ours. This was rejected in the referendum, and is why we cannot stay in the EEA.
But this is the paradox: I suspect that what really bothers people is immigration from outside the EU. (After all those posters did not focus on Italians coming to Britain.)
But we have had control over that type of immigration. It was the fact that too many in our political class did not want to exercise those controls and when, belatedly, they did were ineffective at it, which led voters to pull the only lever left to them - by voting against FoM. That and Merkel’s stupid decision in 2015.
If in the period post 1997 - when immigration shot up - governments had done something effective about using all the controls they did have and kept immigration to more manageable levels and limited those coming from very different societies and cultures, then FoM would not have been turned into the bogeyman it has become. In truth FoM within the EU is on the whole a good thing. But only if the external borders are secure and only if countries don’t simultaneously open up their borders to all and sundry as Britain did post-1997.
Hungary and Croatia did the rest of the EU a huge favour when they put up the border fences. Italy are doing a similar favour, now.
There’s surely little doubt that were Labour led by a Blair, not only would the Conservatives not be polling in the forties but they wouldn’t even be in the thirties
A common myth.
People are sick of the Liberal Elite version of Politics IMO
Hence biggest increase in vote share in 60 yrs for the Messiah
A modern Blair would not be an early nineties Blair. He'd be eurosceptic and critical of globalisation, while seeking to reassure current Conservative voters that his economic policies would be moderate.
Blairs are created, not born. So, it is an interesting exercise to create the next Blair (who will disappoint, after election victory after election victory)
The Blair for 2022 would be no fan of the EU, but very critical of the way Brexit has been implemented by the Tories and how it has affected "my constituents".
He would be very critical of globalisation and of the global elite. He would be outspoken on corporate tax avoiders -- maybe he'd have another windfall tax to fund the NHS on tax avoiding companies.
He would be against second-home owners & mansion-owners such as expatriate oligarchs. He would find obvious & visible targets to scapegoat without causing any real change in the inequalities of the housing market, or worry the owners of London homes that they might have to pay more.
He would have a softer side on refugees. He would have words like "my country has a long history of helping people in trouble" -- but in practice he would be swiftly on with the bovver boots (much like dear old Emmanuel Macron).
His softer side would be visible on welfare, he would be railing against the "distress caused to my constituents" by Universal Credit, but it would be nicely balanced with warnings against chisellers and fraudsters.
Maybe we wouldn't fall for it all again -- but I expect we would.
There is undoubtedly polarisation amongst the parties which the by election did little to dispel but I am not sure Labour would have a vast lead under a Blair clone at the moment. If there is one thing western politics is now showing it is the rise of anti migration, nationalist and anti globalisation populism, I am not sure Labour being led by a pro migration, pro corporation, pro globalisation leader would exactly meet the current mood. Indeed it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 which played a key part in leading to the Brexit vote in the first place.
First past the post locks in negative votes. My guess is that the Tories are not polling where they are because all their supporters back the hostile immigration environment and the Tory right’s growing nativism. Instead, I suspect that quite a few Tory votes are inspired by a deep dislike and distrust of Jeremy Corbyn and the far left. In the same way, my guess is that a lot of Labour backers are not embracing socialism, but are very much opposed to a Conservative party doing all it can to keep ex-UKIP voters onside.
Yes it's like Germany in the 30's. When the extremes of fascism and Communism started to take hold. We've two very diverse alternatives. In order of unattractiveness we have the governing party (just) representing the xenophobic right now incorporating the defunct UKIP representing the unapologetic racists (or as you politely put it 'nativists') .
Then we have the party of the big unions and organised labour wanting a return to the nationalisation and closed shops of the '70s represented by about half the Parliamentary Labour Party and most of its members.
Finally we have an assortment of centrist parties who though probably representing the views of most voters are now electorally irrelevant.
This is all the result of giving the country a secret ballot where they could choose the xenophobic option without showing their neigbours their true colours.
The first ballot where we've scratched the surface and shown what an unattractive country we really are.
I have not come across any suggestion that Labour wishes to bring back the closed shop!
I thought - I may be wrong - that Labour wanted to reverse all the Thatcher anti-union legislation.
I really don't think that getting rid of secret ballots or bringing back the closed shop is part of Labour's programme.
29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.
I suspect that if you look at Non-EU countries, particularly OECD ones, you would come up with a similar list of issues. Immigration is a major issue in USA, Canada, Australia and NZ, as well as a number of Middle Income countries.
It is an issue of globalisation, rather than one of the EU. Indeed in almost all of the countries mentioned, it is the Non-EU immigration that is the issue.
Global issues have an impact, but as far as I know the other countries you mention have full control of all immigration policy levers. Unlike them we had lost control of a significant proportion of ours. This was rejected in the referendum, and is why we cannot stay in the EEA.
It must be nice to live in a high-income, high-standard of living country like Australia or Canada where you can decide your trade and immigration policy.
There’s surely little doubt that were Labour led by a Blair, not only would the Conservatives not be polling in the forties but they wouldn’t even be in the thirties
A common myth.
People are sick of the Liberal Elite version of Politics IMO
Hence biggest increase in vote share in 60 yrs for the Messiah
A modern Blair would not be an early nineties Blair. He'd be eurosceptic and critical of globalisation, while seeking to reassure current Conservative voters that his economic policies would be moderate.
He probably would, but the real Blair is still stuck in a 2001-2003 timewarp.
There is undoubtedly polarisation amongst the parties which the by election did little to dispel but I am not sure Labour would have a vast lead under a Blair clone at the moment. If there is one thing western politics is now showing it is the rise of anti migration, nationalist and anti globalisation populism, I am not sure Labour being led by a pro migration, pro corporation, pro globalisation leader would exactly meet the current mood. Indeed it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 which played a key part in leading to the Brexit vote in the first place.
First past the post locks in negative votes. My guess is that the Tories are not polling where they are because all their supporters back the hostile immigration environment and the Tory right’s growing nativism. Instead, I suspect that quite a few Tory votes are inspired by a deep dislike and distrust of Jeremy Corbyn and the far left. In the same way, my guess is that a lot of Labour backers are not embracing socialism, but are very much opposed to a Conservative party doing all it can to keep ex-UKIP voters onside.
Yes it's like Germany in the 30's. When the extremes of fascism and Communism started to take hold. We've two very diverse alternatives. In order of unattractiveness we have the governing party (just) representing the xenophobic right now incorporating the defunct UKIP representing the unapologetic racists (or as you politely put it 'nativists') .
Then we have the party of the big unions and organised labour wanting a return to the nationalisation and closed shops of the '70s represented by about half the Parliamentary Labour Party and most of its members.
Finally we have an assortment of centrist parties who though probably representing the views of most voters are now electorally irrelevant.
This is all the result of giving the country a secret ballot where they could choose the xenophobic option without showing their neigbours their true colours.
The first ballot where we've scratched the surface and shown what an unattractive country we really are.
I have not come across any suggestion that Labour wishes to bring back the closed shop!
The row is serious and the CSU is partly driven by the upcoming elections in Bavaria, so can't risk losing too much face. Nonetheless, the idea of an actual CDU-CSU split is still being discussed very hypothetically, a bit like the talk of a new centre party in Britain. Nobody is really prepared for it and the Times, like all newspapers, likes to portray things as more immediate than they are. I think we'll see some fudge next week.
The tweet that we were debating last week which announced that the split was happening turns out to have been from a satirical periodical as a joke. The AfD deputy leader has attracted some derision for taking it up in the Bundestag:
It might be being discussed in hypothetical terms but it'd be far easier to accomplish than setting up a new centre party in Britain, given that all the pieces are already in place in Germany.
The trouble is that the market for "centrism" is much smaller than its advocates like to think.
By "centrism", they don't mean slap-bang in the centre of the political spectrum. They mean things like liberal on the global movement of goods, services, people and money, being moderately redistributive with taxation, within a reasonable fiscal framework, whilst being agnostic about national identity but fairly right-on when it comes to progressive causes.
Too many voters in Western countries are currently unconvinced that's working for them.
29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.
I suspect that if you look at Non-EU countries, particularly OECD ones, you would come up with a similar list of issues. Immigration is a major issue in USA, Canada, Australia and NZ, as well as a number of Middle Income countries.
It is an issue of globalisation, rather than one of the EU. Indeed in almost all of the countries mentioned, it is the Non-EU immigration that is the issue.
Global issues have an impact, but as far as I know the other countries you mention have full control of all immigration policy levers. Unlike them we had lost control of a significant proportion of ours. This was rejected in the referendum, and is why we cannot stay in the EEA.
But this is the paradox: I suspect that what really bothers people is immigration from outside the EU. (After all those posters did not focus on Italians coming to Britain.)
But we have had control over that type of immigration. It was the fact that too many in our political class did not want to exercise those controls and when, belatedly, they did were ineffective at it, which led voters to pull the only lever left to them - by voting against FoM. That and Merkel’s stupid decision in 2015.
If in the period post 1997 - when immigration shot up - governments had done something effective about using all the controls they did have and kept immigration to more manageable levels and limited those coming from very different societies and cultures, then FoM would not have been turned into the bogeyman it has become. In truth FoM within the EU is on the whole a good thing. But only if the external borders are secure and only if countries don’t simultaneously open up their borders to all and sundry as Britain did post-1997.
The shooting up of immigration post 1997 was in large part a deliberate policy choice by the New Labour government.
They thought history would be on their side, and couldn't (or wouldn't) foresee any of the political problems it would cause for them down the line.
There is undoubtedly polarisation amongst the parties which the by election did little to dispel but I am not sure Labour would have a vast lead under a Blair clone at the moment. If there is one thing western politics is now showing it is the rise of anti migration, nationalist and anti globalisation populism, I am not sure Labour being led by a pro migration, pro corporation, pro globalisation leader would exactly meet the current mood. Indeed it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 which played a key part in leading to the Brexit vote in the first place.
First past the post locks in negative votes. My guess is that the Tories are not polling where they are because all their supporters back the hostile immigration environment and the Tory right’s growing nativism. Instead, I suspect that quite a few Tory votes are inspired by a deep dislike and distrust of Jeremy Corbyn and the far left. In the same way, my guess is that a lot of Labour backers are not embracing socialism, but are very much opposed to a Conservative party doing all it can to keep ex-UKIP voters onside.
Yes it's like Germany in the 30's. When the extremes of fascism and Communism started to take hold. We've two very diverse alternatives. In order of unattractiveness we have the governing party (just) representing the xenophobic right now incorporating the defunct UKIP representing the unapologetic racists (or as you politely put it 'nativists') .
Then we have the party of the big unions and organised labour wanting a return to the nationalisation and closed shops of the '70s represented by about half the Parliamentary Labour Party and most of its members.
Finally we have an assortment of centrist parties who though probably representing the views of most voters are now electorally irrelevant.
This is all the result of giving the country a secret ballot where they could choose the xenophobic option without showing their neigbours their true colours.
The first ballot where we've scratched the surface and shown what an unattractive country we really are.
I have not come across any suggestion that Labour wishes to bring back the closed shop!
I thought - I may be wrong - that Labour wanted to reverse all the Thatcher anti-union legislation.
I really don't think that getting rid of secret ballots or bringing back the closed shop is part of Labour's programme.
There is undoubtedly polarisation amongst the parties which the by election did little to dispel but I am not sure Labour would have a vast lead under a Blair clone at the moment. If there is one thing western politics is now showing it is the rise of anti migration, nationalist and anti globalisation populism, I am not sure Labour being led by a pro migration, pro corporation, pro globalisation leader would exactly meet the current mood. Indeed it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 which played a key part in leading to the Brexit vote in the first place.
First past the post locks in negative votes. My guess is that the Tories are not polling where they are because all their supporters back the hostile immigration environment and the Tory right’s growing nativism. Instead, I suspect that quite a few Tory votes are inspired by a deep dislike and distrust of Jeremy Corbyn and the far left. In the same way, my guess is that a lot of Labour backers are not embracing socialism, but are very much opposed to a Conservative party doing all it can to keep ex-UKIP voters onside.
Yes it's like Germany in the 30's. When the extremes of fascism and Communism started to take hold. We've two very diverse alternatives. In order of unattractiveness we have the governing party (just) representing the xenophobic right now incorporating the defunct UKIP representing the unapologetic racists (or as you politely put it 'nativists') .
Then we have the party of the big unions and organised labour wanting a return to the nationalisation and closed shops of the '70s represented by about half the Parliamentary Labour Party and most of its members.
Finally we have an assortment of centrist parties who though probably representing the views of most voters are now electorally irrelevant.
This is all the result of giving the country a secret ballot where they could choose the xenophobic option without showing their neigbours their true colours.
The first ballot where we've scratched the surface and shown what an unattractive country we really are.
Yes it's like Germany in the 30's. When the extremes of fascism and Communism started to take hold. We've two very diverse alternatives. In order of unattractiveness we have the governing party (just) representing the xenophobic right now incorporating the defunct UKIP representing the unapologetic racists (or as you politely put it 'nativists') .
Then we have the party of the big unions and organised labour wanting a return to the nationalisation and closed shops of the '70s represented by about half the Parliamentary Labour Party and most of its members.
Finally we have an assortment of centrist parties who though probably representing the views of most voters are now electorally irrelevant.
This is all the result of giving the country a secret ballot where they could choose the xenophobic option without showing their neigbours their true colours.
The first ballot where we've scratched the surface and shown what an unattractive country we really are.
I have not come across any suggestion that Labour wishes to bring back the closed shop!
I thought - I may be wrong - that Labour wanted to reverse all the Thatcher anti-union legislation.
I really don't think that getting rid of secret ballots or bringing back the closed shop is part of Labour's programme.
There were all sorts of stupid trojan horses in there that would have covered that. Particularly number 19, which would have killed off my own company as a private family owned SME that largely does consultancy work on large public-sector infrastructure projects:
"4. Repeal the Trade Union Act and roll out sectoral collective bargaining – because the most effective way to maintain good rights at work is collectively through a union."
"12. Enforce all workers’ rights to trade union representation at work – so that all workers can be supported when negotiating with their employer."
"19. Use public spending power to drive up standards, including only awarding public contracts to companies which recognise trade unions."
29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.
I suspect that if you look at Non-EU countries, particularly OECD ones, you would come up with a similar list of issues. Immigration is a major issue in USA, Canada, Australia and NZ, as well as a number of Middle Income countries.
It is an issue of globalisation, rather than one of the EU. Indeed in almost all of the countries mentioned, it is the Non-EU immigration that is the issue.
Global issues have an impact, but as far as I know the other countries you mention have full control of all immigration policy levers. Unlike them we had lost control of a significant proportion of ours. This was rejected in the referendum, and is why we cannot stay in the EEA.
But this is the paradox: I suspect that what really bothers people is immigration from outside the EU. (After all those posters did not focus on Italians coming to Britain.)
But we have had control over that type of immigration. It was the fact that too many in our political class did not want to exercise those controls and when, belatedly, they did were ineffective at it, which led voters to pull the only lever left to them - by voting against FoM. That and Merkel’s stupid decision in 2015.
If in the period post 1997 - when immigration shot up - governments had done something effective about using all the controls they did have and kept immigration to more manageable levels and limited those coming from very different societies and cultures, then FoM would not have been turned into the bogeyman it has become. In truth FoM within the EU is on the whole a good thing. But only if the external borders are secure and only if countries don’t simultaneously open up their borders to all and sundry as Britain did post-1997.
Hungary and Croatia did the rest of the EU a huge favour when they put up the border fences. Italy are doing a similar favour, now.
It's astonishing at how Italy have been abused as the taxi rank for migration into the EU.
I'm surprised they put up with it for so long. And it explains why their voters won't be displeased with the new Government, just as they aren't with those in Hungary and Croatia.
29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.
I suspect that if you look at Non-EU countries, particularly OECD ones, you would come up with a similar list of issues. Immigration is a major issue in USA, Canada, Australia and NZ, as well as a number of Middle Income countries.
It is an issue of globalisation, rather than one of the EU. Indeed in almost all of the countries mentioned, it is the Non-EU immigration that is the issue.
Global issues have an impact, but as far as I know the other countries you mention have full control of all immigration policy levers. Unlike them we had lost control of a significant proportion of ours. This was rejected in the referendum, and is why we cannot stay in the EEA.
But this is the paradox: I suspect that what really bothers people is immigration from outside the EU. (After all those posters did not focus on Italians coming to Britain.)
But we have had control over that type of immigration. It was the fact that too many in our political class did not want to exercise those controls and when, belatedly, they did were ineffective at it, which led voters to pull the only lever left to them - by voting against FoM. That and Merkel’s stupid decision in 2015.
If in the period post 1997 - when immigration shot up - governments had done something effective about using all the controls they did have and kept immigration to more manageable levels and limited those coming from very different societies and cultures, then FoM would not have been turned into the bogeyman it has become. In truth FoM within the EU is on the whole a good thing. But only if the external borders are secure and only if countries don’t simultaneously open up their borders to all and sundry as Britain did post-1997.
The shooting up of immigration post 1997 was in large part a deliberate policy choice by the New Labour government.
They thought history would be on their side, and couldn't (or wouldn't) foresee any of the political problems it would cause for them down the line.
It's striking how often people who think that history is on their side lose.
On topic, with a leader like Cherie Blair or Emily Thornberry, I think the Conservatives would be polling around 35%. There are enough voters who disagree with their politics to form a solid block in opposition.
It isn't the 1990s anymore. I could only see the Conservatives polling in the 20s under May to a Labour comfortably in the 40s under a (new) New Labour leader if he/she was so eurosceptic and tough on immigration, and much better in leading a strategy on the EU negotiations, whilst also having answers to increasing public spending sustainably at home, supporting families, and increasing home ownership to attract younger voters, and the soft-Left, without scaring the horses.
29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.
I suspect that if you look at Non-EU countries, particularly OECD ones, you would come up with a similar list of issues. Immigration is a major issue in USA, Canada, Australia and NZ, as well as a number of Middle Income countries.
It is an issue of globalisation, rather than one of the EU. Indeed in almost all of the countries mentioned, it is the Non-EU immigration that is the issue.
Global issues have an impact, but as far as I know the other countries you mention have full control of all immigration policy levers. Unlike them we had lost control of a significant proportion of ours. This was rejected in the referendum, and is why we cannot stay in the EEA.
But this is the paradox: I suspect that what really bothers people is immigration from outside the EU. (After all those posters did not focus on Italians coming to Britain.)
But we have had control over that type of immigration. It was the fact that too many in our political class did not want to exercise those controls and when, belatedly, they did were ineffective at it, which led voters to pull the only lever left to them - by voting against FoM. That and Merkel’s stupid decision in 2015.
If in the period post 1997 - when immigration shot up - governments had done something effective about using all the controls they did have and kept immigration to more manageable levels and limited those coming from very different societies and cultures, then FoM would not have been turned into the bogeyman it has become. In truth FoM within the EU is on the whole a good thing. But only if the external borders are secure and only if countries don’t simultaneously open up their borders to all and sundry as Britain did post-1997.
The shooting up of immigration post 1997 was in large part a deliberate policy choice by the New Labour government.
They thought history would be on their side, and couldn't (or wouldn't) foresee any of the political problems it would cause for them down the line.
It's striking how often people who think that history is on their side lose.
It is. And that's a reason I'm trying to be careful not to exhibit hubris over Brexit.
Not really good news: it's an unsustainable bubble. They're going to build a new factory (as Hitachi have), for one order. They'll then (as Hitachi have) build some of the ones planned for construction in the UK abroad (1). The IEP project has been a disaster.
Building a new factory for one order is crazy, and the UK market isn't big enough long-term to sustain many factories: we tend to have orders come in large chunks, and then few for years. Add in the DfT's stupidity in procuring heavy-rail trains (something they want to do more of, sadly), then it'll all be an almighty cock-up.
It's also a real kick in the teeth for Derby, who have just suffered the news of thousands of jobs going at Rolls Royce in the city.
Real 'joined up' government would stagger things so there were regular orders coming through for one or two competitive sites. Instead we just have a massive mess and winner-takes-all on trains the operators don't want.
(1): "The fleet was to have been largely assembled at Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe facility, but delays to the Class 385 delivery meant production was switched to Pistoia in Italy, and Kasado"
29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.
I suspect that if you look at Non-EU countries, particularly OECD ones, you would come up with a similar list of issues. Immigration is a major issue in USA, Canada, Australia and NZ, as well as a number of Middle Income countries.
It is an issue of globalisation, rather than one of the EU. Indeed in almost all of the countries mentioned, it is the Non-EU immigration that is the issue.
Global issues have an impact, but as far as I know the other countries you mention have full control of all immigration policy levers. Unlike them we had lost control of a significant proportion of ours. This was rejected in the referendum, and is why we cannot stay in the EEA.
But this is the paradox: I suspect that what really bothers people is immigration from outside the EU. (After all those posters did not focus on Italians coming to Britain.)
But we have had control over that type of immigration. It was the fact that too many in our political class did not want to exercise those controls and when, belatedly, they did were ineffective at it, which led voters to pull the only lever left to them - by voting against FoM. That and Merkel’s stupid decision in 2015.
If in the period post 1997 - when immigration shot up - governments had done something effective about using all the controls they did have and kept immigration to more manageable levels and limited those coming from very different societies and cultures, then FoM would not have been turned into the bogeyman it has become. In truth FoM within the EU is on the whole a good thing. But only if the external borders are secure and only if countries don’t simultaneously open up their borders to all and sundry as Britain did post-1997.
The shooting up of immigration post 1997 was in large part a deliberate policy choice by the New Labour government.
They thought history would be on their side, and couldn't (or wouldn't) foresee any of the political problems it would cause for them down the line.
More precisely, to "rub the Right's nose in diversity" - Andrew Neather
On topic, with a leader like Cherie Blair or Emily Thornberry, I think the Conservatives would be polling around 35%. There are enough voters who disagree with their politics to form a solid block in opposition.
It isn't the 1990s anymore. I could only see the Conservatives polling in the 20s under May to a Labour comfortably in the 40s under a (new) New Labour leader if he/she was so eurosceptic and tough on immigration, and much better in leading a strategy on the EU negotiations, whilst also having answers to increasing public spending sustainably at home, supporting families, and increasing home ownership to attract younger voters, and the soft-Left, without scaring the horses.
Only 20 percent strongly disapprove of EU membership.
The row is serious and the CSU is partly driven by the upcoming elections in Bavaria, so can't risk losing too much face. Nonetheless, the idea of an actual CDU-CSU split is still being discussed very hypothetically, a bit like the talk of a new centre party in Britain. Nobody is really prepared for it and the Times, like all newspapers, likes to portray things as more immediate than they are. I think we'll see some fudge next week.
The tweet that we were debating last week which announced that the split was happening turns out to have been from a satirical periodical as a joke. The AfD deputy leader has attracted some derision for taking it up in the Bundestag:
It might be being discussed in hypothetical terms but it'd be far easier to accomplish than setting up a new centre party in Britain, given that all the pieces are already in place in Germany.
The trouble is that the market for "centrism" is much smaller than its advocates like to think.
By "centrism", they don't mean slap-bang in the centre of the political spectrum. They mean things like liberal on the global movement of goods, services, people and money, being moderately redistributive with taxation, within a reasonable fiscal framework, whilst being agnostic about national identity but fairly right-on when it comes to progressive causes.
Too many voters in Western countries are currently unconvinced that's working for them.
Yes, but I actually meant centrist (I may have made a tactical error in using Blair as an example but I was meaning his 1994-97 incarnation rather than his odd Euro-neoconservatism these days). I meant someone pragmatic and not too ideological in any direction. They'd obviously also need to appear trustworthy and, for the sake of this point, charismatic.
29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.
I suspect that if you look at Non-EU countries, particularly OECD ones, you would come up with a similar list of issues. Immigration is a major issue in USA, Canada, Australia and NZ, as well as a number of Middle Income countries.
It is an issue of globalisation, rather than one of the EU. Indeed in almost all of the countries mentioned, it is the Non-EU immigration that is the issue.
Global issues have an impact, but as far as I know the other countries you mention have full control of all immigration policy levers. Unlike them we had lost control of a significant proportion of ours. This was rejected in the referendum, and is why we cannot stay in the EEA.
But this is the paradox: I suspect that what really bothers people is immigration from outside the EU. (After all those posters did not focus on Italians coming to Britain.)
But we have had control over that type of immigration. It was the fact that too many in our political class did not want to exercise those controls and when, belatedly, they did were ineffective at it, which led voters to pull the only lever left to them - by voting against FoM. That and Merkel’s stupid decision in 2015.
If in the period post 1997 - when immigration shot up - governments had done something effective about using all the controls they did have and kept immigration to more manageable levels and limited those coming from very different societies and cultures, then FoM would not have been turned into the bogeyman it has become. In truth FoM within the EU is on the whole a good thing. But only if the external borders are secure and only if countries don’t simultaneously open up their borders to all and sundry as Britain did post-1997.
The shooting up of immigration post 1997 was in large part a deliberate policy choice by the New Labour government.
They thought history would be on their side, and couldn't (or wouldn't) foresee any of the political problems it would cause for them down the line.
It's striking how often people who think that history is on their side lose.
1. Nearly everyone thinks that history is on their side; 2. History provides far more losers than winners (in narrow terms; in broad terms, the world is a lot better off than it was 50 or 100 years ago), unless you're a fish.
Yes it's like Germany in the 30's. When the extremes of fascism and Communism started to take hold. We've two very diverse alternatives. In order of unattractiveness we have the governing party (just) representing the xenophobic right now incorporating the defunct UKIP representing the unapologetic racists (or as you politely put it 'nativists') .
Then we have the party of the big unions and organised labour wanting a return to the nationalisation and closed shops of the '70s represented by about half the Parliamentary Labour Party and most of its members.
Finally we have an assortment of centrist parties who though probably representing the views of most voters are now electorally irrelevant.
This is all the result of giving the country a secret ballot where they could choose the xenophobic option without showing their neigbours their true colours.
The first ballot where we've scratched the surface and shown what an unattractive country we really are.
I have not come across any suggestion that Labour wishes to bring back the closed shop!
I thought - I may be wrong - that Labour wanted to reverse all the Thatcher anti-union legislation.
I really don't think that getting rid of secret ballots or bringing back the closed shop is part of Labour's programme.
There were all sorts of stupid trojan horses in there that would have covered that. Particularly number 19, which would have killed off my own company as a private family owned SME that largely does consultancy work on large public-sector infrastructure projects:
"4. Repeal the Trade Union Act and roll out sectoral collective bargaining – because the most effective way to maintain good rights at work is collectively through a union."
"12. Enforce all workers’ rights to trade union representation at work – so that all workers can be supported when negotiating with their employer."
"19. Use public spending power to drive up standards, including only awarding public contracts to companies which recognise trade unions."
Not the same though as making trade union membership compulsory in order to be employed.I cannot imagine that there would be serious attempts to take away the right 'not to join a trade union'. On the other hand, I could see support for legislation to ensure that non-union employees do not share the benefits gained by unions for those employees who are members.
Don’t like party lists, they reward those who suck up and show loyalty to the party rather than the electorate. Some sort of primary system would be useful in eliminating the safe seats, so for example it should be possible to vote for a Conservative in Christchurch withouout voting for Christopher Chope.
I really like the Danish system which allows parties to have "parallel lists" - you can choose any of a dozen people on the list, or you can just vote for the party. The total votes for names on the list (plus people who chose to just vote for the list without specifying one candidate) decide (by PR) how many seats the party gets, and then whichever candidates get most personal votes get those seats. So you could have a list of Tories from Anna Soubry to Jacob Rees-Mogg, and enable voters to simultaneously say "I like the Tories but I prefer Rees-Mogg to Soubry" (or vice versa). The system rewards parties providing a good range of different flavours.
Parties can if they wish opt to use generic party votes to benefit people at the top of the list - this is done by the big parties near power to make sure that their candidates for the Cabinet aren't bumped off by local favourites. But smaller parties generally go for the neutral parallel system and I think that gives voters the power to make a really nuanced choice.
Not really good news: it's an unsustainable bubble. They're going to build a new factory (as Hitachi have), for one order. They'll then (as Hitachi have) build some of the ones planned for construction in the UK abroad (1). The IEP project has been a disaster.
Building a new factory for one order is crazy, and the UK market isn't big enough long-term to sustain many factories: we tend to have orders come in large chunks, and then few for years. Add in the DfT's stupidity in procuring heavy-rail trains (something they want to do more of, sadly), then it'll all be an almighty cock-up.
It's also a real kick in the teeth for Derby, who have just suffered the news of thousands of jobs going at Rolls Royce in the city.
Real 'joined up' government would stagger things so there were regular orders coming through for one or two competitive sites. Instead we just have a massive mess and winner-takes-all on trains the operators don't want.
(1): "The fleet was to have been largely assembled at Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe facility, but delays to the Class 385 delivery meant production was switched to Pistoia in Italy, and Kasado"
Don’t like party lists, they reward those who suck up and show loyalty to the party rather than the electorate. Some sort of primary system would be useful in eliminating the safe seats, so for example it should be possible to vote for a Conservative in Christchurch withouout voting for Christopher Chope.
I really like the Danish system which allows parties to have "parallel lists" - you can choose any of a dozen people on the list, or you can just vote for the party. The total votes for names on the list (plus people who chose to just vote for the list without specifying one candidate) decide (by PR) how many seats the party gets, and then whichever candidates get most personal votes get those seats. So you could have a list of Tories from Anna Soubry to Jacob Rees-Mogg, and simultaneously say "I like the Tories but I prefer Rees-Mogg to Soubry" (or vice versa). The system rewards parties providing a good range of different flavours.
Parties can if they wish opt to use generic party votes to benefit people at the top of the list - this is done by the big parties near power to make sure that their candidates for the Cabinet aren't bumped off by local favourites. But smaller parties generally go for the neutral parallel system and I think that gives voters the power to make a really nuanced choice.
That's similar to my Open List Plus.
- Give people the option to vote for either a party or an individual on a party's list.
- Add all the votes for each party and their candidates and split the allocation by d'Hondt.
- Order the individuals elected by their personal scores within their party list.
It's simple, only requires an individual to cast one vote, and gives them the chance to opt out of picking a candidate (or more than one), which many will not feel they have the information to.
On topic, with a leader like Cherie Blair or Emily Thornberry, I think the Conservatives would be polling around 35%. There are enough voters who disagree with their politics to form a solid block in opposition.
It isn't the 1990s anymore. I could only see the Conservatives polling in the 20s under May to a Labour comfortably in the 40s under a (new) New Labour leader if he/she was so eurosceptic and tough on immigration, and much better in leading a strategy on the EU negotiations, whilst also having answers to increasing public spending sustainably at home, supporting families, and increasing home ownership to attract younger voters, and the soft-Left, without scaring the horses.
An establishment Labour leader would not have the vote attracting policies on student debt and housing that Corbyn Labour has had.
29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.
I suspect that if you look at Non-EU countries, particularly OECD ones, you would come up with a similar list of issues. Immigration is a major issue in USA, Canada, Australia and NZ, as well as a number of Middle Income countries.
It is an issue of globalisation, rather than one of the EU. Indeed in almost all of the countries mentioned, it is the Non-EU immigration that is the issue.
Global issues have an impact, but as far as I know the other countries you mention have full control of all immigration policy levers. Unlike them we had lost control of a significant proportion of ours. This was rejected in the referendum, and is why we cannot stay in the EEA.
But this is the paradox: I suspect that what really bothers people is immigration from outside the EU. (After all those posters did not focus on Italians coming to Britain.)
But we have had control over that type of immigration. It was the fact that too many in our political class did not want to exercise those controls and when, belatedly, they did were ineffective at it, which led voters to pull the only lever left to them - by voting against FoM. That and Merkel’s stupid decision in 2015.
If in the period post 1997 - when immigration shot up - governments had done something effective about using all the controls they did have and kept immigration to more manageable levels and limited those coming from very different societies and cultures, then FoM would not have been turned into the bogeyman it has become. In truth FoM within the EU is on the whole a good thing. But only if the external borders are secure and only if countries don’t simultaneously open up their borders to all and sundry as Britain did post-1997.
The shooting up of immigration post 1997 was in large part a deliberate policy choice by the New Labour government.
They thought history would be on their side, and couldn't (or wouldn't) foresee any of the political problems it would cause for them down the line.
It's striking how often people who think that history is on their side lose.
1. Nearly everyone thinks that history is on their side; 2. History provides far more losers than winners (in narrow terms; in broad terms, the world is a lot better off than it was 50 or 100 years ago), unless you're a fish.
Are the brackets in the wrong place, or do you honestly think there are far more winners than losers among fish?
Miss Cyclefree, cheers for that answer (was AFK for a bit).
Mr. Royale, sometimes there are. The Normans disappeared through integration, the Pechenegs to extermination. But mostly I agree.
Edited extra bit: yeah, discovered that after posting, but a slightly understandable error (excepting that I should've spotted the flag, see it when the Hungaroring's hosting F1).
On topic, with a leader like Cherie Blair or Emily Thornberry, I think the Conservatives would be polling around 35%. There are enough voters who disagree with their politics to form a solid block in opposition.
My inner Grammar Nazi is not enjoying this morning.
That said, I did have a very surreal vision of Cherie Blair addressing the 1922 Committee which went some way to compensate...
Hell, looks like a good chance the the Mackintosh may be a complete goner this time. Written in the heat of the moment, so hopefully over pessimistic.
'Lost Glasgow
Having tried, and failed, to get near the site, the latest, tragic word, comes from site fan John Pollock, who writes: "I’ve just left and the floors inside are falling and the buildings going in on itself.
"I can guarantee that it’s the end for the building. Even the fire brigade were saying they’re not saving the building - now it’s a case of damage limitation to the surrounding buildings"
I am weeping here...
And, for all you amateur 'fire investigators', already claiming it's an 'insurance job'; shame on you - men and women are still risking their lives...'
There is undoubtedly polarisation amongst the parties which the by election did little to dispel but I am not sure Labour would have a vast lead under a Blair clone at the moment. If there is one thing western politics is now showing it is the rise of anti migration, nationalist and anti globalisation populism, I am not sure Labour being led by a pro migration, pro corporation, pro globalisation leader would exactly meet the current mood. Indeed it was Blair's failure to impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 which played a key part in leading to the Brexit vote in the first place.
First past the post locks in negative votes. My guess is that the Tories are not polling where they are because all their supporters back the hostile immigration environment and the Tory right’s growing nativism. Instead, I suspect that quite a few Tory votes are inspired by a deep dislike and distrust of Jeremy Corbyn and the far left. In the same way, my guess is that a lot of Labour backers are not embracing socialism, but are very much opposed to a Conservative party doing all it can to keep ex-UKIP voters onside.
Yes it's like Germany in the 30's. When the extremes of fascism and Communism started to take hold. We've two very diverse alternatives. In order of unattractiveness we have the governing party (just) representing the xenophobic right now incorporating the defunct UKIP representing the unapologetic racists (or as you politely put it 'nativists') .
Then we have the party of the big unions and organised labour wanting a return to the nationalisation and closed shops of the '70s represented by about half the Parliamentary Labour Party and most of its members.
Finally we have an assortment of centrist parties who though probably representing the views of most voters are now electorally irrelevant.
This is all the result of giving the country a secret ballot where they could choose the xenophobic option without showing their neigbours their true colours.
The first ballot where we've scratched the surface and shown what an unattractive country we really are.
I have not come across any suggestion that Labour wishes to bring back the closed shop!
Tories are in favour of the closed shop.
Poundworld to M&S
Just wait until Supreme Leader gets into power and increases the minimum wage further...
Hell, looks like a good chance the the Mackintosh may be a complete goner this time. Written in the heat of the moment, so hopefully over pessimistic.
'Lost Glasgow
Having tried, and failed, to get near the site, the latest, tragic word, comes from site fan John Pollock, who writes: "I’ve just left and the floors inside are falling and the buildings going in on itself.
"I can guarantee that it’s the end for the building. Even the fire brigade were saying they’re not saving the building - now it’s a case of damage limitation to the surrounding buildings"
I am weeping here...
And, for all you amateur 'fire investigators', already claiming it's an 'insurance job'; shame on you - men and women are still risking their lives...'
Not really good news: it's an unsustainable bubble. They're going to build a new factory (as Hitachi have), for one order. They'll then (as Hitachi have) build some of the ones planned for construction in the UK abroad (1). The IEP project has been a disaster.
Building a new factory for one order is crazy, and the UK market isn't big enough long-term to sustain many factories: we tend to have orders come in large chunks, and then few for years. Add in the DfT's stupidity in procuring heavy-rail trains (something they want to do more of, sadly), then it'll all be an almighty cock-up.
It's also a real kick in the teeth for Derby, who have just suffered the news of thousands of jobs going at Rolls Royce in the city.
Real 'joined up' government would stagger things so there were regular orders coming through for one or two competitive sites. Instead we just have a massive mess and winner-takes-all on trains the operators don't want.
(1): "The fleet was to have been largely assembled at Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe facility, but delays to the Class 385 delivery meant production was switched to Pistoia in Italy, and Kasado"
They have the opportunities to win orders from other countries.
They have the opportunity to win the order, build most of them abroad to keep their other factories afloat, and then close the UK factory once the order is complete.
It will be interesting to see if that is what happens up at Newton Aycliffe once the IEP work finishes.
BTW, people should look at the problems Hitachi have had with their Class385 trains for Scotland, which will enter service at least nine months late due to software problems and a rather unfortunate oversight (literally) with the windscreens that mean the drivers see two or three images of signals ...
Hell, looks like a good chance the the Mackintosh may be a complete goner this time. Written in the heat of the moment, so hopefully over pessimistic.
'Lost Glasgow
Having tried, and failed, to get near the site, the latest, tragic word, comes from site fan John Pollock, who writes: "I’ve just left and the floors inside are falling and the buildings going in on itself.
"I can guarantee that it’s the end for the building. Even the fire brigade were saying they’re not saving the building - now it’s a case of damage limitation to the surrounding buildings"
I am weeping here...
And, for all you amateur 'fire investigators', already claiming it's an 'insurance job'; shame on you - men and women are still risking their lives...'
Awful news.
From the piccies, I fear even the facade will be able to be saved after this.
Still, at least no-one's lost their lives. Buildings can be rebuilt.
Hell, looks like a good chance the the Mackintosh may be a complete goner this time. Written in the heat of the moment, so hopefully over pessimistic.
'Lost Glasgow
Having tried, and failed, to get near the site, the latest, tragic word, comes from site fan John Pollock, who writes: "I’ve just left and the floors inside are falling and the buildings going in on itself.
"I can guarantee that it’s the end for the building. Even the fire brigade were saying they’re not saving the building - now it’s a case of damage limitation to the surrounding buildings"
I am weeping here...
And, for all you amateur 'fire investigators', already claiming it's an 'insurance job'; shame on you - men and women are still risking their lives...'
Rather busy in here this lunchtime, how come we aren't all at Labour Live to see the Supreme Leader speak?
I am there in spirit, comrade. I am holding up a red piece of Duplo as I sing the #Red Rag#.
We will be victorious! The only reason the event isn't full to the gunnels is that most of our billions of supporters are out on the streets, knocking outup more supporters!
29% of Britons are concerned about it. Only Hungary, Spain and Portugal have lower numbers.
HR is Croatia.
The second top issue is terrorism in most countries. Bar possibly Ireland isn't there some potential correlation there with immigration too in terms of attitudes?
When you add those two issues together it dwarfs the numbers for everything else even the economy by huge margins.
I suspect that if you look at Non-EU countries, particularly OECD ones, you would come up with a similar list of issues. Immigration is a major issue in USA, Canada, Australia and NZ, as well as a number of Middle Income countries.
It is an issue of globalisation, rather than one of the EU. Indeed in almost all of the countries mentioned, it is the Non-EU immigration that is the issue.
Global issues have an impact, but as far as I know the other countries you mention have full control of all immigration policy levers. Unlike them we had lost control of a significant proportion of ours. This was rejected in the referendum, and is why we cannot stay in the EEA.
But this is the paradox: I suspect that what really bothers people is immigration from outside the EU. (After all those posters did not focus on Italians coming to Britain.)
But we have had control over that type of immigration. It was the fact that too many in our political class did not want to exercise those controls and when, belatedly, they did were ineffective at it, which led voters to pull the only lever left to them - by voting against FoM. That and Merkel’s stupid decision in 2015.
If in the period post 1997 - when immigration shot up - governments had done something effective about using all the controls they did have and kept immigration to more manageable levels and limited those coming from very different societies and cultures, then FoM would not have been turned into the bogeyman it has become. In truth FoM within the EU is on the whole a good thing. But only if the external borders are secure and only if countries don’t simultaneously open up their borders to all and sundry as Britain did post-1997.
The shooting up of immigration post 1997 was in large part a deliberate policy choice by the New Labour government.
They thought history would be on their side, and couldn't (or wouldn't) foresee any of the political problems it would cause for them down the line.
It's striking how often people who think that history is on their side lose.
1. Nearly everyone thinks that history is on their side; 2. History provides far more losers than winners (in narrow terms; in broad terms, the world is a lot better off than it was 50 or 100 years ago), unless you're a fish.
Are the brackets in the wrong place, or do you honestly think there are far more winners than losers among fish?
Not really good news: it's an unsustainable bubble. They're going to build a new factory (as Hitachi have), for one order. They'll then (as Hitachi have) build some of the ones planned for construction in the UK abroad (1). The IEP project has been a disaster.
Building a new factory for one order is crazy, and the UK market isn't big enough long-term to sustain many factories: we tend to have orders come in large chunks, and then few for years. Add in the DfT's stupidity in procuring heavy-rail trains (something they want to do more of, sadly), then it'll all be an almighty cock-up.
It's also a real kick in the teeth for Derby, who have just suffered the news of thousands of jobs going at Rolls Royce in the city.
Real 'joined up' government would stagger things so there were regular orders coming through for one or two competitive sites. Instead we just have a massive mess and winner-takes-all on trains the operators don't want.
(1): "The fleet was to have been largely assembled at Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe facility, but delays to the Class 385 delivery meant production was switched to Pistoia in Italy, and Kasado"
They have the opportunities to win orders from other countries.
They have the opportunity to win the order, build most of them abroad to keep their other factories afloat, and then close the UK factory once the order is complete.
It will be interesting to see if that is what happens up at Newton Aycliffe once the IEP work finishes.
BTW, people should look at the problems Hitachi have had with their Class385 trains for Scotland, which will enter service at least nine months late due to software problems and a rather unfortunate oversight (literally) with the windscreens that mean the drivers see two or three images of signals ...
Don’t like party lists, they reward those who suck up and show loyalty to the party rather than the electorate. Some sort of primary system would be useful in eliminating the safe seats, so for example it should be possible to vote for a Conservative in Christchurch withouout voting for Christopher Chope.
I really like the Danish system which allows parties to have "parallel lists" - you can choose any of a dozen people on the list, or you can just vote for the party. The total votes for names on the list (plus people who chose to just vote for the list without specifying one candidate) decide (by PR) how many seats the party gets, and then whichever candidates get most personal votes get those seats. So you could have a list of Tories from Anna Soubry to Jacob Rees-Mogg, and enable voters to simultaneously say "I like the Tories but I prefer Rees-Mogg to Soubry" (or vice versa). The system rewards parties providing a good range of different flavours.
Parties can if they wish opt to use generic party votes to benefit people at the top of the list - this is done by the big parties near power to make sure that their candidates for the Cabinet aren't bumped off by local favourites. But smaller parties generally go for the neutral parallel system and I think that gives voters the power to make a really nuanced choice.
Hell, looks like a good chance the the Mackintosh may be a complete goner this time. Written in the heat of the moment, so hopefully over pessimistic.
'Lost Glasgow
Having tried, and failed, to get near the site, the latest, tragic word, comes from site fan John Pollock, who writes: "I’ve just left and the floors inside are falling and the buildings going in on itself.
"I can guarantee that it’s the end for the building. Even the fire brigade were saying they’re not saving the building - now it’s a case of damage limitation to the surrounding buildings"
I am weeping here...
And, for all you amateur 'fire investigators', already claiming it's an 'insurance job'; shame on you - men and women are still risking their lives...'
From all the aerial photographs I've seen, I don't think Pollock is being pessimistic. It looks awful. The entire roof has gone, the building will be a shell at best and the heat will surely have done significant and probably irreversible damage to the structure. Without joining the armchair investigators and shrieking 'arson' (apart from anything else I doubt if it was heavily insured) I will admit I am curious as to what has caused it.
Not really good news: it's an unsustainable bubble. They're going to build a new factory (as Hitachi have), for one order. They'll then (as Hitachi have) build some of the ones planned for construction in the UK abroad (1). The IEP project has been a disaster.
Building a new factory for one order is crazy, and the UK market isn't big enough long-term to sustain many factories: we tend to have orders come in large chunks, and then few for years. Add in the DfT's stupidity in procuring heavy-rail trains (something they want to do more of, sadly), then it'll all be an almighty cock-up.
It's also a real kick in the teeth for Derby, who have just suffered the news of thousands of jobs going at Rolls Royce in the city.
Real 'joined up' government would stagger things so there were regular orders coming through for one or two competitive sites. Instead we just have a massive mess and winner-takes-all on trains the operators don't want.
(1): "The fleet was to have been largely assembled at Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe facility, but delays to the Class 385 delivery meant production was switched to Pistoia in Italy, and Kasado"
They have the opportunities to win orders from other countries.
They have the opportunity to win the order, build most of them abroad to keep their other factories afloat, and then close the UK factory once the order is complete.
It will be interesting to see if that is what happens up at Newton Aycliffe once the IEP work finishes.
BTW, people should look at the problems Hitachi have had with their Class385 trains for Scotland, which will enter service at least nine months late due to software problems and a rather unfortunate oversight (literally) with the windscreens that mean the drivers see two or three images of signals ...
Alternatively all the order might be built in this country and the factory win other orders from overseas afterwards.
Firstly, it is 'assembled' rather than built (although international supply chains makes this an interesting point). Secondly, the experience of Hitachi and the IEP indicates that this won't be the case.
1. Nearly everyone thinks that history is on their side; 2. History provides far more losers than winners (in narrow terms; in broad terms, the world is a lot better off than it was 50 or 100 years ago), unless you're a fish.
Are the brackets in the wrong place, or do you honestly think there are far more winners than losers among fish?
They're in the wrong place.
If I were feeling malicious I would ask if that's a reference to the brackets or the fish...
Hell, looks like a good chance the the Mackintosh may be a complete goner this time. Written in the heat of the moment, so hopefully over pessimistic.
'Lost Glasgow
Having tried, and failed, to get near the site, the latest, tragic word, comes from site fan John Pollock, who writes: "I’ve just left and the floors inside are falling and the buildings going in on itself.
"I can guarantee that it’s the end for the building. Even the fire brigade were saying they’re not saving the building - now it’s a case of damage limitation to the surrounding buildings"
I am weeping here...
And, for all you amateur 'fire investigators', already claiming it's an 'insurance job'; shame on you - men and women are still risking their lives...'
From all the aerial photographs I've seen, I don't think Pollock is being pessimistic. It looks awful. The entire roof has gone, the building will be a shell at best and the heat will surely have done significant and probably irreversible damage to the structure. Without joining the armchair investigators and shrieking 'arson' (apart from anything else I doubt if it was heavily insured) I will admit I am curious as to what has caused it.
An electrical fault or carelessness from building contractors must be possibilities. Arson by some brainless moron inevitably can't be ruled out. A terrible loss for Glasgow and the nation.
Rather busy in here this lunchtime, how come we aren't all at Labour Live to see the Supreme Leader speak?
I am there in spirit, comrade. I am holding up a red piece of Duplo as I sing the #Red Rag#.
We will be victorious! The only reason the event isn't full to the gunnels is that most of our billions of supporters are out on the streets, knocking outup more supporters!
Hell, looks like a good chance the the Mackintosh may be a complete goner this time. Written in the heat of the moment, so hopefully over pessimistic.
'Lost Glasgow
Having tried, and failed, to get near the site, the latest, tragic word, comes from site fan John Pollock, who writes: "I’ve just left and the floors inside are falling and the buildings going in on itself.
"I can guarantee that it’s the end for the building. Even the fire brigade were saying they’re not saving the building - now it’s a case of damage limitation to the surrounding buildings"
I am weeping here...
And, for all you amateur 'fire investigators', already claiming it's an 'insurance job'; shame on you - men and women are still risking their lives...'
From all the aerial photographs I've seen, I don't think Pollock is being pessimistic. It looks awful. The entire roof has gone, the building will be a shell at best and the heat will surely have done significant and probably irreversible damage to the structure. Without joining the armchair investigators and shrieking 'arson' (apart from anything else I doubt if it was heavily insured) I will admit I am curious as to what has caused it.
An electrical fault or carelessness from building contractors must be possibilities. Arson by some brainless moron inevitably can't be ruled out. A terrible loss for Glasgow and the nation.
And not least, a very serious blow for the Unviersity of Glasgow, and above all for those students who have lost work as a result. I wonder how may final year students will have lost three years of work and the chance of pulling together a decent portfolio for September?
Hell, looks like a good chance the the Mackintosh may be a complete goner this time. Written in the heat of the moment, so hopefully over pessimistic.
'Lost Glasgow
Having tried, and failed, to get near the site, the latest, tragic word, comes from site fan John Pollock, who writes: "I’ve just left and the floors inside are falling and the buildings going in on itself.
"I can guarantee that it’s the end for the building. Even the fire brigade were saying they’re not saving the building - now it’s a case of damage limitation to the surrounding buildings"
I am weeping here...
And, for all you amateur 'fire investigators', already claiming it's an 'insurance job'; shame on you - men and women are still risking their lives...'
From all the aerial photographs I've seen, I don't think Pollock is being pessimistic. It looks awful. The entire roof has gone, the building will be a shell at best and the heat will surely have done significant and probably irreversible damage to the structure. Without joining the armchair investigators and shrieking 'arson' (apart from anything else I doubt if it was heavily insured) I will admit I am curious as to what has caused it.
Human error/incompetence always a safe bet.
As it happens a friend of mine was the lecturer for the class where the first fire started, plus I have several others who also teach and/or graduated there. Gutted isn't really adequate for the feelings they're expressing this morning.
Rather busy in here this lunchtime, how come we aren't all at Labour Live to see the Supreme Leader speak?
I am there in spirit, comrade. I am holding up a red piece of Duplo as I sing the #Red Rag#.
We will be victorious! The only reason the event isn't full to the gunnels is that most of our billions of supporters are out on the streets, knocking outup more supporters!
It is an issue of globalisation, rather than one of the EU. Indeed in almost all of the countries mentioned, it is the Non-EU immigration that is the issue.
Global issues have an impact, but as far as I know the other countries you mention have full control of all immigration policy levers. Unlike them we had lost control of a significant proportion of ours. This was rejected in the referendum, and is why we cannot stay in the EEA.
But this is the paradox: I suspect that what really bothers people is immigration from outside the EU. (After all those posters did not focus on Italians coming to Britain.)
But we have had control over that type of immigration. It was the fact that too many in our political class did not want to exercise those controls and when, belatedly, they did were ineffective at it, which led voters to pull the only lever left to them - by voting against FoM. That and Merkel’s stupid decision in 2015.
If in the period post 1997 - when immigration shot up - governments had done something effective about using all the controls they did have and kept immigration to more manageable levels and limited those coming from very different societies and cultures, then FoM would not have been turned into the bogeyman it has become. In truth FoM within the EU is on the whole a good thing. But only if the external borders are secure and only if countries don’t simultaneously open up their borders to all and sundry as Britain did post-1997.
The shooting up of immigration post 1997 was in large part a deliberate policy choice by the New Labour government.
They thought history would be on their side, and couldn't (or wouldn't) foresee any of the political problems it would cause for them down the line.
It's striking how often people who think that history is on their side lose.
1. Nearly everyone thinks that history is on their side; 2. History provides far more losers than winners (in narrow terms; in broad terms, the world is a lot better off than it was 50 or 100 years ago), unless you're a fish.
Are the brackets in the wrong place, or do you honestly think there are far more winners than losers among fish?
They're in the wrong place.
In evolutionary terms, of course, fish are the great survivors having come through the five major extinction events of the past 500m years, so they'll probably still be around long after humans.
Hell, looks like a good chance the the Mackintosh may be a complete goner this time. Written in the heat of the moment, so hopefully over pessimistic.
'Lost Glasgow
Having tried, and failed, to get near the site, the latest, tragic word, comes from site fan John Pollock, who writes: "I’ve just left and the floors inside are falling and the buildings going in on itself.
"I can guarantee that it’s the end for the building. Even the fire brigade were saying they’re not saving the building - now it’s a case of damage limitation to the surrounding buildings"
I am weeping here...
And, for all you amateur 'fire investigators', already claiming it's an 'insurance job'; shame on you - men and women are still risking their lives...'
From all the aerial photographs I've seen, I don't think Pollock is being pessimistic. It looks awful. The entire roof has gone, the building will be a shell at best and the heat will surely have done significant and probably irreversible damage to the structure. Without joining the armchair investigators and shrieking 'arson' (apart from anything else I doubt if it was heavily insured) I will admit I am curious as to what has caused it.
An electrical fault or carelessness from building contractors must be possibilities. Arson by some brainless moron inevitably can't be ruled out. A terrible loss for Glasgow and the nation.
And not least, a very serious blow for the Unviersity of Glasgow, and above all for those students who have lost work as a result. I wonder how may final year students will have lost three years of work and the chance of pulling together a decent portfolio for September?
That was certainly an issue the first time round but the building was empty of students during the renovation. I think they were intending to have the Mackintosh as mainly a museum with some non fine art teaching there, sadly irrelevant now.
Hell, looks like a good chance the the Mackintosh may be a complete goner this time. Written in the heat of the moment, so hopefully over pessimistic.
'Lost Glasgow
Having tried, and failed, to get near the site, the latest, tragic word, comes from site fan John Pollock, who writes: "I’ve just left and the floors inside are falling and the buildings going in on itself.
"I can guarantee that it’s the end for the building. Even the fire brigade were saying they’re not saving the building - now it’s a case of damage limitation to the surrounding buildings"
I am weeping here...
And, for all you amateur 'fire investigators', already claiming it's an 'insurance job'; shame on you - men and women are still risking their lives...'
From all the aerial photographs I've seen, I don't think Pollock is being pessimistic. It looks awful. The entire roof has gone, the building will be a shell at best and the heat will surely have done significant and probably irreversible damage to the structure. Without joining the armchair investigators and shrieking 'arson' (apart from anything else I doubt if it was heavily insured) I will admit I am curious as to what has caused it.
An electrical fault or carelessness from building contractors must be possibilities. Arson by some brainless moron inevitably can't be ruled out. A terrible loss for Glasgow and the nation.
And not least, a very serious blow for the Unviersity of Glasgow, and above all for those students who have lost work as a result. I wonder how may final year students will have lost three years of work and the chance of pulling together a decent portfolio for September?
That was certainly an issue the first time round but the building was empty of students during the renovation. I think they were intending to have the Mackintosh as mainly a museum with some non fine art teaching there, sadly irrelevant now.
Well, that's something. Art is not something that can be reassembled in five minutes and I'm relieved to hear no students are affected.
Hell, looks like a good chance the the Mackintosh may be a complete goner this time. Written in the heat of the moment, so hopefully over pessimistic.
'Lost Glasgow
Having tried, and failed, to get near the site, the latest, tragic word, comes from site fan John Pollock, who writes: "I’ve just left and the floors inside are falling and the buildings going in on itself.
"I can guarantee that it’s the end for the building. Even the fire brigade were saying they’re not saving the building - now it’s a case of damage limitation to the surrounding buildings"
I am weeping here...
And, for all you amateur 'fire investigators', already claiming it's an 'insurance job'; shame on you - men and women are still risking their lives...'
From all the aerial photographs I've seen, I don't think Pollock is being pessimistic. It looks awful. The entire roof has gone, the building will be a shell at best and the heat will surely have done significant and probably irreversible damage to the structure. Without joining the armchair investigators and shrieking 'arson' (apart from anything else I doubt if it was heavily insured) I will admit I am curious as to what has caused it.
An anecdote: when I was a youth I worked on a demo job on a factory site. This involved removing pipework above a culvert, after which an adjacent small bridge over the culvert was to be removed. The bridge rested on wooden bearers, and as it was a hot summer we kept the entire area doused with water from the culvert. To remove the pipework we had to cut the it with oxy-propane and lift it out with a JCB.
When we came back one morning, we found smoke rising up from one of the wooden bearers. It had smouldered all night without actually catching fire, and despite us having used water liberally over everything - evidently a spark had caught some of the rotten wood. As was routine for that site, we had to check the site last thing at night along with one of the factory reps. None of us had spotted anything amiss.
My lesson from this was that if you are using any cutting or welding gear on a job, it can be ages before a fire actually starts, and smouldering can be difficult to detect.
"I understand that some figures in Dublin toyed with the idea of tabling a proposal via the European Council that the Brexit negotiations be suspended until the British came forward with a credible text."
Hell, looks like a good chance the the Mackintosh may be a complete goner this time. Written in the heat of the moment, so hopefully over pessimistic.
'Lost Glasgow
Having tried, and failed, to get near the site, the latest, tragic word, comes from site fan John Pollock, who writes: "I’ve just left and the floors inside are falling and the buildings going in on itself.
"I can guarantee that it’s the end for the building. Even the fire brigade were saying they’re not saving the building - now it’s a case of damage limitation to the surrounding buildings"
I am weeping here...
And, for all you amateur 'fire investigators', already claiming it's an 'insurance job'; shame on you - men and women are still risking their lives...'
From all the aerial photographs I've seen, I don't think Pollock is being pessimistic. It looks awful. The entire roof has gone, the building will be a shell at best and the heat will surely have done significant and probably irreversible damage to the structure. Without joining the armchair investigators and shrieking 'arson' (apart from anything else I doubt if it was heavily insured) I will admit I am curious as to what has caused it.
Human error/incompetence always a safe bet.
As it happens a friend of mine was the lecturer for the class where the first fire started, plus I have several others who also teach and/or graduated there. Gutted isn't really adequate for the feelings they're expressing this morning.
My wife is near tears and cannot watch the media. Just an utter disaster for the arts and craft movement as I look at some pieces we have collected over the years in our home
Hell, looks like a good chance the the Mackintosh may be a complete goner this time. Written in the heat of the moment, so hopefully over pessimistic.
'Lost Glasgow
Having tried, and failed, to get near the site, the latest, tragic word, comes from site fan John Pollock, who writes: "I’ve just left and the floors inside are falling and the buildings going in on itself.
"I can guarantee that it’s the end for the building. Even the fire brigade were saying they’re not saving the building - now it’s a case of damage limitation to the surrounding buildings"
I am weeping here...
And, for all you amateur 'fire investigators', already claiming it's an 'insurance job'; shame on you - men and women are still risking their lives...'
From all the aerial photographs I've seen, I don't think Pollock is being pessimistic. It looks awful. The entire roof has gone, the building will be a shell at best and the heat will surely have done significant and probably irreversible damage to the structure. Without joining the armchair investigators and shrieking 'arson' (apart from anything else I doubt if it was heavily insured) I will admit I am curious as to what has caused it.
An anecdote: when I was a youth I worked on a demo job on a factory site. This involved removing pipework above a culvert, after which an adjacent small bridge over the culvert was to be removed. The bridge rested on wooden bearers, and as it was a hot summer we kept the entire area doused with water from the culvert. To remove the pipework we had to cut the it with oxy-propane and lift it out with a JCB.
When we came back one morning, we found smoke rising up from one of the wooden bearers. It had smouldered all night without actually catching fire, and despite us having used water liberally over everything - evidently a spark had caught some of the rotten wood. As was routine for that site, we had to check the site last thing at night along with one of the factory reps. None of us had spotted anything amiss.
My lesson from this was that if you are using any cutting or welding gear on a job, it can be ages before a fire actually starts, and smouldering can be difficult to detect.
I think the record was a farmhouse near Oswestry where a wooden beam supporting a chimney (so above a fireplace) suddenly started to smoke.
When the fire brigade doused it and removed it, they found the entire interior of the beam was ash. It had been burning for 300 years!
Didn't the Cutty Sark fire start in a similar fashion to the one you describe?
Is it possible the British government wishes to destroy the DUP? Give them enough rope to hang themselves with? I wonder if they realise how dangerous a position Northern Ireland is in? They must know that a hard border in Ireland would create real problems and at the same time sabotaging a decent Brexit (from the point of view of rUK) would hardly get them much sympathy. Reliant on public subsidies from Westminster and with a leader of the opposition vocal in his support of Irish republicanism you'd think they might be worried.
Alternatively all the order might be built in this country and the factory win other orders from overseas afterwards.
Firstly, it is 'assembled' rather than built (although international supply chains makes this an interesting point). Secondly, the experience of Hitachi and the IEP indicates that this won't be the case.
Of course its assembled, all factories use a mixture of components which come from other suppliers.
And your basis for the investment being a failure is a Hitachi factory which I believe is still operating and employing many hundreds of people and is smaller in any case.
Finally Siemens have already opened an even large factory about twenty miles from the proposed new one so they seem to be making a commitment to the area in various industrial sectors.
Is it possible the British government wishes to destroy the DUP? Give them enough rope to hang themselves with? I wonder if they realise how dangerous a position Northern Ireland is in? They must know that a hard border in Ireland would create real problems and at the same time sabotaging a decent Brexit (from the point of view of rUK) would hardly get them much sympathy. Reliant on public subsidies from Westminster and with a leader of the opposition vocal in his support of Irish republicanism you'd think they might be worried.
Ultimately if the UK has no deal with the EU the EU faces the following options;
1) A hard border in Ireland
2) Customs checks between Ireland and the EU
3) No border with Russia, the Ukraine or Turkey.
May seems to be gambling that those three options are so unpalatable that the EU will cave in and throw Ireland under a bus. That article, which makes it clear the EU is busily blaming Britain, or at least everyone but itself and its inept negotiating team for this shambles, suggests this is a remote possibility but gross miscalculation has been a feature of May's premiership.
Incidentally the article's suggestion that May saw the 'backstop' as a way to keep the UK in the Single Market but outside FOM and strict regulation is an intriguing one. As a gambit, it has a certain logic to it and would probably satisfy a majority of both Remainers and leavers. The minor detail that there was no chance the EU would interpret it that way needn't be a problem as the EU always twist everything their own way anyway.
The real reason it fails as an idea is that it requires May to be a brilliant, far sighted and ruthless intriguer with a talent for originality and a team as skilful as she is doing the hard yards.
If anyone believes that of her, please contact me through Vanilla Mail about this bridge I have for sale.
He absolutely nails May's strategy. She is going to play for time until October, fuck the RoI and then hope the other 26 tell Varadkar to bend over and take it out of fear of no deal.
Another fire at the Glasgow School of Art should have been almost impossible IMO. After the previous fire four years ago every precaution ought to have been in place to stop it happening again.
Mr. JS, there have been a few fires recently. There was also that hotel in London, and a recently refurbished Leeds nightclub has also gone up in flames.
Rather busy in here this lunchtime, how come we aren't all at Labour Live to see the Supreme Leader speak?
I wonder if some enterprising member can find a way of getting the accounts for the event made public? I’d quite like to know how much it cost them to pull in an A-List band at the last minute - even if they do have a single to promote this week.
Is it possible the British government wishes to destroy the DUP? Give them enough rope to hang themselves with? I wonder if they realise how dangerous a position Northern Ireland is in? They must know that a hard border in Ireland would create real problems and at the same time sabotaging a decent Brexit (from the point of view of rUK) would hardly get them much sympathy. Reliant on public subsidies from Westminster and with a leader of the opposition vocal in his support of Irish republicanism you'd think they might be worried.
Ultimately if the UK has no deal with the EU the EU faces the following options;
1) A hard border in Ireland
2) Customs checks between Ireland and the EU
3) No border with Russia, the Ukraine or Turkey.
May seems to be gambling that those three options are so unpalatable that the EU will cave in and throw Ireland under a bus. That article, which makes it clear the EU is busily blaming Britain, or at least everyone but itself and its inept negotiating team for this shambles, suggests this is a remote possibility but gross miscalculation has been a feature of May's premiership.
‘No Deal’ is a temporary crisis, not a sustainable endpoint. There would be no need for any hard decisions about hard borders in NI to protect the integrity of the single market, because the UK couldn’t hold out long enough for it to matter.
Another fire at the Glasgow School of Art should have been almost impossible IMO. After the previous fire four years ago every precaution ought to have been in place to stop it happening again.
AIUI they were rebuilding it after the previous fire. There would have been all sorts of things going on in there, some of it involving heat. Sadly, fires often start during construction for this reason, and especially as systems such as sprinklers are often amongst the last to go in.
AIUI they were rebuilding it after the previous fire. There would have been all sorts of things going on in there, some of it involving heat. Sadly, fires often start during construction for this reason, and especially as systems such as sprinklers are often amongst the last to go in.
He absolutely nails May's strategy. She is going to play for time until October, fuck the RoI and then hope the other 26 tell Varadkar to bend over and take it out of fear of no deal.
The contradictory EU concern that there isn’t a time limit for the backstop and that the backstop isn’t the end state is entirely illogical.
The obvious solution is a time limited UK wide backstop.
This sentence is very telling: ‘The concern is that a huge economy like the UK’s, sitting on the edge of the EU, but not fully bound by the rules and obligations of the single market, could significantly undercut the EU economy.’
Alternatively all the order might be built in this country and the factory win other orders from overseas afterwards.
Firstly, it is 'assembled' rather than built (although international supply chains makes this an interesting point). Secondly, the experience of Hitachi and the IEP indicates that this won't be the case.
Of course its assembled, all factories use a mixture of components which come from other suppliers.
And your basis for the investment being a failure is a Hitachi factory which I believe is still operating and employing many hundreds of people and is smaller in any case.
Finally Siemens have already opened an even large factory about twenty miles from the proposed new one so they seem to be making a commitment to the area in various industrial sectors.
There is 'assembly' and there is 'assembly'. The IEP trains assembled at Newton Aycliffe use bodyshells that are made in Japan using friction-stir welding (a UK invention, as it happens). Hitachi have not transferred this critical technology to the UK factory. The bogies and traction systems are also being made in Japan.
I'd argue that if the factory cannot make the bodyshells, bogies or traction kit, it is not really 'making' the trains; it is assembling them from major pieces, and lacks the critical infrastructure to operate in any way independently in design or construction. (And this is why Hitachi could easily shift orders meant to be built in the UK to other EU countries)
If Siemens make the bogies and bodyshells in the UK I'd be less sceptical. But I bet they won't (and will be pleasantly surprised if they do).
Comments
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-5850479/PETER-OBORNE-Corbyn-man-saves-Brexit.html
Poundworld to M&S
By "centrism", they don't mean slap-bang in the centre of the political spectrum. They mean things like liberal on the global movement of goods, services, people and money, being moderately redistributive with taxation, within a reasonable fiscal framework, whilst being agnostic about national identity but fairly right-on when it comes to progressive causes.
Too many voters in Western countries are currently unconvinced that's working for them.
Does that upset you ?
Perhaps you're also offended by the likes of Nissan and Toyota manufacturing in this country as well ?
They thought history would be on their side, and couldn't (or wouldn't) foresee any of the political problems it would cause for them down the line.
There were all sorts of stupid trojan horses in there that would have covered that. Particularly number 19, which would have killed off my own company as a private family owned SME that largely does consultancy work on large public-sector infrastructure projects:
"4. Repeal the Trade Union Act and roll out sectoral collective bargaining – because the most
effective way to maintain good rights at work is collectively through a union."
"12. Enforce all workers’ rights to trade union representation at work – so that all workers can be supported when negotiating with their employer."
"19. Use public spending power to drive up standards, including only awarding public contracts to companies which recognise trade unions."
I'm surprised they put up with it for so long. And it explains why their voters won't be displeased with the new Government, just as they aren't with those in Hungary and Croatia.
It isn't the 1990s anymore. I could only see the Conservatives polling in the 20s under May to a Labour comfortably in the 40s under a (new) New Labour leader if he/she was so eurosceptic and tough on immigration, and much better in leading a strategy on the EU negotiations, whilst also having answers to increasing public spending sustainably at home, supporting families, and increasing home ownership to attract younger voters, and the soft-Left, without scaring the horses.
There are no permanent victories in politics.
Building a new factory for one order is crazy, and the UK market isn't big enough long-term to sustain many factories: we tend to have orders come in large chunks, and then few for years. Add in the DfT's stupidity in procuring heavy-rail trains (something they want to do more of, sadly), then it'll all be an almighty cock-up.
It's also a real kick in the teeth for Derby, who have just suffered the news of thousands of jobs going at Rolls Royce in the city.
Real 'joined up' government would stagger things so there were regular orders coming through for one or two competitive sites. Instead we just have a massive mess and winner-takes-all on trains the operators don't want.
(1): "The fleet was to have been largely assembled at Hitachi’s Newton Aycliffe facility, but delays to the Class 385 delivery meant production was switched to Pistoia in Italy, and Kasado"
https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/first-hitachi-built-train-for-transpennine-express-arrives-in-uk
3-0 to France. Republic over Monarchy.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/hit82jf794/HandelsblattResults_June18_Topline_client_w.pdf
The question is how many different train manufacturers can the UK market sustain, especially with the DfT wanting standardisation of types?
2. History provides far more losers than winners (in narrow terms; in broad terms, the world is a lot better off than it was 50 or 100 years ago), unless you're a fish.
Parties can if they wish opt to use generic party votes to benefit people at the top of the list - this is done by the big parties near power to make sure that their candidates for the Cabinet aren't bumped off by local favourites. But smaller parties generally go for the neutral parallel system and I think that gives voters the power to make a really nuanced choice.
- Give people the option to vote for either a party or an individual on a party's list.
- Add all the votes for each party and their candidates and split the allocation by d'Hondt.
- Order the individuals elected by their personal scores within their party list.
It's simple, only requires an individual to cast one vote, and gives them the chance to opt out of picking a candidate (or more than one), which many will not feel they have the information to.
Mr. Royale, sometimes there are. The Normans disappeared through integration, the Pechenegs to extermination. But mostly I agree.
Edited extra bit: yeah, discovered that after posting, but a slightly understandable error (excepting that I should've spotted the flag, see it when the Hungaroring's hosting F1).
That said, I did have a very surreal vision of Cherie Blair addressing the 1922 Committee which went some way to compensate...
Written in the heat of the moment, so hopefully over pessimistic.
'Lost Glasgow
Having tried, and failed, to get near the site, the latest, tragic word, comes from site fan John Pollock, who writes: "I’ve just left and the floors inside are falling and the buildings going in on itself.
"I can guarantee that it’s the end for the building. Even the fire brigade were saying they’re not saving the building - now it’s a case of damage limitation to the surrounding buildings"
I am weeping here...
And, for all you amateur 'fire investigators', already claiming it's an 'insurance job'; shame on you - men and women are still risking their lives...'
https://twitter.com/julieowenmoylan/status/1007918693362405376?s=21
It will be interesting to see if that is what happens up at Newton Aycliffe once the IEP work finishes.
BTW, people should look at the problems Hitachi have had with their Class385 trains for Scotland, which will enter service at least nine months late due to software problems and a rather unfortunate oversight (literally) with the windscreens that mean the drivers see two or three images of signals ...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-43031527
From the piccies, I fear even the facade will be able to be saved after this.
Still, at least no-one's lost their lives. Buildings can be rebuilt.
We will be victorious! The only reason the event isn't full to the gunnels is that most of our billions of supporters are out on the streets, knocking outup more supporters!
(Ed: is that right?)
When you add those two issues together it dwarfs the numbers for everything else even the economy by huge margins.
On rail-related news, the earth wire has gone up on the Chase Line, so just awaiting the live wires.
It's only running a year late and 50% over budget.
But I know what you meant!
https://twitter.com/Jamin2g/status/1007728283390267393
But it's appropriate for Labour to have a rock concert after a week of dischord.
As it happens a friend of mine was the lecturer for the class where the first fire started, plus I have several others who also teach and/or graduated there. Gutted isn't really adequate for the feelings they're expressing this morning.
When we came back one morning, we found smoke rising up from one of the wooden bearers. It had smouldered all night without actually catching fire, and despite us having used water liberally over everything - evidently a spark had caught some of the rotten wood. As was routine for that site, we had to check the site last thing at night along with one of the factory reps. None of us had spotted anything amiss.
My lesson from this was that if you are using any cutting or welding gear on a job, it can be ages before a fire actually starts, and smouldering can be difficult to detect.
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0615/970823-tony-connelly-brexit/
When the fire brigade doused it and removed it, they found the entire interior of the beam was ash. It had been burning for 300 years!
Didn't the Cutty Sark fire start in a similar fashion to the one you describe?
And your basis for the investment being a failure is a Hitachi factory which I believe is still operating and employing many hundreds of people and is smaller in any case.
Finally Siemens have already opened an even large factory about twenty miles from the proposed new one so they seem to be making a commitment to the area in various industrial sectors.
1) A hard border in Ireland
2) Customs checks between Ireland and the EU
3) No border with Russia, the Ukraine or Turkey.
May seems to be gambling that those three options are so unpalatable that the EU will cave in and throw Ireland under a bus. That article, which makes it clear the EU is busily blaming Britain, or at least everyone but itself and its inept negotiating team for this shambles, suggests this is a remote possibility but gross miscalculation has been a feature of May's premiership.
The real reason it fails as an idea is that it requires May to be a brilliant, far sighted and ruthless intriguer with a talent for originality and a team as skilful as she is doing the hard yards.
If anyone believes that of her, please contact me through Vanilla Mail about this bridge I have for sale.
https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/status/1007953523676467202
https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/1007876344980656129
https://twitter.com/mjshrimper/status/1007913990981390336
The obvious solution is a time limited UK wide backstop.
This sentence is very telling:
‘The concern is that a huge economy like the UK’s, sitting on the edge of the EU, but not fully bound by the rules and obligations of the single market, could significantly undercut the EU economy.’
The idea of British divergence terrifies the EU.
I'd argue that if the factory cannot make the bodyshells, bogies or traction kit, it is not really 'making' the trains; it is assembling them from major pieces, and lacks the critical infrastructure to operate in any way independently in design or construction. (And this is why Hitachi could easily shift orders meant to be built in the UK to other EU countries)
If Siemens make the bogies and bodyshells in the UK I'd be less sceptical. But I bet they won't (and will be pleasantly surprised if they do).
https://twitter.com/PA/status/1007917998517243905