Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Survation Brexit anniversary poll has REMAIN 5% ahead

1246

Comments

  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,085

    Cameron failed to convince the EU that Britain really could vote to leave if the EU did not reform, in particular change freedom of movement. Hence we voted to leave the EU.

    May similarly seems to have failed to convince the EU that we really could leave with no deal. So we could be going down the path of no deal - which could hurt the EU more than the UK, especially in their pocket.

    I think this is wrong on all counts. You're persisting in the error of thinking "they won't let it happen". Threatening self-harm to get what you want isn't an effective negotiating position.
    I think you fundamentally misunderstand our position as a country. All forms of Brexit are self harm economically in the short term. There is no good story for the Government. So the interest for May et al, is to shape Brexit into something politically acceptable over a longer term if possible for their own supporters, and floating voters. The Conservatives are going to get blamed for Brexit in any case.
    All forms of Brexit are politically damaging over the long term. They threaten the very viability of the UK as a state.
    In the event of the break up of the UK then one party benefits

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_for_constituencies_in_England_2017–present

    The conservatives have a majority of MPs in England.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,925

    Scott_P said:
    It is infuriating when one of the most obnoxious politicians in the country points out the obvious. Shame he never thought to mention it before.
    +1
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,085
    DavidL said:

    Roger said:

    A BRILLIANT article. More sensitivity and perception in that one young guy than you'd get reading Guido in a lifetime
    Wow.

    England should still play Rashford though.
    What a fantastic site. Some great stories.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 41,486

    The Czech Republic isn't in the Eurozone, though Slovakia is, and might well be one that's benefitted. The Benelux ones certainly have, for the same reasons as Germany and, as smaller economies, a common currency is more beneficial too. That might prove to be the case for the Baltic states too, though it's too early to tell there - where Eurozone membership is a strategic political decision as much as an economic one: it's essential to them that they are seen as part of the club by their large partners.

    Talking of strategic political decisions relating to the Euro, this is a very sympathetic and interesting take on Helmut Kohl - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/helmut-kohls-theory-europe-thomas-klau/

    That the euro had to be launched in a state of half-baked imperfection in 1999 was caused by the political impossibility at the time to get France, Germany and other key countries to agree to a fuller transfer of sovereign power. That the euro had to be launched anyway was due to the absolute urgency created by German unification — not, Kohl stressed time and again, because the euro was the price to pay for it; but because delaying its introduction beyond 1999 would allow re-united Germany to become so powerful amongst its neighbours that obtaining the consent of a political majority of Germans to trade their national currency for a European one would no longer be possible.

    Germany, her Chancellor explained, was now labouring under the enormous burden of absorbing a bankrupt country of 17 million inhabitants. This created a temporary phase of relative German weakness that would not last long, a phase that must be seized to launch the euro because such an opportunity might never occur again. “Man muss den Mantel der Geschichte fassen”, said the Chancellor with his blurred Palatine accent; the ‘cloak of history’ must be grasped because soon, it would be too late; the danger of a fully sovereign united Germany destabilising Europe must be averted at any cost.
    Yep, the EU exists “as is” for the convenience of Germany, and the Euro is basically the greater Deutschemark.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 37,032
    Amusing from Fox in Geneva. He seems completely unaware of the subliminal message of talking like this.

    https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-fox/britains-fox-says-now-zero-chance-of-stopping-brexit-idUKKBN1JH1WW

    “As many of you will know, we took the decisive step last night in legislation that will now pave the way irrevocably for Britain’s exit from the European Union,” he said.

    “So in case anyone is in any doubt, the chances of the UK not leaving the European Union are now zero,” Fox said.

    He said Britain was keen to ensure continuity as it left the trading bloc.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 84,000

    Cameron failed to convince the EU that Britain really could vote to leave if the EU did not reform, in particular change freedom of movement. Hence we voted to leave the EU.

    May similarly seems to have failed to convince the EU that we really could leave with no deal. So we could be going down the path of no deal - which could hurt the EU more than the UK, especially in their pocket.

    I think this is wrong on all counts. You're persisting in the error of thinking "they won't let it happen". Threatening self-harm to get what you want isn't an effective negotiating position.
    I think you fundamentally misunderstand our position as a country. All forms of Brexit are self harm economically in the short term. There is no good story for the Government. So the interest for May et al, is to shape Brexit into something politically acceptable over a longer term if possible for their own supporters, and floating voters. The Conservatives are going to get blamed for Brexit in any case.
    All forms of Brexit are politically damaging over the long term. They threaten the very viability of the UK as a state.
    In the event of the break up of the UK then one party benefits

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_for_constituencies_in_England_2017–present

    The conservatives have a majority of MPs in England.
    The Conservatives actually have a majority of MPs in England, Wales and Scotland, it is only adding NI where they lose it but add the DUP and they get it back again
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 13,581

    CD13 said:

    Lets look logically at the options …

    The government cancels the result, apologises for the problems caused and returns chastened to the fold. Chance … less than 1%

    The Government breaks off negotiations, goes for hard Brexit claiming intransigence by EU negotiators …. 10%

    The Government concedes a new referendum, claiming people have changed their minds/major concessions by EU on FOM etc … 10%

    The Government makes deal/fudge and claims victory … 40%

    Softish Brexit agreed. All claim victory. Ukip resurfaces … 40%


    I think option 4 is more likely say 60% than option five say 20%. The conservatives will want to do anything they can to avoid UKIP re-emerging. The chance of that happening also diminishes with time as they go around shooting themselves in the foot trying to remain relevant.
    Last night another two UKIP councillor losses to Lanour and LibDem.
    Wasn't one of those supposed to be a certain Tory gain?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 6,872

    Barnesian said:

    I think the referendum question is a bit tricksy; For a lot of voters the answer is really going to depend on what the alternative to taking the deal is. Having asked the voters if they accept the deal, there are a few different options for what happens if they say no:

    1) Car-crash brexit
    2) No brexit
    3) Third referendum to choose between (1) and (2)
    4) One of the above, but the government isn't telling you which, are you feeling lucky?

    I think if you had some clarity that you meant one of those you'd get quite a bit less support.

    To satisfy both sides I think the referendum question would have to include no deal and remain in EU.

    1. Reject deal and leave EU with no deal
    2. Accept deal and leave EU
    3. Reject deal and remain in EU (if they'll have us)

    It could be FPTP or AV.

    Under FPTP, (3) would probably win. Under AV, (1) would drop out first and transfer entirely to (2) so (2) would probably win.

    Is an AV referendum a new concept?
    Having three options in a referendum is unusual I think - but unavoidable in this case.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,491
    Hmm, so the EU has votes to approve mass censorship of the internet. Mental.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    Scott_P said:

    no one wants a no deal

    No deal is better than a bad deal.

    (c) Theresa May
    That is negotiating speak as you well know
    Yikes, let's hope the EU doesn't know too!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 37,032

    The Czech Republic isn't in the Eurozone, though Slovakia is, and might well be one that's benefitted. The Benelux ones certainly have, for the same reasons as Germany and, as smaller economies, a common currency is more beneficial too. That might prove to be the case for the Baltic states too, though it's too early to tell there - where Eurozone membership is a strategic political decision as much as an economic one: it's essential to them that they are seen as part of the club by their large partners.

    Talking of strategic political decisions relating to the Euro, this is a very sympathetic and interesting take on Helmut Kohl - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/helmut-kohls-theory-europe-thomas-klau/

    That the euro had to be launched in a state of half-baked imperfection in 1999 was caused by the political impossibility at the time to get France, Germany and other key countries to agree to a fuller transfer of sovereign power. That the euro had to be launched anyway was due to the absolute urgency created by German unification — not, Kohl stressed time and again, because the euro was the price to pay for it; but because delaying its introduction beyond 1999 would allow re-united Germany to become so powerful amongst its neighbours that obtaining the consent of a political majority of Germans to trade their national currency for a European one would no longer be possible.

    Germany, her Chancellor explained, was now labouring under the enormous burden of absorbing a bankrupt country of 17 million inhabitants. This created a temporary phase of relative German weakness that would not last long, a phase that must be seized to launch the euro because such an opportunity might never occur again. “Man muss den Mantel der Geschichte fassen”, said the Chancellor with his blurred Palatine accent; the ‘cloak of history’ must be grasped because soon, it would be too late; the danger of a fully sovereign united Germany destabilising Europe must be averted at any cost.
    Yep, the EU exists “as is” for the convenience of Germany, and the Euro is basically the greater Deutschemark.
    Did you read the whole piece?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 84,000

    CD13 said:

    Lets look logically at the options …

    The government cancels the result, apologises for the problems caused and returns chastened to the fold. Chance … less than 1%

    The Government breaks off negotiations, goes for hard Brexit claiming intransigence by EU negotiators …. 10%

    The Government concedes a new referendum, claiming people have changed their minds/major concessions by EU on FOM etc … 10%

    The Government makes deal/fudge and claims victory … 40%

    Softish Brexit agreed. All claim victory. Ukip resurfaces … 40%


    I think option 4 is more likely say 60% than option five say 20%. The conservatives will want to do anything they can to avoid UKIP re-emerging. The chance of that happening also diminishes with time as they go around shooting themselves in the foot trying to remain relevant.
    Last night another two UKIP councillor losses to Lanour and LibDem.
    Wasn't one of those supposed to be a certain Tory gain?
    Nothing is supposed to be anything until it happens, though Labour won Pitsea South East by just 8 votes
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 13,581
    Scott_P said:
    Is that a picture of Bertie Ahern or Father Jack?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,866

    O/T

    If you look past the slightly misleading headline, there's an interesting and well-written article from Martin Kettle in today's Gaurdian about the opportunity the Conservatives have for grabbing the vacant space centre.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/22/tories-break-thatcher-legacy-more-money-nhs

    I'd be interested if PB Tories see it this way?

    Broadly yes (although I am an unusually wet tory, I accept), but Martin Kettle has failed to switch on to how rapidly the public finances are improving. There is a good chance that the deficit in the current financial year will be south of £30bn. Debt is already falling as a share of GDP and this will accelerate. If current trends continue (and we don't have a recession, of course) by the time we get to the additional £20bn of spending on the NHS we may well be in surplus, even with that additional spending.

    But as I said yesterday Hammond's fantasy that this is a "one off" is just that. Public sector pay will end up rising more rapidly, money will be needed for social care, we are probably going to end up spending more on the police and defence, if only for political reasons. Combined, these pressures will keep us in deficit unless taxes increase.

    Sound money was an absolutely central part of Thatcherism: she had no problem with increasing taxes like VAT to achieve it. The Tories should remain committed to that. We need doses of it from time to time to offset the damage caused by the odd Labour government.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,491
    DavidL said:

    O/T

    If you look past the slightly misleading headline, there's an interesting and well-written article from Martin Kettle in today's Gaurdian about the opportunity the Conservatives have for grabbing the vacant space centre.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/22/tories-break-thatcher-legacy-more-money-nhs

    I'd be interested if PB Tories see it this way?

    Broadly yes (although I am an unusually wet tory, I accept), but Martin Kettle has failed to switch on to how rapidly the public finances are improving. There is a good chance that the deficit in the current financial year will be south of £30bn. Debt is already falling as a share of GDP and this will accelerate. If current trends continue (and we don't have a recession, of course) by the time we get to the additional £20bn of spending on the NHS we may well be in surplus, even with that additional spending.

    But as I said yesterday Hammond's fantasy that this is a "one off" is just that. Public sector pay will end up rising more rapidly, money will be needed for social care, we are probably going to end up spending more on the police and defence, if only for political reasons. Combined, these pressures will keep us in deficit unless taxes increase.

    Sound money was an absolutely central part of Thatcherism: she had no problem with increasing taxes like VAT to achieve it. The Tories should remain committed to that. We need doses of it from time to time to offset the damage caused by the odd Labour government.
    One of my colleagues was extremely bullish on the UK deficit yesterday, she thinks £22bn is within the realms of possibility, I'm a tad more cautious and rate £28bn as the floor for the deficit. If it does come in at anything like what she thinks the government have the opportunity to slow the fiscal consolidation and increase spending on the NHS to the levels promised without raising tax rates at all. In fact the £10bn net contribution saving in 2021/22 may end up being spare money in the end.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 55,413
    Mr. Max, not only that, but the link tax insanity too.

    It's madness.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,530
    Scott_P said:
    Yes it's dawning on the Irish that for all their bluster and stated unwillingness to compromise an inch, there might be some unwelcome consequences for them of a hard border.

    For all their hard talk, are they really intent on making it a reality? Their negotiating position is as weak as butter in an oven.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Looking back, I wrote before the referendum, “There is a cost point to fabricating wings so far from the production lines and governments would provide incentives (regional aid, development support and the like) to shift design and production. For what it's worth the Commission tries very hard to restrict these and have businesses make decisions based on economic merits alone.

    320neo wings will not move as that would wreck current production, although if there's a ramping of production I've little doubt that the production lines would be ex-UK.”

    In retrospect I was clearly being too positive.

    As an aside, I also wrote, “If we do leave the EU, I'll be interested in how we deal with Ireland. It's very hard to imagine reinstating border crossings in Ireland so I assume that we'll need passport controls for people coming from Belfast. one struggles to imagine Ulster saying yes to that.”

    I believe the responses were to the effect of The Irish will get rolled over by the EU and BMW.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,491

    Scott_P said:
    Yes it's dawning on the Irish that for all their bluster and stated unwillingness to compromise an inch, there might be some unwelcome consequences for them of a hard border.

    For all their hard talk, are they really intent on making it a reality? Their negotiating position is as weak as butter in an oven.
    Yes, and when it dawns on them that they are going to be the ones implementing a hard North into South border and the UK will live with an unimpeded South into North border one wonders whether the likes of Varadker and Junker will need police protection. Trying to leverage the NI border into cancelling Brexit will end up backfiring on the Irish quite badly, I just hope they wise up to how badly they are being used by Brussels before then and start constructively talking about how to avoid any hard border with the UK outside of the customs union.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    MaxPB said:

    the UK will live with an unimpeded South into North border

    Why do you persist with this bullshit?

    A government whose only lodestar is "take back control of our borders" can't propose an unimpeded border.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 84,000
    Scott_P said:
    As 17 million voters voted Leave to regain sovereignty and reduce immigration despite endless Remain claims the economy faced Armagaddon, which even with this news is far from the case
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 23,073

    Scott_P said:
    Yes it's dawning on the Irish that for all their bluster and stated unwillingness to compromise an inch, there might be some unwelcome consequences for them of a hard border.

    For all their hard talk, are they really intent on making it a reality? Their negotiating position is as weak as butter in an oven.
    Mrs May shouldnt have agreed to the Irish backstop if she wasn't willing to keep her word.

    It is not the Irish that are imposing the border, it is our Brexiteers. That is where any anger will be directed.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 37,032
    matt said:

    As an aside, I also wrote, “If we do leave the EU, I'll be interested in how we deal with Ireland. It's very hard to imagine reinstating border crossings in Ireland so I assume that we'll need passport controls for people coming from Belfast. one struggles to imagine Ulster saying yes to that.”

    I believe the responses were to the effect of The Irish will get rolled over by the EU and BMW.

    Before you disappeared after the General Election you were rubbishing the idea of Brexit leading to a united Ireland. Is that still your view? (Genuinely interested.)
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 27,491
    Scott_P said:

    MaxPB said:

    the UK will live with an unimpeded South into North border

    Why do you persist with this bullshit?

    A government whose only lodestar is "take back control of our borders" can't propose an unimpeded border.
    Yes they can. The government will have made a choice not to impose controls on that specific border and everyone will move on with their lives. Or are you really stupid enough to think that Brexit was driven by Irish citizens travelling to the North?
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    MaxPB said:

    are you really stupid enough to think that Brexit was driven by Irish citizens travelling to the North?

    Are you stupid enough to think the only people who would cross the border are Irish citizens?
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,085
    HYUFD said:

    Scott_P said:
    As 17 million voters voted Leave to regain sovereignty and reduce immigration despite endless Remain claims the economy faced Armagaddon, which even with this news is far from the case
    If the current Labour leadership get voted in then thousands of jobs will be at risk, do we really think they should rip up their manifesto!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 13,581
    Scott_P said:

    MaxPB said:

    the UK will live with an unimpeded South into North border

    Why do you persist with this bullshit?

    A government whose only lodestar is "take back control of our borders" can't propose an unimpeded border.
    Jesus wept, Scott. How many times do you have to be told, 'Borders' is just shorthand for controlling who gets to live, work and claim benefits in the UK. It has nothing to do with razor wire. We can leave that sort of thing to our friends elsewhere in the EU.
  • hamiltonacehamiltonace Posts: 642
    I remember the Scottish Independence battle where the SNP politicians who attacked Ian Wood when he had the temerity to suggest that the oil dividend would not be as good as predicted.
    Guess who was right the politicians or the guy who knows his business.

    I have never seen a successful country which operates by attacking its business leaders. My introduction to business was Hong Kong. A barren little island set up by the entrepreneurs that China threw out. It took 30 years for China to work out that it needed them back.

  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 6,626
    Scott_P said:
    The Airbus thing is containable while it's one company, albeit an important. If one or more of the car manufacturers weighs in with similar sentiments then it will be leaky anus time in Gammonstan.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 41,486
    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_P said:
    The Airbus thing is containable while it's one company, albeit an important. If one or more of the car manufacturers weighs in with similar sentiments then it will be leaky anus time in Gammonstan.
    Why do you keep using the word Gammon?

    It’s very childish.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,866

    DavidL said:

    Roger said:

    A BRILLIANT article. More sensitivity and perception in that one young guy than you'd get reading Guido in a lifetime
    Wow.

    England should still play Rashford though.
    What a fantastic site. Some great stories.
    Indeed. Many thanks to @Alasatair_Meeks for the link.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 41,486

    The Czech Republic isn't in the Eurozone, though Slovakia is, and might well be one that's benefitted. The Benelux ones certainly have, for the same reasons as Germany and, as smaller economies, a common currency is more beneficial too. That might prove to be the case for the Baltic states too, though it's too early to tell there - where Eurozone membership is a strategic political decision as much as an economic one: it's essential to them that they are seen as part of the club by their large partners.

    Talking of strategic political decisions relating to the Euro, this is a very sympathetic and interesting take on Helmut Kohl - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/helmut-kohls-theory-europe-thomas-klau/

    That the euro had to be launched in a state of half-baked imperfection in 1999 was caused by the political impossibility at the time to get France, Germany and other key countries to agree to a fuller transfer of sovereign power. That the euro had to be launched anyway was due to the absolute urgency created by German unification — not, Kohl stressed time and again, because the euro was the price to pay for it; but because delaying its introduction beyond 1999 would allow re-united Germany to become so powerful amongst its neighbours that obtaining the consent of a political majority of Germans to trade their national currency for a European one would no longer be possible.

    Germany, her Chancellor explained, was now labouring under the enormous burden of absorbing a bankrupt country of 17 million inhabitants. This created a temporary phase of relative German weakness that would not last long, a phase that must be seized to launch the euro because such an opportunity might never occur again. “Man muss den Mantel der Geschichte fassen”, said the Chancellor with his blurred Palatine accent; the ‘cloak of history’ must be grasped because soon, it would be too late; the danger of a fully sovereign united Germany destabilising Europe must be averted at any cost.
    Yep, the EU exists “as is” for the convenience of Germany, and the Euro is basically the greater Deutschemark.
    Did you read the whole piece?
    Yes.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,085
    HYUFD said:

    Cameron failed to convince the EU that Britain really could vote to leave if the EU did not reform, in particular change freedom of movement. Hence we voted to leave the EU.

    May similarly seems to have failed to convince the EU that we really could leave with no deal. So we could be going down the path of no deal - which could hurt the EU more than the UK, especially in their pocket.

    I think this is wrong on all counts. You're persisting in the error of thinking "they won't let it happen". Threatening self-harm to get what you want isn't an effective negotiating position.
    I think you fundamentally misunderstand our position as a country. All forms of Brexit are self harm economically in the short term. There is no good story for the Government. So the interest for May et al, is to shape Brexit into something politically acceptable over a longer term if possible for their own supporters, and floating voters. The Conservatives are going to get blamed for Brexit in any case.
    All forms of Brexit are politically damaging over the long term. They threaten the very viability of the UK as a state.
    In the event of the break up of the UK then one party benefits

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_for_constituencies_in_England_2017–present

    The conservatives have a majority of MPs in England.
    The Conservatives actually have a majority of MPs in England, Wales and Scotland, it is only adding NI where they lose it but add the DUP and they get it back again
    Yes but there has been further recent talk of Scottish independence. I just don't see the downside for the Tories in the break up of the union. There has been a trend internationally for smaller nations emerging. 85% of the UK population is in England, and I would imagine more than that as a percentage of tax receipts. So better financial position. I'm not seeing the long term issue
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 37,032

    HYUFD said:

    Cameron failed to convince the EU that Britain really could vote to leave if the EU did not reform, in particular change freedom of movement. Hence we voted to leave the EU.

    May similarly seems to have failed to convince the EU that we really could leave with no deal. So we could be going down the path of no deal - which could hurt the EU more than the UK, especially in their pocket.

    I think this is wrong on all counts. You're persisting in the error of thinking "they won't let it happen". Threatening self-harm to get what you want isn't an effective negotiating position.
    I think you fundamentally misunderstand our position as a country. All forms of Brexit are self harm economically in the short term. There is no good story for the Government. So the interest for May et al, is to shape Brexit into something politically acceptable over a longer term if possible for their own supporters, and floating voters. The Conservatives are going to get blamed for Brexit in any case.
    All forms of Brexit are politically damaging over the long term. They threaten the very viability of the UK as a state.
    In the event of the break up of the UK then one party benefits

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_for_constituencies_in_England_2017–present

    The conservatives have a majority of MPs in England.
    The Conservatives actually have a majority of MPs in England, Wales and Scotland, it is only adding NI where they lose it but add the DUP and they get it back again
    Yes but there has been further recent talk of Scottish independence. I just don't see the downside for the Tories in the break up of the union. There has been a trend internationally for smaller nations emerging. 85% of the UK population is in England, and I would imagine more than that as a percentage of tax receipts. So better financial position. I'm not seeing the long term issue
    Shorn of its imperial pretensions, a modern Kingdom of England would be a culturally unfriendly place for the Bufton Tuftons. It wouldn't surprise me to see a Scottish Conservative Prime Minister meeting with a Labour English Prime Minister.
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    matt said:

    Looking back, I wrote before the referendum, “There is a cost point to fabricating wings so far from the production lines and governments would provide incentives (regional aid, development support and the like) to shift design and production. For what it's worth the Commission tries very hard to restrict these and have businesses make decisions based on economic merits alone.

    320neo wings will not move as that would wreck current production, although if there's a ramping of production I've little doubt that the production lines would be ex-UK.”

    In retrospect I was clearly being too positive.

    As an aside, I also wrote, “If we do leave the EU, I'll be interested in how we deal with Ireland. It's very hard to imagine reinstating border crossings in Ireland so I assume that we'll need passport controls for people coming from Belfast. one struggles to imagine Ulster saying yes to that.”

    I believe the responses were to the effect of The Irish will get rolled over by the EU and BMW.

    Dreamliner supply chain

    "Subcontracted assemblies included wing manufacture (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Japan, central wing box)[38] horizontal stabilizers (Alenia Aeronautica, Italy; Korea Aerospace Industries, South Korea);[39] fuselage sections (Global Aeronautica, Italy; Boeing, North Charleston, US; Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Japan; Spirit AeroSystems, Wichita, US; Korean Air, South Korea);[40][41][42] passenger doors (Latécoère, France); cargo doors, access doors, and crew escape door (Saab AB, Sweden); software development (HCL Enterprise India);[43] floor beams (TAL Manufacturing Solutions Limited, India);[44][45] wiring (Labinal, France);[46] wing-tips, flap support fairings, wheel well bulkhead, and longerons (Korean Air, South Korea);[47] landing gear (Messier-Bugatti-Dowty, UK/France);[48][49] and power distribution and management systems, air conditioning packs (Hamilton Sundstrand, Connecticut, US)"
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,866
    edited June 2018
    MaxPB said:

    DavidL said:

    O/T

    If you look past the slightly misleading headline, there's an interesting and well-written article from Martin Kettle in today's Gaurdian about the opportunity the Conservatives have for grabbing the vacant space centre.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/22/tories-break-thatcher-legacy-more-money-nhs

    I'd be interested if PB Tories see it this way?

    Broadly yes (although I am an unusually wet tory, I accept), but Martin Kettle has failed to switch on to how rapidly the public finances are improving. There is a good chance that the deficit in the current financial year will be south of £30bn. Debt is already falling as a share of GDP and this will accelerate. If current trends continue (and we don't have a recession, of course) by the time we get to the additional £20bn of spending on the NHS we may well be in surplus, even with that additional spending.

    But as I said yesterday Hammond's fantasy that this is a "one off" is just that. Public sector pay will end up rising more rapidly, money will be needed for social care, we are probably going to end up spending more on the police and defence, if only for political reasons. Combined, these pressures will keep us in deficit unless taxes increase.

    Sound money was an absolutely central part of Thatcherism: she had no problem with increasing taxes like VAT to achieve it. The Tories should remain committed to that. We need doses of it from time to time to offset the damage caused by the odd Labour government.
    One of my colleagues was extremely bullish on the UK deficit yesterday, she thinks £22bn is within the realms of possibility, I'm a tad more cautious and rate £28bn as the floor for the deficit. If it does come in at anything like what she thinks the government have the opportunity to slow the fiscal consolidation and increase spending on the NHS to the levels promised without raising tax rates at all. In fact the £10bn net contribution saving in 2021/22 may end up being spare money in the end.
    If it was indeed a "one off" I would agree. For the reasons I have set out I don't think that will be the case. The upward pressures on public spending over the next few years are going to be considerable. I agree with your estimate of £28bn. That means a reduction of about the same amount as was achieved last year (when the OBR said borrowing was going to increase despite forecasting higher growth).
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 3,530
    Foxy said:



    It is not the Irish that are imposing the border, it is our Brexiteers.

    Pull the other one.

    The stated Irish position amounts to them being unwilling to settle for anything that doesn't threaten the territorial integrity of the UK.

    The consequences for the Irish of following through with that would be such that their position shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_P said:
    The Airbus thing is containable while it's one company, albeit an important. If one or more of the car manufacturers weighs in with similar sentiments then it will be leaky anus time in Gammonstan.
    Sort of, but I am seeing smaller scale Airbus type decisions. If you get headlines reinforcing what you are experiencing the impact is much greater.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 57,641

    Apply cold to the burned area.

    twitter.com/OwenSmith_MP/status/1010082967895584768
    twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1010092840406446081
    twitter.com/hugorifkind/status/1010104926654091264
    twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1010105271136514049

    Apparently the UV levels today are extremely high...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,866

    matt said:

    Looking back, I wrote before the referendum, “There is a cost point to fabricating wings so far from the production lines and governments would provide incentives (regional aid, development support and the like) to shift design and production. For what it's worth the Commission tries very hard to restrict these and have businesses make decisions based on economic merits alone.

    320neo wings will not move as that would wreck current production, although if there's a ramping of production I've little doubt that the production lines would be ex-UK.”

    In retrospect I was clearly being too positive.

    As an aside, I also wrote, “If we do leave the EU, I'll be interested in how we deal with Ireland. It's very hard to imagine reinstating border crossings in Ireland so I assume that we'll need passport controls for people coming from Belfast. one struggles to imagine Ulster saying yes to that.”

    I believe the responses were to the effect of The Irish will get rolled over by the EU and BMW.

    Dreamliner supply chain

    "Subcontracted assemblies included wing manufacture (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Japan, central wing box)[38] horizontal stabilizers (Alenia Aeronautica, Italy; Korea Aerospace Industries, South Korea);[39] fuselage sections (Global Aeronautica, Italy; Boeing, North Charleston, US; Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Japan; Spirit AeroSystems, Wichita, US; Korean Air, South Korea);[40][41][42] passenger doors (Latécoère, France); cargo doors, access doors, and crew escape door (Saab AB, Sweden); software development (HCL Enterprise India);[43] floor beams (TAL Manufacturing Solutions Limited, India);[44][45] wiring (Labinal, France);[46] wing-tips, flap support fairings, wheel well bulkhead, and longerons (Korean Air, South Korea);[47] landing gear (Messier-Bugatti-Dowty, UK/France);[48][49] and power distribution and management systems, air conditioning packs (Hamilton Sundstrand, Connecticut, US)"
    That can't be right. No one can build a plane without being in a customs union with all the main suppliers. We have been told so many, many times.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 8,925

    Scott_P said:

    MaxPB said:

    the UK will live with an unimpeded South into North border

    Why do you persist with this bullshit?

    A government whose only lodestar is "take back control of our borders" can't propose an unimpeded border.
    Jesus wept, Scott. How many times do you have to be told, 'Borders' is just shorthand for controlling who gets to live, work and claim benefits in the UK. It has nothing to do with razor wire. We can leave that sort of thing to our friends elsewhere in the EU.
    So, just to be clear, you'd let anybody in and then refuse them NHS treatment and benefits, plus not allow them to work, take out a mortgage etc?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 37,032
    Why did the Tory party welcome this man back from UKIP?

    https://twitter.com/DCBMEP/status/1010122002378747905
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Having done it is a youngster, fruit picking is more fun than you think. Or at least it is when the weather is nice.

    I have a feeling that the market will work its magic and the unemployed aerospace engineers who can't work in Europe thanks to the end of freedom of movement might well end up designing really efficient fruit picking technology. So we'll get rid of the immigrants and keep the cheap food. But I doubt it will make up for the loss of the high value aerospace work we'll be turning our backs on.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,866

    Why did the Tory party welcome this man back from UKIP?

    https://twitter.com/DCBMEP/status/1010122002378747905

    To whom is this privatised company going to sell its wings?

    This is really demented.
  • Why did the Tory party welcome this man back from UKIP?

    https://twitter.com/DCBMEP/status/1010122002378747905

    Why are Tory Brexiteers so determined to implement Michael Foot's 1983 manifesto?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 36,866

    Having done it is a youngster, fruit picking is more fun than you think. Or at least it is when the weather is nice.

    I have a feeling that the market will work its magic and the unemployed aerospace engineers who can't work in Europe thanks to the end of freedom of movement might well end up designing really efficient fruit picking technology. So we'll get rid of the immigrants and keep the cheap food. But I doubt it will make up for the loss of the high value aerospace work we'll be turning our backs on.
    As a school kid, even before receiving that helpful advice from Mr Tebbit, I used to get on my bike and cycle out to the Carse of Gowrie to work on the berries for the day. Strawbs were quite hard work but paid better than rasps.

    The problem with the unemployed doing this is that what is short term seasonal work can screw up benefits which can take a long time to get sorted again. The delay periods built into UC seem designed to make this even more problematic. There was some talk of allowing this kind of casual work in addition to benefits but I am not sure what has come of that.
  • Close down the CPS.

    You can’t do this to the English language.

    https://twitter.com/barristersecret/status/1010053319442812929?s=21
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 28,426

    Close down the CPS.

    You can’t do this to the English language.

    https://twitter.com/barristersecret/status/1010053319442812929?s=21

    The Secret Barrister will have to resignate it.
  • Arguing for nationalisation of companies really ought to get you kicked out of the Tory party.

    Honestly if I wanted to be a member of a party advocating nationalisation I’d have joined the Labour Party.

    Free markets or death.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 57,641
    Doesn’t sound like mclaren will be winning employer of the year anytime soon...

    https://www.planetf1.com/news/mclaren-staff-to-strike-over-freddo-bars-clueless-bosses/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 84,000
    edited June 2018

    HYUFD said:

    Cameron failed to convince the EU that Britain really could vote to leave if the EU did not reform, in particular change freedom of movement. Hence we voted to leave the EU.

    May similarly seems to have failed to convince the EU that we really could leave with no deal. So we could be going down the path of no deal - which could hurt the EU more than the UK, especially in their pocket.

    I think this is wrong on all counts. You're persisting in the error of thinking "they won't let it happen". Threatening self-harm to get what you want isn't an effective negotiating position.
    I think you fundamentally misunderstand our position as a country. All forms of Brexit are self harm economically in the short term. There is no good story for the Government. So the interest for May et al, is to shape Brexit into something politically acceptable over a longer term if possible for their own supporters, and floating voters. The Conservatives are going to get blamed for Brexit in any case.
    All forms of Brexit are politically damaging over the long term. They threaten the very viability of the UK as a state.
    In the event of the break up of the UK then one party benefits

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MPs_for_constituencies_in_England_2017–present

    The conservatives have a majority of MPs in England.
    The Conservatives actually have a majority of MPs in England, Wales and Scotland, it is only adding NI where they lose it but add the DUP and they get it back again
    Yes but there has been further recent talk of Scottish independence. I just don't see the downside for the Tories in the break up of the union. There has been a trend internationally for smaller nations emerging. 85% of the UK population is in England, and I would imagine more than that as a percentage of tax receipts. So better financial position. I'm not seeing the long term issue
    Because the Tories are above all a Unionist and Monarchist Party more than anything else including a free trade and pro market party. Indeed in the 19th and 18th centuries it was often the Whigs and Liberals who were the party of free trade and laissez faire while the Tories were the party of tariffs and the landed gentry.

    In any case England is only slightly more Tory than the UK and you have to go back to February 1974 to find the last time the Tories won England but lost the UK. London is also now Labour's strongest region not Scotland though the Tories win the Home Counties
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 37,032
    DavidL said:

    Why did the Tory party welcome this man back from UKIP?

    https://twitter.com/DCBMEP/status/1010122002378747905

    To whom is this privatised company going to sell its wings?

    This is really demented.
    Red Tories give you Wings!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 84,000
    edited June 2018

    Arguing for nationalisation of companies really ought to get you kicked out of the Tory party.

    Honestly if I wanted to be a member of a party advocating nationalisation I’d have joined the Labour Party.

    Free markets or death.

    The airlines, aerospace, the railways, the electricity and gas and water industries, the post office and telecommunications were all nationalised under Tory PMs from Churchill to Heath. I may have supported Thatcher's privatisations but you can be a Tory and oppose free trade, it is much more difficult to be a Tory and a republican you may take note. Support for free trade is one of the defining features of a liberal not a conservative
  • PolruanPolruan Posts: 1,851
    DavidL said:

    Why did the Tory party welcome this man back from UKIP?

    https://twitter.com/DCBMEP/status/1010122002378747905

    To whom is this privatised company going to sell its wings?

    This is really demented.
    The party that brought you a carrier with no aircraft is unlikely to see a problem with extending that approach to wings with no fuselage.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,413

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_P said:
    The Airbus thing is containable while it's one company, albeit an important. If one or more of the car manufacturers weighs in with similar sentiments then it will be leaky anus time in Gammonstan.
    Sort of, but I am seeing smaller scale Airbus type decisions. If you get headlines reinforcing what you are experiencing the impact is much greater.
    Quite. Airbus has said publicly what just about every corporate boss aside from James Dyson is saying privately. It's probably too late already to stop a significant movement of economic activity out of the UK over the next couple of years.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382
    DavidL said:

    Having done it is a youngster, fruit picking is more fun than you think. Or at least it is when the weather is nice.

    I have a feeling that the market will work its magic and the unemployed aerospace engineers who can't work in Europe thanks to the end of freedom of movement might well end up designing really efficient fruit picking technology. So we'll get rid of the immigrants and keep the cheap food. But I doubt it will make up for the loss of the high value aerospace work we'll be turning our backs on.
    As a school kid, even before receiving that helpful advice from Mr Tebbit, I used to get on my bike and cycle out to the Carse of Gowrie to work on the berries for the day. Strawbs were quite hard work but paid better than rasps.

    The problem with the unemployed doing this is that what is short term seasonal work can screw up benefits which can take a long time to get sorted again. The delay periods built into UC seem designed to make this even more problematic. There was some talk of allowing this kind of casual work in addition to benefits but I am not sure what has come of that.
    True , there is more incentive , to work cash in hand.Rather than go through the procedure of a new claim.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 84,000
    edited June 2018
    DavidL said:

    Having done it is a youngster, fruit picking is more fun than you think. Or at least it is when the weather is nice.

    I have a feeling that the market will work its magic and the unemployed aerospace engineers who can't work in Europe thanks to the end of freedom of movement might well end up designing really efficient fruit picking technology. So we'll get rid of the immigrants and keep the cheap food. But I doubt it will make up for the loss of the high value aerospace work we'll be turning our backs on.
    As a school kid, even before receiving that helpful advice from Mr Tebbit, I used to get on my bike and cycle out to the Carse of Gowrie to work on the berries for the day. Strawbs were quite hard work but paid better than rasps.

    The problem with the unemployed doing this is that what is short term seasonal work can screw up benefits which can take a long time to get sorted again. The delay periods built into UC seem designed to make this even more problematic. There was some talk of allowing this kind of casual work in addition to benefits but I am not sure what has come of that.
    UC will mean you do not lose all your benefits working more than 16 hours a week fruitpicking
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 57,641
    Brazil looking like it is their to lose.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 57,641
    VAR - as useful as a chocolate fire guard.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    DavidL said:

    Why did the Tory party welcome this man back from UKIP?

    https://twitter.com/DCBMEP/status/1010122002378747905

    To whom is this privatised company going to sell its wings?

    ...

    Rolls Royce focus on engines.

  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_P said:
    The Airbus thing is containable while it's one company, albeit an important. If one or more of the car manufacturers weighs in with similar sentiments then it will be leaky anus time in Gammonstan.
    Sort of, but I am seeing smaller scale Airbus type decisions. If you get headlines reinforcing what you are experiencing the impact is much greater.
    Quite. Airbus has said publicly what just about every corporate boss aside from James Dyson is saying privately. It's probably too late already to stop a significant movement of economic activity out of the UK over the next couple of years.
    What about economic activity moving to the UK?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 16,102
    edited June 2018
    HYUFD said:

    Arguing for nationalisation of companies really ought to get you kicked out of the Tory party.

    Honestly if I wanted to be a member of a party advocating nationalisation I’d have joined the Labour Party.

    Free markets or death.

    The airlines, aerospace, the railways, the electricity and gas and water industries, the post office and telecommunications were all nationalised under Tory PMs from Churchill to Heath. I may have supported Thatcher's privatisations but you can be a Tory and oppose free trade, it is much more difficult to be a Tory and a republican you may take note. Support for free trade is one of the defining features of a liberal not a conservative
    The railways certainly weren't; that was under Attlee.

    There can be a case for nationalising firms, particularly where a business has been badly run and is critical either to national security or to the maintenance of the wider economy, but in these cases it should be the government's job to ensure the wheels keep turning and to oversee a restructuring of both that firm and the sector within which it operates, before returning it to the private sector.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,390
    I've swapped Neymar for a portugese chap in his 30s on the fantasy football.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 57,641
    Pulpstar said:

    I've swapped Neymar for a portugese chap in his 30s on the fantasy football.

    Not sure how many minutes Quaresma will get ;-)
  • HYUFD said:

    Arguing for nationalisation of companies really ought to get you kicked out of the Tory party.

    Honestly if I wanted to be a member of a party advocating nationalisation I’d have joined the Labour Party.

    Free markets or death.

    The airlines, aerospace, the railways, the electricity and gas and water industries, the post office and telecommunications were all nationalised under Tory PMs from Churchill to Heath. I may have supported Thatcher's privatisations but you can be a Tory and oppose free trade, it is much more difficult to be a Tory and a republican you may take note. Support for free trade is one of the defining features of a liberal not a conservative
    Which Tory PM nationalised the railways? Name names.

    As being for pro free trade and support therein, it is what being a Tory is all about.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,304

    HYUFD said:

    Arguing for nationalisation of companies really ought to get you kicked out of the Tory party.

    Honestly if I wanted to be a member of a party advocating nationalisation I’d have joined the Labour Party.

    Free markets or death.

    The airlines, aerospace, the railways, the electricity and gas and water industries, the post office and telecommunications were all nationalised under Tory PMs from Churchill to Heath. I may have supported Thatcher's privatisations but you can be a Tory and oppose free trade, it is much more difficult to be a Tory and a republican you may take note. Support for free trade is one of the defining features of a liberal not a conservative
    Which Tory PM nationalised the railways? Name names.

    As being for pro free trade and support therein, it is what being a Tory is all about.
    Theresa May is nationalising one on Saturday night. ;)
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 13,581

    HYUFD said:

    Arguing for nationalisation of companies really ought to get you kicked out of the Tory party.

    Honestly if I wanted to be a member of a party advocating nationalisation I’d have joined the Labour Party.

    Free markets or death.

    The airlines, aerospace, the railways, the electricity and gas and water industries, the post office and telecommunications were all nationalised under Tory PMs from Churchill to Heath. I may have supported Thatcher's privatisations but you can be a Tory and oppose free trade, it is much more difficult to be a Tory and a republican you may take note. Support for free trade is one of the defining features of a liberal not a conservative
    Which Tory PM nationalised the railways? Name names.

    Theresa May. This weekend. LNER.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 13,581
    Incidentally, the LNER logo - the stylised 'N' against a diagonally split red and black background looks more like the insignia of a neo-nazi organisation than a train operator.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 57,641
    It appears Donald trump has got serious competition when it comes to insensitive comments regarding illegal immigrants,

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5873801/Italys-interior-minister-refuses-let-rescue-ship-carrying-224-migrants-dock.html
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,413

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_P said:
    The Airbus thing is containable while it's one company, albeit an important. If one or more of the car manufacturers weighs in with similar sentiments then it will be leaky anus time in Gammonstan.
    Sort of, but I am seeing smaller scale Airbus type decisions. If you get headlines reinforcing what you are experiencing the impact is much greater.
    Quite. Airbus has said publicly what just about every corporate boss aside from James Dyson is saying privately. It's probably too late already to stop a significant movement of economic activity out of the UK over the next couple of years.
    What about economic activity moving to the UK?
    FDI in the UK was $45bn in 2014, $33bn in 2015, $250bn in 2016 .....and $20bn in 2017. 2016 was distorted by some very large takeovers but even so there has been a big drop in foreign investment in the UK since the referendum. And it's not hard to see why.
  • rural_voterrural_voter Posts: 1,967

    HYUFD said:

    Arguing for nationalisation of companies really ought to get you kicked out of the Tory party.

    Honestly if I wanted to be a member of a party advocating nationalisation I’d have joined the Labour Party.

    Free markets or death.

    The airlines, aerospace, the railways, the electricity and gas and water industries, the post office and telecommunications were all nationalised under Tory PMs from Churchill to Heath. I may have supported Thatcher's privatisations but you can be a Tory and oppose free trade, it is much more difficult to be a Tory and a republican you may take note. Support for free trade is one of the defining features of a liberal not a conservative
    The railways certainly weren't; that was under Attlee.

    There can be a case for nationalising firms, particularly where a business has been badly run and is critical either to national security or to the maintenance of the wider economy, but in these cases it should be the government's job to ensure the wheels keep turning and to oversee a restructuring of both that firm and the sector within which it operates, before returning it to the private sector.
    I think Attlee nationalised coal, steel and rail.

    Baldwin created a national grid in 1926. I don't think he fully nationalised elec. We had municipal utilities before we had nationalisation and many countries still do - Los Angeles Water and Power, for instance.

    Our water was supplied by local authorities until about 1974. Northern Ireland's electricity was 'renationalised' by the Irish Republic (ESB) buying the network. Northern Ireland still has a state railway.

    Switzerland nationalised its railways in about 1905. They work extremely well, apparently better than BR ever was.
  • tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Arguing for nationalisation of companies really ought to get you kicked out of the Tory party.

    Honestly if I wanted to be a member of a party advocating nationalisation I’d have joined the Labour Party.

    Free markets or death.

    The airlines, aerospace, the railways, the electricity and gas and water industries, the post office and telecommunications were all nationalised under Tory PMs from Churchill to Heath. I may have supported Thatcher's privatisations but you can be a Tory and oppose free trade, it is much more difficult to be a Tory and a republican you may take note. Support for free trade is one of the defining features of a liberal not a conservative
    Which Tory PM nationalised the railways? Name names.

    As being for pro free trade and support therein, it is what being a Tory is all about.
    Theresa May is nationalising one on Saturday night. ;)
    Not the whole network, just one TOC that returned the franchise.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,304
    @SandyRentool - great minds!
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,304

    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Arguing for nationalisation of companies really ought to get you kicked out of the Tory party.

    Honestly if I wanted to be a member of a party advocating nationalisation I’d have joined the Labour Party.

    Free markets or death.

    The airlines, aerospace, the railways, the electricity and gas and water industries, the post office and telecommunications were all nationalised under Tory PMs from Churchill to Heath. I may have supported Thatcher's privatisations but you can be a Tory and oppose free trade, it is much more difficult to be a Tory and a republican you may take note. Support for free trade is one of the defining features of a liberal not a conservative
    Which Tory PM nationalised the railways? Name names.

    As being for pro free trade and support therein, it is what being a Tory is all about.
    Theresa May is nationalising one on Saturday night. ;)
    Not the whole network, just one TOC that returned the franchise.
    Technically Network Rail was brought back into public ownership under David Cameron.
  • tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Arguing for nationalisation of companies really ought to get you kicked out of the Tory party.

    Honestly if I wanted to be a member of a party advocating nationalisation I’d have joined the Labour Party.

    Free markets or death.

    The airlines, aerospace, the railways, the electricity and gas and water industries, the post office and telecommunications were all nationalised under Tory PMs from Churchill to Heath. I may have supported Thatcher's privatisations but you can be a Tory and oppose free trade, it is much more difficult to be a Tory and a republican you may take note. Support for free trade is one of the defining features of a liberal not a conservative
    Which Tory PM nationalised the railways? Name names.

    As being for pro free trade and support therein, it is what being a Tory is all about.
    Theresa May is nationalising one on Saturday night. ;)
    Not the whole network, just one TOC that returned the franchise.
    Technically Network Rail was brought back into public ownership under David Cameron.
    Wasn’t that just a reclassification exercise, Blair did the deed, shamefully using the invasion of Afghanistan to bury bad news?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,754

    So the real question is which other countries have benefited?
    I would suggest maybe Ireland and Czech as the only 2.

    I think the easy was to solve that question would be to ask which countries in the Eurozone have seen an absolute increase in the number of people in employment* since its creation on 1/1/99.

    Care to make a guess?

    * You could also use the proportion of people in employment.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,469
    Jerusalem Post reporting that Sara Netanyahu has been indicted for fraud - the net closes
    https://m.jpost.com/Israel-News/Sara-Netanyahu-indicted-for-fraud-560550
  • ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_P said:
    The Airbus thing is containable while it's one company, albeit an important. If one or more of the car manufacturers weighs in with similar sentiments then it will be leaky anus time in Gammonstan.
    Sort of, but I am seeing smaller scale Airbus type decisions. If you get headlines reinforcing what you are experiencing the impact is much greater.
    Quite. Airbus has said publicly what just about every corporate boss aside from James Dyson is saying privately. It's probably too late already to stop a significant movement of economic activity out of the UK over the next couple of years.
    What about economic activity moving to the UK?
    FDI in the UK was $45bn in 2014, $33bn in 2015, $250bn in 2016 .....and $20bn in 2017. 2016 was distorted by some very large takeovers but even so there has been a big drop in foreign investment in the UK since the referendum. And it's not hard to see why.
    The picture is far more nuanced.

    https://www.ey.com/uk/en/newsroom/news-releases/18-03-29-signs-of-a-brexit-impact-on-uk-foreign-direct-investment
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,135
    DavidL said:

    Roger said:

    A BRILLIANT article. More sensitivity and perception in that one young guy than you'd get reading Guido in a lifetime
    Wow.

    England should still play Rashford though.
    That would be crazy The Didsbury Lad can't write like Tom Wolfe
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 17,304

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Arguing for nationalisation of companies really ought to get you kicked out of the Tory party.

    Honestly if I wanted to be a member of a party advocating nationalisation I’d have joined the Labour Party.

    Free markets or death.

    The airlines, aerospace, the railways, the electricity and gas and water industries, the post office and telecommunications were all nationalised under Tory PMs from Churchill to Heath. I may have supported Thatcher's privatisations but you can be a Tory and oppose free trade, it is much more difficult to be a Tory and a republican you may take note. Support for free trade is one of the defining features of a liberal not a conservative
    Which Tory PM nationalised the railways? Name names.

    As being for pro free trade and support therein, it is what being a Tory is all about.
    Theresa May is nationalising one on Saturday night. ;)
    Not the whole network, just one TOC that returned the franchise.
    Technically Network Rail was brought back into public ownership under David Cameron.
    Wasn’t that just a reclassification exercise, Blair did the deed, shamefully using the invasion of Afghanistan to bury bad news?
    Up until 2014 Network Rail were able to borrow money against their own assets. Now they are queuing up for money from the government just like everyone else.

    And given the disaster that was RailTrack, I don't think Labour had much choice.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,754
    rcs1000 said:

    So the real question is which other countries have benefited?
    I would suggest maybe Ireland and Czech as the only 2.

    I think the easy was to solve that question would be to ask which countries in the Eurozone have seen an absolute increase in the number of people in employment* since its creation on 1/1/99.

    Care to make a guess?

    * You could also use the proportion of people in employment.
    Ireland started the Euro with 1.57m in employment, and is now at 2.2m. I doubt many other countries in the world have managed a 33% increase.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,390
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Arguing for nationalisation of companies really ought to get you kicked out of the Tory party.

    Honestly if I wanted to be a member of a party advocating nationalisation I’d have joined the Labour Party.

    Free markets or death.

    The airlines, aerospace, the railways, the electricity and gas and water industries, the post office and telecommunications were all nationalised under Tory PMs from Churchill to Heath. I may have supported Thatcher's privatisations but you can be a Tory and oppose free trade, it is much more difficult to be a Tory and a republican you may take note. Support for free trade is one of the defining features of a liberal not a conservative
    Which Tory PM nationalised the railways? Name names.

    As being for pro free trade and support therein, it is what being a Tory is all about.
    Theresa May is nationalising one on Saturday night. ;)
    Not the whole network, just one TOC that returned the franchise.
    Technically Network Rail was brought back into public ownership under David Cameron.
    Wasn’t that just a reclassification exercise, Blair did the deed, shamefully using the invasion of Afghanistan to bury bad news?
    Up until 2014 Network Rail were able to borrow money against their own assets. Now they are queuing up for money from the government just like everyone else.

    And given the disaster that was RailTrack, I don't think Labour had much choice.
    Why can't Network Rail borrow against their own assets any more ? Seems an odd decision from I presume the coalition Gov't to end that in 2014.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 57,641
    Paging red ken....

    Cutlery made for Nazi leader Adolf Hitler to celebrate his 50th birthday is to be sold at auction.
    The formal pattern silverware was discovered during a house clearance in Dorset, having belonged to a senior military officer.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 84,000

    HYUFD said:

    Arguing for nationalisation of companies really ought to get you kicked out of the Tory party.

    Honestly if I wanted to be a member of a party advocating nationalisation I’d have joined the Labour Party.

    Free markets or death.

    The airlines, aerospace, the railways, the electricity and gas and water industries, the post office and telecommunications were all nationalised under Tory PMs from Churchill to Heath. I may have supported Thatcher's privatisations but you can be a Tory and oppose free trade, it is much more difficult to be a Tory and a republican you may take note. Support for free trade is one of the defining features of a liberal not a conservative
    Which Tory PM nationalised the railways? Name names.

    As being for pro free trade and support therein, it is what being a Tory is all about.
    All the Tory PMs from 1951 to 1974 kept the railways nationalised and refused to privatise them, indeed so did Thatcher and it was not until Major they were privatised.

    Being pro free trade and pro free market is a common trait of Tories but not as definitive as being a monarchist say
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 41,486
    Call me again when China actually moves wing production to China (outside the single market and customs union) and chooses to ship them 10,000 miles to Toulouse instead, rather than shipping them by sea the 500-600 miles from Broughton via a Max Fac border.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 65,390
    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Arguing for nationalisation of companies really ought to get you kicked out of the Tory party.

    Honestly if I wanted to be a member of a party advocating nationalisation I’d have joined the Labour Party.

    Free markets or death.

    The airlines, aerospace, the railways, the electricity and gas and water industries, the post office and telecommunications were all nationalised under Tory PMs from Churchill to Heath. I may have supported Thatcher's privatisations but you can be a Tory and oppose free trade, it is much more difficult to be a Tory and a republican you may take note. Support for free trade is one of the defining features of a liberal not a conservative
    Which Tory PM nationalised the railways? Name names.

    As being for pro free trade and support therein, it is what being a Tory is all about.
    Theresa May is nationalising one on Saturday night. ;)
    Not the whole network, just one TOC that returned the franchise.
    Technically Network Rail was brought back into public ownership under David Cameron.
    Wasn’t that just a reclassification exercise, Blair did the deed, shamefully using the invasion of Afghanistan to bury bad news?
    Up until 2014 Network Rail were able to borrow money against their own assets. Now they are queuing up for money from the government just like everyone else.

    And given the disaster that was RailTrack, I don't think Labour had much choice.
    The probably wrong impression I got from the media at the time of Hadfield was that the bigwigs in Railtrack knew how to pay themselves whacking great bonuses but not much about railway engineering.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 16,037

    tlg86 said:

    tlg86 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Arguing for nationalisation of companies really ought to get you kicked out of the Tory party.

    Honestly if I wanted to be a member of a party advocating nationalisation I’d have joined the Labour Party.

    Free markets or death.

    The airlines, aerospace, the railways, the electricity and gas and water industries, the post office and telecommunications were all nationalised under Tory PMs from Churchill to Heath. I may have supported Thatcher's privatisations but you can be a Tory and oppose free trade, it is much more difficult to be a Tory and a republican you may take note. Support for free trade is one of the defining features of a liberal not a conservative
    Which Tory PM nationalised the railways? Name names.

    As being for pro free trade and support therein, it is what being a Tory is all about.
    Theresa May is nationalising one on Saturday night. ;)
    Not the whole network, just one TOC that returned the franchise.
    Technically Network Rail was brought back into public ownership under David Cameron.
    Wasn’t that just a reclassification exercise, Blair did the deed, shamefully using the invasion of Afghanistan to bury bad news?
    Face it TSE, rigid adherence to a free market culture is a dying ethos.

    Attempting to game a market where a natural monopoly exists hasn't worked, some services are best run as public services, and a mixed economy is what we all (including the Conservative party) should be aiming for.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Arguing for nationalisation of companies really ought to get you kicked out of the Tory party.

    Honestly if I wanted to be a member of a party advocating nationalisation I’d have joined the Labour Party.

    Free markets or death.

    The airlines, aerospace, the railways, the electricity and gas and water industries, the post office and telecommunications were all nationalised under Tory PMs from Churchill to Heath. I may have supported Thatcher's privatisations but you can be a Tory and oppose free trade, it is much more difficult to be a Tory and a republican you may take note. Support for free trade is one of the defining features of a liberal not a conservative
    Which Tory PM nationalised the railways? Name names.

    As being for pro free trade and support therein, it is what being a Tory is all about.
    All the Tory PMs from 1951 to 1974 kept the railways nationalised and refused to privatise them, indeed so did Thatcher and it was not until Major they were privatised.

    Being pro free trade and pro free market is a common trait of Tories but not as definitive as being a monarchist say
    But none of them actually took the entire railway system from the private sector into the public sector.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,754
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    So the real question is which other countries have benefited?
    I would suggest maybe Ireland and Czech as the only 2.

    I think the easy was to solve that question would be to ask which countries in the Eurozone have seen an absolute increase in the number of people in employment* since its creation on 1/1/99.

    Care to make a guess?

    * You could also use the proportion of people in employment.
    Ireland started the Euro with 1.57m in employment, and is now at 2.2m. I doubt many other countries in the world have managed a 33% increase.
    The UK has gone from 27m to 32m, an 18% jump.
    The US has gone from 138m to 155m, a 12% increase.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 29,288

    Dura_Ace said:

    Scott_P said:
    The Airbus thing is containable while it's one company, albeit an important. If one or more of the car manufacturers weighs in with similar sentiments then it will be leaky anus time in Gammonstan.
    Sort of, but I am seeing smaller scale Airbus type decisions. If you get headlines reinforcing what you are experiencing the impact is much greater.
    Quite. Airbus has said publicly what just about every corporate boss aside from James Dyson is saying privately. It's probably too late already to stop a significant movement of economic activity out of the UK over the next couple of years.
    What about economic activity moving to the UK?
    FDI in the UK was $45bn in 2014, $33bn in 2015, $250bn in 2016 .....and $20bn in 2017. 2016 was distorted by some very large takeovers but even so there has been a big drop in foreign investment in the UK since the referendum. And it's not hard to see why.
    2016 is the obvious outlier, due as you say, to takeovers.

    Overall, investment was up 4% in 2017, which is quite reasonable.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 36,754
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    So the real question is which other countries have benefited?
    I would suggest maybe Ireland and Czech as the only 2.

    I think the easy was to solve that question would be to ask which countries in the Eurozone have seen an absolute increase in the number of people in employment* since its creation on 1/1/99.

    Care to make a guess?

    * You could also use the proportion of people in employment.
    Ireland started the Euro with 1.57m in employment, and is now at 2.2m. I doubt many other countries in the world have managed a 33% increase.
    The UK has gone from 27m to 32m, an 18% jump.
    The US has gone from 138m to 155m, a 12% increase.
    Germany has gone from 39m to 45m, a 15% increase.
    Spain has gone from 14m to 18.9m, a 35% jump - and the new record.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 16,037

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    Yes it's dawning on the Irish that for all their bluster and stated unwillingness to compromise an inch, there might be some unwelcome consequences for them of a hard border.

    For all their hard talk, are they really intent on making it a reality? Their negotiating position is as weak as butter in an oven.
    Yes, and when it dawns on them that they are going to be the ones implementing a hard North into South border and the UK will live with an unimpeded South into North border one wonders whether the likes of Varadker and Junker will need police protection. Trying to leverage the NI border into cancelling Brexit will end up backfiring on the Irish quite badly, I just hope they wise up to how badly they are being used by Brussels before then and start constructively talking about how to avoid any hard border with the UK outside of the customs union.
    Don't underestimate people's capacity to believe two contradictory things. And in any case RoI in the CU and SM and Britain outside both would require the Irish government to choose between imposing a hard border North to South and leaving the EU. For three reasons they would then blame the Brits. First and most importantly, because they wouldn't want to make Irish EU membership an issue. Second, some of them would imagine they might be able to increase their chances of getting their mitts on the North. Third, it's easiest and plays well.

    Meanwhile, when travelling to France it could be a matter of GBers having to go through the non-EEA channel and NIers, so long as they're travelling on their Irish passports, getting waved through the EEA channel. Sooner or later the fact that after Brexit NIers would remain EU citizens (if they wished) will hit the consciousness.
    Good first post - welcome aboard!
This discussion has been closed.