Ideological purity takes second place to a fresh approach, so Jezza and May are unlikely to be replaced by photocopies of themselves.
If Jezza fell under a bus, I think the party would pick someone equally left-wing but less scrupulous about personal attacks and low cunning. Members aren't longing for a centrist, but they'd mostly like a more cut-throat approach which included savaging hapless Ministers and adopting stances for popular effect. Corbyn seems curiously fastidious in today's world: he thinks that one should simply say what one believes in without abuse or theatrics and in due course the electorate may come round. I like it, but I'm old-fashioned.
If Jezza fell under a bus, Tom Watson would be leader. It would be fascinating to see how long that would last - and who would stand for the leadership in an eventual contest. I am not sure that there is anyone equally as left-wing as Corbyn with the ability to harvest the support that Corbyn does. That's why he has not resigned and will lead labour into the next election.
We also have stagnating wages, the lowest growth rate in the EU, low productivity, and housing assets consume a truly wasteful percentage of investment while pricing a whole generation out of the property ladder.
PB Tories economic masturbation looks scarily provincial as soon as you leave Dover.
Aaaaaarggh, there's a video by @rcs1000 you need to watch!
I’ve seen the video.
Productivity is a flawed measure, but it’s not meaningless. Much of the country is employed in low value, low productivity jobs. Indeed it is one of the Brexiter complaints that high immigration prevents employers from making productivity improvements.
Yeah, but apart from all that aren't things going well? Unemployment the lowest since 1975, public borrowing the lowest since 2007 and continuing to fall sharply, growth apparently picking up, inflation low?
The economy could certainly be doing a lot worse, but let's not fool ourselves that it's doing all that well.
In reality unemployment is not that low - paricularly in respect of male full time work. Remove all the 'adjustments' of the 1980s & 1990s , and we have figures a good deal higher than the 1970s on a like for like basis - and MUCH higher than the 1950s & 1960s.
It might make you feel better to believe that but its not true. Unemployment is now measured through the ILO. A standardised measure that all EU member states *must* use. And it has been on that measure since about 1998. The changes we have seen since the crash are real. We really now do have Full Employment. Things can always be better, but lets not try and deny the 'Jobs Miracle'.
That is what we will call it in a few years time when something goes wrong and we will look on 4% unemployment as something only possible in a universe inhabited by unicorns on rainbows.
I am referring to comparisons with the 1970s on a like for like basis - and indeed earlier years. On the ILO figures we are still seeing headline unemployment of circa 1.5 million - well beyond the levels reached under the Heath Government in 1972 when the total reached the 1 million mark for the first time since World War 2 and almost led to the House of Commons being suspended with Dennis Skinner on the verge of physically assaulting Heath at PMQs. As fot the 'jobs miracle' , many of those who have left the register are working part time on an involuntary basis - having to accept 16 - 25 hours per week when they wish to be in fulltime positions offering 35 - 40 hours. A similar story arises from many people effectively coerced by the DWP into declaring themselves 'self employed' - it removes them from the stats yet they earn peanuts.
Yeah, but apart from all that aren't things going well? Unemployment the lowest since 1975, public borrowing the lowest since 2007 and continuing to fall sharply, growth apparently picking up, inflation low?
I struggle in my adult lifetime to recall a time when there was such a mismatch between an economy doing remarkably well and a government that gives chaos a bad name. Normally governments fall into chaos because they are struggling to cope with adverse economic events.
Here, of course, it is Brexit. May's determination to avoid making decisions for the last 2 years has come home to roost. Will she find a way through to a vaguely credible if suboptimal deal? Who knows? It is a toss of a coin, it really is. We can only hope.
The economy is not doing *that* well. Wages growth is only marginally above inflation, and this comes after an awful period of declining real incomes. Home ownership has declined. The economy still has its structural imbalances. We import too much and export too little. We have sold off so many of our national assets that we now remit more in dividends abroad then we receive from our foreign investments.
Unemployment is low, but with poor wages and high living costs we have high levels of in-work poverty.
The economy could certainly be doing a lot worse, but let's not fool ourselves that it's doing all that well.
In reality unemployment is not that low - paricularly in respect of male full time work. Remove all the 'adjustments' of the 1980s & 1990s , and we have figures a good deal higher than the 1970s on a like for like basis - and MUCH higher than the 1950s & 1960s.
It might make you feel better to believe that but its not true. Unemployment is now measured through the ILO. A standardised measure that all EU member states *must* use. And it has been on that measure since about 1998. The changes we have seen since the crash are real. We really now do have Full Employment. Things can always be better, but lets not try and deny the 'Jobs Miracle'.
That is what we will call it in a few years time when something goes wrong and we will look on 4% unemployment as something only possible in a universe inhabited by unicorns on rainbows.
To be fair Justin has a point with the changes in Unemployment from the recording of it in the 70s and 80s.
For example if you are made redundant in your mid to late 50s , with a small pension. You are seeking work, but are unable to claim .So do not show up on any official figures.
You are mixing up several sets of figures. People in employment People who are unemployed Claimant Count
Your example would be picked up in the unemployment figures (4.1%) not the claimant count (2.5%).
Yeah, but apart from all that aren't things going well? Unemployment the lowest since 1975, public borrowing the lowest since 2007 and continuing to fall sharply, growth apparently picking up, inflation low?
I struggle in my adult lifetime to recall a time when there was such a mismatch between an economy doing remarkably well and a government that gives chaos a bad name. Normally governments fall into chaos because they are struggling to cope with adverse economic events.
In reality unemployment is not that low - paricularly in respect of male full time work. Remove all the 'adjustments' of the 1980s & 1990s , and we have figures a good deal higher than the 1970s on a like for like basis - and MUCH higher than the 1950s & 1960s.
It might make you feel better to believe that but its not true. Unemployment is now measured through the ILO. A standardised measure that all EU member states *must* use. And it has been on that measure since about 1998. The changes we have seen since the crash are real. We really now do have Full Employment. Things can always be better, but lets not try and deny the 'Jobs Miracle'.
That is what we will call it in a few years time when something goes wrong and we will look on 4% unemployment as something only possible in a universe inhabited by unicorns on rainbows.
To be fair Justin has a point with the changes in Unemployment from the recording of it in the 70s and 80s.
For example if you are made redundant in your mid to late 50s , with a small pension. You are seeking work, but are unable to claim .So do not show up on any official figures.
It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly.
The No Dealers are incredibly undemocratic of course. Polling shows most people now want to Remain, and of course no one ever voted for No Deal, either at the referendum or in the GE.
Brexit keeps mutating, like a radioactive fatberg. If we No Deal, what will it mutate it into next?
Ideological purity takes second place to a fresh approach, so Jezza and May are unlikely to be replaced by photocopies of themselves.
If Jezza fell under a bus, I think the party would pick someone equally left-wing but less scrupulous about personal attacks and low cunning. Members aren't longing for a centrist, but they'd mostly like a more cut-throat approach which included savaging hapless Ministers and adopting stances for popular effect. Corbyn seems curiously fastidious in today's world: he thinks that one should simply say what one believes in without abuse or theatrics and in due course the electorate may come round. I like it, but I'm old-fashioned.
If Jezza fell under a bus, Tom Watson would be leader. It would be fascinating to see how long that would last - and who would stand for the leadership in an eventual contest. I am not sure that there is anyone equally as left-wing as Corbyn with the ability to harvest the support that Corbyn does. That's why he has not resigned and will lead labour into the next election.
Tom Watson is looking a lot slimmer these days.
Hasn't he been ill? He was in hospital last week,
My apologies , I was not aware of that .Hope he is ok.
Yeah, but apart from all that aren't things going well? Unemployment the lowest since 1975, public borrowing the lowest since 2007 and continuing to fall sharply, growth apparently picking up, inflation low?
The economy could certainly be doing a lot worse, but let's not fool ourselves that it's doing all that well.
In reality unemployment is not that low - paricularly in respect of male full time work. Remove all the 'adjustments' of the 1980s & 1990s , and we have figures a good deal higher than the 1970s on a like for like basis - and MUCH higher than the 1950s & 1960s.
It might make you feel better to believe that but its not true. Unemployment is now measured through the ILO. A standardised measure that all EU member states *must* use. And it has been on that measure since about 1998. The changes we have seen since the crash are real. We really now do have Full Employment. Things can always be better, but lets not try and deny the 'Jobs Miracle'.
That is what we will call it in a few years time when something goes wrong and we will look on 4% unemployment as something only possible in a universe inhabited by unicorns on rainbows.
I am referring to comparisons with the 1970s on a like for like basis - and indeed earlier years. On the ILO figures we are still seeing headline unemployment of circa 1.5 million - well beyond the levels reached under the Heath Government in 1972 when the total reached the 1 million mark for the first time since World War 2 and almost led to the House of Commons being suspended with Dennis Skinner on the verge of physically assaulting Heath at PMQs. As fot the 'jobs miracle' , many of those who have left the register are working part time on an involuntary basis - having to accept 16 - 25 hours per week when they wish to be in fulltime positions offering 35 - 40 hours. A similar story arises from many people effectively coerced by the DWP into declaring themselves 'self employed' - it removes them from the stats yet they earn peanuts.
Yeah, but apart from all that aren't things going well? Unemployment the lowest since 1975, public borrowing the lowest since 2007 and continuing to fall sharply, growth apparently picking up, inflation low?
I struggle in my adult lifetime to recall a time when there was such a mismatch between an economy doing remarkably well and a government that gives chaos a bad name. Normally governments fall into chaos because they are struggling to cope with adverse economic events.
Here, of course, it is Brexit. May's determination to avoid making decisions for the last 2 years has come home to roost. Will she find a way through to a vaguely credible if suboptimal deal? Who knows? It is a toss of a coin, it really is. We can only hope.
The last years of the Major government are the parallel. The economy doing well, but on a background of cachectic public services, and a government that spends all its time banging on about internal conflicts over Europe.
Blair and Jezza are different people, and I cannot see Jezza getting a 197 majority, but that is the way the wind is blowing. The economy will not save a Tory party that says "F*** Business".
Actually in my view Corbyn may well be another Kinnock who will allow the Tories a historic 4th term they may well have lost against any other leader because he thinks the British people will back him on his second attempt despite losing first time.
In which case is Chuka Umunna Tony Blair?
What on earth do people see in Chuka Umunna? Always struck me as an empty suit. Does he have the ability to appeal to anyone outside EC2?
I used to think that he was an empty suit, but he has rather grown on me since the curious business of his withdrawal from the 2015 Labour Leadership contest. He is articulate, intelligent, and at ease with modern Britain in a way that few other front line politicians are.
Not my first choice as Leader, but not a duffer either.
I have no idea what you mean by 'at ease with modern britain'. Some assisrance?
Ideological purity takes second place to a fresh approach, so Jezza and May are unlikely to be replaced by photocopies of themselves.
If Jezza fell under a bus, I think the party would pick someone equally left-wing but less scrupulous about personal attacks and low cunning. Members aren't longing for a centrist, but they'd mostly like a more cut-throat approach which included savaging hapless Ministers and adopting stances for popular effect. Corbyn seems curiously fastidious in today's world: he thinks that one should simply say what one believes in without abuse or theatrics and in due course the electorate may come round. I like it, but I'm old-fashioned.
Corbyn doesnt need to be abusive, he can stand back knowing that he has an army of acolytes who do this on his behalf and willingly in his name.
Not sure how much of a Game of Thrones follower you are, but Corbyn is much more the High Sparrow. Preaches worthy sentiments about being good and decent to each other. But has an collection of fanatics who then go and enforce his will.
Ideological purity takes second place to a fresh approach, so Jezza and May are unlikely to be replaced by photocopies of themselves.
If Jezza fell under a bus, I think the party would pick someone equally left-wing but less scrupulous about personal attacks and low cunning. Members aren't longing for a centrist, but they'd mostly like a more cut-throat approach which included savaging hapless Ministers and adopting stances for popular effect. Corbyn seems curiously fastidious in today's world: he thinks that one should simply say what one believes in without abuse or theatrics and in due course the electorate may come round. I like it, but I'm old-fashioned.
If Jezza fell under a bus, Tom Watson would be leader. It would be fascinating to see how long that would last - and who would stand for the leadership in an eventual contest. I am not sure that there is anyone equally as left-wing as Corbyn with the ability to harvest the support that Corbyn does. That's why he has not resigned and will lead labour into the next election.
Tom Watson is looking a lot slimmer these days.
Hasn't he been ill? He was in hospital last week,
My apologies , I was not aware of that .Hope he is ok.
As I understand it, he went on a diet on doctor’s advice.
Ideological purity takes second place to a fresh approach, so Jezza and May are unlikely to be replaced by photocopies of themselves.
If Jezza fell under a bus, I think the party would pick someone equally left-wing but less scrupulous about personal attacks and low cunning. Members aren't longing for a centrist, but they'd mostly like a more cut-throat approach which included savaging hapless Ministers and adopting stances for popular effect. Corbyn seems curiously fastidious in today's world: he thinks that one should simply say what one believes in without abuse or theatrics and in due course the electorate may come round. I like it, but I'm old-fashioned.
If Jezza fell under a bus, Tom Watson would be leader. It would be fascinating to see how long that would last - and who would stand for the leadership in an eventual contest. I am not sure that there is anyone equally as left-wing as Corbyn with the ability to harvest the support that Corbyn does. That's why he has not resigned and will lead labour into the next election.
Tom Watson is looking a lot slimmer these days.
Hasn't he been ill? He was in hospital last week,
My apologies , I was not aware of that .Hope he is ok.
As I understand it, he went on a diet on doctor’s advice.
Ideological purity takes second place to a fresh approach, so Jezza and May are unlikely to be replaced by photocopies of themselves.
If Jezza fell under a bus, I think the party would pick someone equally left-wing but less scrupulous about personal attacks and low cunning. Members aren't longing for a centrist, but they'd mostly like a more cut-throat approach which included savaging hapless Ministers and adopting stances for popular effect. Corbyn seems curiously fastidious in today's world: he thinks that one should simply say what one believes in without abuse or theatrics and in due course the electorate may come round. I like it, but I'm old-fashioned.
John McDonnell fits your description.
Yes, he does. He's also pretty uninterested in the politics of the Middle East, like 99% of the electorate - it's not that he feels the urge to be protective of Israel, more that he feels it's not a priority to get into Israeli-Palestinian arguments. He was once nice about the IRA, but I think most people feel that's yesterday's issue. His joke that "Jeremy is teaching me to be a nicer person but I'm only halfway through the course" is dangerously near the truth, though.
He says he doesn't want it, and I'm quite sure he won't move against Jeremy. But in an "under the bus" scenario? I wonder.
Succession in under a bus scenario is quite different to leaders generally going when they lose support either of their party or the electorate. McDonnell may be in pole position in the first (if he can get the PL nominations) but not in the second.
But no sign of a Labour contest at present, though I cannot see May lasting 12 months. She looks as if she will survive until Brexit day, but will then go voluntarily or involuntarily.
Seamlessly the death cult moves from “we hold all the cards” to “no deal is for the best”.
We moved from 'we hold plenty of cards in the negotiation to get a CETA FTA' to 'well it is a shame the Remainers running this negotiation threw all the cards away trying to get a BINO deal, but we voted leave and that is what we are going to do.'
No deal has always been better than a bad deal. Since the only deal remotely on offer that fulfils the referendum result is CETA with NI handed over to EU control, we are being perfectly consistent - No Deal is a better outcome than the bad deal on offer.
The only deal that fulfils the referendum result is one that sees us cease to be a member of the European Union.
Leavers are queuing up this morning to claim to be able to read the invisible ink on the referendum ballot paper.
Well thats them, and is not all leavers. Maybe just those who think we should chant two world wars and one world cup as a negotiating tactic. Some of us leavers just dont want to be a member of the European Union. It is going in a direction that we do not want. We quite like some elements of it, we like the single market, and the EU do not require membership of the EU to be members of the Single Market.
A Tory who considers themselves a Thatcherite, and doesnt support the membership of the Single Market need to give themselves a bit of a shake.
Seamlessly the death cult moves from “we hold all the cards” to “no deal is for the best”.
We moved from 'we hold plenty of cards in the negotiation to get a CETA FTA' to 'well it is a shame the Remainers running this negotiation threw all the cards away trying to get a BINO deal, but we voted leave and that is what we are going to do.'
No deal has always been better than a bad deal. Since the only deal remotely on offer that fulfils the referendum result is CETA with NI handed over to EU control, we are being perfectly consistent - No Deal is a better outcome than the bad deal on offer.
The only deal that fulfils the referendum result is one that sees us cease to be a member of the European Union.
Yes, that's right. Some forms have a better chance of being more widely supported or accepted as fulfilling the spirit perhaps , but one of the sillier games that has been played in bbc past 2 years is pretending certainty over what was meant by the question.
Yeah, but apart from all that aren't things going well? Unemployment the lowest since 1975, public borrowing the lowest since 2007 and continuing to fall sharply, growth apparently picking up, inflation low?
I struggle in my adult lifetime to recall a time when there was such a mismatch between an economy doing remarkably well and a government that gives chaos a bad name. Normally governments fall into chaos because they are struggling to cope with adverse economic events.
Here, of course, it is Brexit. May's determination to avoid making decisions for the last 2 years has come home to roost. Will she find a way through to a vaguely credible if suboptimal deal? Who knows? It is a toss of a coin, it really is. We can only hope.
The last years of the Major government are the parallel. The economy doing well, but on a background of cachectic public services, and a government that spends all its time banging on about internal conflicts over Europe.
Blair and Jezza are different people, and I cannot see Jezza getting a 197 majority, but that is the way the wind is blowing. The economy will not save a Tory party that says "F*** Business".
Actually in my view Corbyn may well be another Kinnock who will allow the Tories a historic 4th term they may well have lost against any other leader because he thinks the British people will back him on his second attempt despite losing first time.
In which case is Chuka Umunna Tony Blair?
What on earth do people see in Chuka Umunna? Always struck me as an empty suit. Does he have the ability to appeal to anyone outside EC2?
I used to think that he was an empty suit, but he has rather grown on me since the curious business of his withdrawal from the 2015 Labour Leadership contest. He is articulate, intelligent, and at ease with modern Britain in a way that few other front line politicians are.
Not my first choice as Leader, but not a duffer either.
I have no idea what you mean by 'at ease with modern britain'. Some assisrance?
Imagine the opposite of Mogg, who clearly is not at ease with 20th century Britain, never mind 21st century.
"It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly. "
These people show up in the headline figures today. They are part of the 4.1%. That figure is not dependent on the eligibility for JSA/UC.
Yeah, but apart from all that aren't things going well? Unemployment the lowest since 1975, public borrowing the lowest since 2007 and continuing to fall sharply, growth apparently picking up, inflation low?
I struggle in my adult lifetime to recall a time when there was such a mismatch between an economy doing remarkably well and a government that gives chaos a bad name. Normally governments fall into chaos because they are struggling to cope with adverse economic events.
In reality unemployment is not that low - paricularly in respect of male full time work. Remove all the 'adjustments' of the 1980s & 1990s , and we have figures a good deal higher than the 1970s on a like for like basis - and MUCH higher than the 1950s & 1960s.
It might make you feel better to believe that but its not true. Unemployment is now measured through the ILO. A standardised measure that all EU member states *must* use. And it has been on that measure since about 1998. The changes we have seen since the crash are real. We really now do have Full Employment. Things can always be better, but lets not try and deny the 'Jobs Miracle'.
That is what we will call it in a few years time when something goes wrong and we will look on 4% unemployment as something only possible in a universe inhabited by unicorns on rainbows.
To be fair Justin has a point with the changes in Unemployment from the recording of it in the 70s and 80s.
For example if you are made redundant in your mid to late 50s , with a small pension. You are seeking work, but are unable to claim .So do not show up on any official figures.
It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly.
If we included students as unemployed, the headline figure would hugely increase, but it would also be very misleading.
I posted this focus group before - I wonder if I should have bothered - but it is at least an insight into where the public might actually be. There's an irony that this issue is all about the politicians having to listen to the public and yet so much of the debate on here is on the terms set by the political class. If you think these Brexit voters have got some kind of disease of the mind please explain.
"It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly. "
These people show up in the headline figures today. They are part of the 4.1%. That figure is not dependent on the eligibility for JSA/UC.
How do they show up in the figures ? Using my previous example , of people over the age of 55.Who are made redundant and receive a small pension.However they are seeking work due to they can not live on such a pension. They do not register unemployed as they realise , they are not entitled to any unemployment benefit.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
"It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly. "
These people show up in the headline figures today. They are part of the 4.1%. That figure is not dependent on the eligibility for JSA/UC.
How do they show up in the figures ? Using my previous example , of people over the age of 55.Who are made redundant and receive a small pension.However they are seeking work due to they can not live on such a pension. They do not register unemployed as they realise , they are not entitled to any unemployment benefit.
Entitlement to or otherwise is not a requirement. Here is the ons:
The number of unemployed people in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and includes people who meet the international definition of unemployment specified by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). This ILO definition defines unemployed people as being:
without a job, have been actively seeking work in the past four weeks and are available to start work in the next two weeks out of work, have found a job and are waiting to start it in the next two weeks
"It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly. "
These people show up in the headline figures today. They are part of the 4.1%. That figure is not dependent on the eligibility for JSA/UC.
How do they show up in the figures ? Using my previous example , of people over the age of 55.Who are made redundant and receive a small pension.However they are seeking work due to they can not live on such a pension. They do not register unemployed as they realise , they are not entitled to any unemployment benefit.
There isn’t really a register of unemployed. There is the claimant count. He would not show up on the claimant count. But he would show up in a sample for the unemployment figures. The headline figures are almost always the unemployed, not the claimant count.
"It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly. "
These people show up in the headline figures today. They are part of the 4.1%. That figure is not dependent on the eligibility for JSA/UC.
How do they show up in the figures ? Using my previous example , of people over the age of 55.Who are made redundant and receive a small pension.However they are seeking work due to they can not live on such a pension. They do not register unemployed as they realise , they are not entitled to any unemployment benefit.
There isn’t really a register of unemployed. There is the claimant count. He would not show up on the claimant count. But he would show up in a sample for the unemployment figures. The headline figures are almost always the unemployed, not the claimant count.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".
There will be no second referendum with a remain option. That is not how we do things. There might be one with types of leave.
Seamlessly the death cult moves from “we hold all the cards” to “no deal is for the best”.
We moved from 'we hold plenty of cards in the negotiation to get a CETA FTA' to 'well it is a shame the Remainers running this negotiation threw all the cards away trying to get a BINO deal, but we voted leave and that is what we are going to do.'
No deal has always been better than a bad deal. Since the only deal remotely on offer that fulfils the referendum result is CETA with NI handed over to EU control, we are being perfectly consistent - No Deal is a better outcome than the bad deal on offer.
The only deal that fulfils the referendum result is one that sees us cease to be a member of the European Union.
Leavers are queuing up this morning to claim to be able to read the invisible ink on the referendum ballot paper.
To be fair both sides seem to do that continually - one of the reasons why the arguments on here and elsewhere are so turgid. Truth is it's an unholy mess and both sides bear elements of responsibility for it. I still think there'll be a deal - probably one that will satisfy nobody. That's pretty much the nature of modern politics - and by no means only in the UK.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".
There will be no second referendum with a remain option. That is not how we do things. There might be one with types of leave.
Yeah, but apart from all that aren't things going well? Unemployment the lowest since 1975, public borrowing the lowest since 2007 and continuing to fall sharply, growth apparently picking up, inflation low?
I struggle in my adult lifetime to recall a time when there was such a mismatch between an economy doing remarkably well and a government that gives chaos a bad name. Normally governments fall into chaos because they are struggling to cope with adverse economic events.
In reality unemployment is not that low - paricularly in respect of male full time work. Remove all the 'adjustments' of the 1980s & 1990s , and we have figures a good deal higher than the 1970s on a like for like basis - and MUCH higher than the 1950s & 1960s.
It might make you feel better to believe that but its not true. Unemployment is now measured through the ILO. A standardised measure that all EU member states *must* use. And it has been on that measure since about 1998. The changes we have seen since the crash are real. We really now do have Full Employment. Things can always be better, but lets not try and deny the 'Jobs Miracle'.
That is what we will call it in a few years time when something goes wrong and we will look on 4% unemployment as something only possible in a universe inhabited by unicorns on rainbows.
To be fair Justin has a point with the changes in Unemployment from the recording of it in the 70s and 80s.
For example if you are made redundant in your mid to late 50s , with a small pension. You are seeking work, but are unable to claim .So do not show up on any official figures.
It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly.
Pretty nonsensical - why are the 70's and 80's to be uniquely a benchmark for anything - most of us have moved on from those times - perhaps you ought to do the same.
PHASE 1: TRIBE. The word "British" used to denote a fealty, a tribe. It was a pledge of allegiance to something or somebody and implied a duty: a tithe, a tax, the obligation to fight for the Crown. This extended from the Middle Ages and survived the conversion to Westphalian states, all the way to the 20th Century. It began to end when the colonies became dominions and finally ended at some point in the 20th century.
PHASE 2: LAND. Then the word "British" developed borders. As the Empire collapsed the "United Kingdom" became coterminous with "British", and various nationality acts were passed to enforce this. Many people moved to the UK, for example Joanna Lumley (born British India) and Trevor McDonald (born Trinidad). This was the period of the Windrush generation. It ended at some point between 1979 and 1997, tho it was nothing to do with the Conservatives
PHASE 3: IDENTITY. Then we had globalisation and mass travel: populations have always moved but never so fast and so much. People live and work outside their sovereign state and speak via the Internet to newer tribes based on how they identify. Now "British" is something you feel inside, and is divorced from any concept of duty or taxation or location.
If you like, you can track this through passport covers and popular media. Passports from Mandatory Palestine and New Zealand in the 1950's still have "BRITISH PASSPORT" on the top, and characters in "On the Beach" (an Australian novel of the 1950's) still refer to the UK as "home" despite never living there.
Lastly, it is ironic that PB, a board that collectively disdains identity politics with respect to sexuality, gender or even politics itself, should embody it so strongly with respect to nationality.
Can I make a small admission, which goes some way to explaining why I voted Leave.
When I was still gainfully employed, I went to Brussels in a very minor capacity as a scientific advisor. When the meeting broke up, I was grabbed by some functionary to attend another meeting.
Having a few hours before my plane I was ushered into a large gathering of European bureaucrats, introduced as a UK 'expert' and interrogated by the civil servants.
They seemed to be short of a UK legal expert, as that's all they were interested in. Despite protesting that my knowledge of UK law was negligible, they persisted in asking me questions about the UK legal system. God knows why. Anyway, I made most of it up, but they seemed happy enough.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
No Deal hastens the collapse of the British political system. Quite possibly of Britain itself. At some point reality will hit. It's better for that to happen while we are still talking to people and not when are engulfed in major crisis. To be fair to the European Union they have been more aware of the dangers than our government has been.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".
There will be no second referendum with a remain option. That is not how we do things. There might be one with types of leave.
It would be such a shame if all the people who pompously assert that “that is not how we do things” had to recalibrate their view of how we do things...
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".
The neverendum will never fly. It risks creating all the same problems as leaving-but-not-leaving-really, and there's not enough time left to organise and hold one regardless.
Seamlessly the death cult moves from “we hold all the cards” to “no deal is for the best”.
We moved from 'we hold plenty of cards in the negotiation to get a CETA FTA' to 'well it is a shame the Remainers running this negotiation threw all the cards away trying to get a BINO deal, but we voted leave and that is what we are going to do.'
No deal has always been better than a bad deal. Since the only deal remotely on offer that fulfils the referendum result is CETA with NI handed over to EU control, we are being perfectly consistent - No Deal is a better outcome than the bad deal on offer.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
Yeah, but apart from all that aren't things going well? Unemployment the lowest since 1975, public borrowing the lowest since 2007 and continuing to fall sharply, growth apparently picking up, inflation low?
I struggle in my adult lifetime to recall a time when there was such a mismatch between an economy doing remarkably well and a government that gives chaos a bad name. Normally governments fall into chaos because they are struggling to cope with adverse economic events.
Here, of course, it is Brexit. May's determination to avoid making decisions for the last 2 years has come home to roost. Will she find a way through to a vaguely credible if suboptimal deal? Who knows? It is a toss of a coin, it really is. We can only hope.
The last years of the Major government are the parallel. The economy doing well, but on a background of cachectic public services, and a government that spends all its time banging on about internal conflicts over Europe.
Blair and Jezza are different people, and I cannot see Jezza getting a 197 majority, but that is the way the wind is blowing. The economy will not save a Tory party that says "F*** Business".
Actually in my view Corbyn may well be another Kinnock who will allow the Tories a historic 4th term they may well have lost against any other leader because he thinks the British people will back him on his second attempt despite losing first time.
In which case is Chuka Umunna Tony Blair?
What on earth do people see in Chuka Umunna? Always struck me as an empty suit. Does he have the ability to appeal to anyone outside EC2?
I used to think that he was an empty suit, but he has rather grown on me since the curious business of his withdrawal from the 2015 Labour Leadership contest. He is articulate, intelligent, and at ease with modern Britain in a way that few other front line politicians are.
Not my first choice as Leader, but not a duffer either.
I have no idea what you mean by 'at ease with modern britain'. Some assisrance?
Imagine the opposite of Mogg, who clearly is not at ease with 20th century Britain, never mind 21st century.
Still not getting it. Virtually no mps are as old fashioned as Mogg, surely nearly all of them are at ease with modern Britain? What is it about Umunna which shows he is more at ease with it than most, which was the claim?
As if there any doubt a deal is dead and no deal is our destination, I see the papers say the EU are savaging mays deal. She can't do more, so at least 100% effort can be directed at no deal prep now.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
As if there any doubt a deal is dead and no deal is our destination, I see the papers say the EU are savaging mays deal. She can't do more, so at least 100% effort can be directed at no deal prep now.
She could do more. She could go for soft brexit, win the ensuing VONC, and ignore the meaningful vote. Or she could extend article 50 and call a second referendum. Whether she should do either is another question.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
I disagree hard Brexiteers and diehard Leavers and UKIP and Tommy Robinson types are more likely to be protest aggressively than pro EU upper middle class LD types
Who is David Whitley, and what actual arguments does he possess beyond insult? (Twitter is 99% mud-slinging and only 1% vaguely useful content anyway.)
I would be very surprised if there were an immediate outbreak of "riots" over a radical change in direction. Only increasing polarisation, extremism and the slow throttling to death of a reasonably tolerant, civilised society.
You cannot create a situation in which you give people a chance to say what they want, then ignore the answer because you don't like it, and expect this decision to be without consequence. Nor, incidentally, will arguing that the referendum question didn't say what *kind* of Leave there should be - and therefore it can be whatever is least unpalatable to the people who never wanted to go - suffice. There was a window of opportunity when the EEA might have been saleable to the electorate as a stepping stone to something new, but we are long past the point at which anyone will trust that proposal if the Government tries to sell it.
There must be trust that votes are meaningful, or else everything else falls.
As if there any doubt a deal is dead and no deal is our destination, I see the papers say the EU are savaging mays deal. She can't do more, so at least 100% effort can be directed at no deal prep now.
She could do more. She could go for soft brexit, win the ensuing VONC, and ignore the meaningful vote. Or she could extend article 50 and call a second referendum. Whether she should do either is another question.
Hard leavers say what she is proposing is already a soft Brexit. She cannot do more to get a deal. She won't win a contest on a proposal to call a referendum - more and more may support the idea, but have different views on the question, so won't back it .
No, the EU aren't going to bend on any substantive points, and she needs them to to get any deal agreed. It's no deal, or a collapse.
Except Corbyn will not be Attlee or Wilson who were the only 2 competent socialist leaders the British have ever voted for and given a majority to (and in the case of Wilson that is stretching competent somewhat) but most likely an incompetent socialist leader which British voters have never voted for.
Whatever you think of May she is hardly a Thatcherite, headline Brexiteer rabid Tory either and neither is Hammond unlike the rabid socialists Corbyn and McDonnell
And still 40% of the electorate voted for Corbyn Labour last year.
That's why a no deal Brexit is the best of the limited options available. Whatever the economic damage caused by it (and it would behove us not to take every report of looming catastrophe at face value, given what we've learned about the not entirely accurate predictions of Project Fear,) that would be as nothing compared to the threat of a disastrous political realignment if the betrayal narrative is allowed to take root: an extremist Ukip raised from the dead, quite possibly an actual break-up of the Tory party, and the far-Left coming to power.
Compared to the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street, with the Conservative Party in ruins and the far-Right gunning to take its place as the Opposition, Britain's relationship with Europe is a matter of trifling importance. And besides, we are probably living through the twilight years of the EU - and, in turn, the rupture of which so many people are afraid is something we're most likely going to have to live through at some point, anyway.
It is true the Tories only beat Corbyn as their hard Brexit platform in 2017 got them to 42% thanks to ex UKIP voters as Cummings said.
Now the Tories are only on 36% with a softer Brexit platform and UKIP are up in the polls so inevitably the Tories may have no choice but to have Boris as leader next time
If 2017 saw May hoover up all UKIP’s voters and still fail to get a majority, moving even further right doesn’t seem a sensible strategy for electoral success.
In 2017 May won almost 60 more seats than Labour to stay PM, on the latest Opinium poll Corbyn will become PM with about 50 more seats than the Tories but exactly the same Labour voteshare as 2017 due to Tory defections to UKIP
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
It would be such a shame if all the people who pompously assert that “that is not how we do things” had to recalibrate their view of how we do things...
The sands are shifting. Leavers have already gone from no second referendum to maybe a second one if only various flavours of leave are on offer.
I disagree hard Brexiteers and diehard Leavers and UKIP and Tommy Robinson types are more likely to be protest aggressively than pro EU upper middle class LD types
Do you think Tommy Robinson types will be cheering the absence of food on the supermarket shelves?
Who is David Whitley, and what actual arguments does he possess beyond insult? (Twitter is 99% mud-slinging and only 1% vaguely useful content anyway.)
I would be very surprised if there were an immediate outbreak of "riots" over a radical change in direction. Only increasing polarisation, extremism and the slow throttling to death of a reasonably tolerant, civilised society.
You cannot create a situation in which you give people a chance to say what they want, then ignore the answer because you don't like it, and expect this decision to be without consequence. Nor, incidentally, will arguing that the referendum question didn't say what *kind* of Leave there should be - and therefore it can be whatever is least unpalatable to the people who never wanted to go - suffice. There was a window of opportunity when the EEA might have been saleable to the electorate as a stepping stone to something new, but we are long past the point at which anyone will trust that proposal if the Government tries to sell it.
There must be trust that votes are meaningful, or else everything else falls.
I do agree that options for leave that might have been saleable no longer will be, unfortunately. Another consequence of the failure to pick a direction a long long time ago.
I disagree hard Brexiteers and diehard Leavers and UKIP and Tommy Robinson types are more likely to be protest aggressively than pro EU upper middle class LD types
Do you think Tommy Robinson types will be cheering the absence of food on the supermarket shelves?
They are anti immigration more than anything and even in no deal we will still have plenty of UK food and food from outside the EU and even EU food will just need more checks and be a bit more expensive
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".
There will be no second referendum with a remain option. That is not how we do things. There might be one with types of leave.
It would be such a shame if all the people who pompously assert that “that is not how we do things” had to recalibrate their view of how we do things...
If the vote had gone the way of remain with similar numbers. And the Government started trying to negotiate itself into associated membership you would be happy? You ask a question, you get an answer. You dont keep asking until you get the one you want. Just because on this issue you disagree with the outcome you shouldnt shy away from the principle.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
No Deal hastens the collapse of the British political system. Quite possibly of Britain itself. At some point reality will hit. It's better for that to happen while we are still talking to people and not when are engulfed in major crisis. To be fair to the European Union they have been more aware of the dangers than our government has been.
What hyperbole. The marketplace is more sustainable than that. The absolute worse case is a temporary discontinuity of service. Something that all sides will rush to avoid at the last minute.
This doom mongering really just doesnt wash. The remain campaign shot their wad on Project fear which didnt come to pass, and even if their predictions had some merit in them, theyre not convincing anyone other than themselves.
As if there any doubt a deal is dead and no deal is our destination, I see the papers say the EU are savaging mays deal. She can't do more, so at least 100% effort can be directed at no deal prep now.
She could do more. She could go for soft brexit, win the ensuing VONC, and ignore the meaningful vote. Or she could extend article 50 and call a second referendum. Whether she should do either is another question.
Hard leavers say what she is proposing is already a soft Brexit. She cannot do more to get a deal. She won't win a contest on a proposal to call a referendum - more and more may support the idea, but have different views on the question, so won't back it .
No, the EU aren't going to bend on any substantive points, and she needs them to to get any deal agreed. It's no deal, or a collapse.
The point is she doesn't need hard Leavers to survive until March and get a deal through. The long-term survival of her premiership and electoral prospects of the conservative party are another matter.
It would be such a shame if all the people who pompously assert that “that is not how we do things” had to recalibrate their view of how we do things...
The sands are shifting. Leavers have already gone from no second referendum to maybe a second one if only various flavours of leave are on offer.
Bless. You honestly really believe we will have a second referendum or that we will not actually leave? OK, look I know grief is tough, we've all had it. But you need to accept that we are leaving the EU, no iffs or butts. Put your efforts into trying to shape our relationship afterwards.
No Deal hastens the collapse of the British political system. Quite possibly of Britain itself. At some point reality will hit. It's better for that to happen while we are still talking to people and not when are engulfed in major crisis. To be fair to the European Union they have been more aware of the dangers than our government has been.
What hyperbole. The marketplace is more sustainable than that.
The implication of that comment is that the state will lose control, which is precisely the point.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".
There will be no second referendum with a remain option. That is not how we do things. There might be one with types of leave.
"That is not how we do things" sounds very gammony!
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
The No Dealers are incredibly undemocratic of course. Polling shows most people now want to Remain, and of course no one ever voted for No Deal, either at the referendum or in the GE.
Brexit keeps mutating, like a radioactive fatberg. If we No Deal, what will it mutate it into next?
Poor crocodile tears. We don't govern based on polling we govern based on votes.
Now you appreciate a bit how sceptics felt. Polling opposed Lisbon by a much greater margin than current polls yet it still got ratified. Polls supported a Lisbon referendum by a vastly greater margin than a second one yet it got ratified without one. And of course no one ever voted for Lisbon, either at a referendum or a general election.
But the EU kept mutating like a radioactive fatberg. If we had remained what would it have mutated into next.
The problem we have is that all three potential outcomes hard, fudged or remain will cause significant economic and political problems. We simply have to pick the blend we prefer.
Who is David Whitley, and what actual arguments does he possess beyond insult? (Twitter is 99% mud-slinging and only 1% vaguely useful content anyway.)
I would be very surprised if there were an immediate outbreak of "riots" over a radical change in direction. Only increasing polarisation, extremism and the slow throttling to death of a reasonably tolerant, civilised society.
You cannot create a situation in which you give people a chance to say what they want, then ignore the answer because you don't like it, and expect this decision to be without consequence. Nor, incidentally, will arguing that the referendum question didn't say what *kind* of Leave there should be - and therefore it can be whatever is least unpalatable to the people who never wanted to go - suffice. There was a window of opportunity when the EEA might have been saleable to the electorate as a stepping stone to something new, but we are long past the point at which anyone will trust that proposal if the Government tries to sell it.
There must be trust that votes are meaningful, or else everything else falls.
I actually believe that if the EU had offered the UK the EEA with real restrictions on FOM straight after the referendum, it would have been accepted without too much fuss. I would not have personally welcomed it but at that time it would have worked. As you say, that boat has sailed. The EU were too busy playng tough to grab the opportunity. Now they have an existential risk that No Deal actually is not a problem because in this case the EU will fall apart. Only the myth of the SM holds it together.
"It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly. "
These people show up in the headline figures today. They are part of the 4.1%. That figure is not dependent on the eligibility for JSA/UC.
16 -18 year olds and students during vacation periods are not included.
Now they have an existential risk that No Deal actually is not a problem because in this case the EU will fall apart. Only the myth of the SM holds it together.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
No Deal hastens the collapse of the British political system. Quite possibly of Britain itself. At some point reality will hit. It's better for that to happen while we are still talking to people and not when are engulfed in major crisis. To be fair to the European Union they have been more aware of the dangers than our government has been.
What hyperbole. The marketplace is more sustainable than that. The absolute worse case is a temporary discontinuity of service. Something that all sides will rush to avoid at the last minute.
This doom mongering really just doesnt wash. The remain campaign shot their wad on Project fear which didnt come to pass, and even if their predictions had some merit in them, theyre not convincing anyone other than themselves.
I am addressing Acorn's assertion that No Deal is the stability option that will avoid national humiliation. It absolutely isn't and absolutely won't. No Deal isn't agreement by another name. No deal means no arrangements except those agreed by the EU ad hoc, on a temporary basis, to its advantage and in return for the UK doing stuff it wants. For the UK it's the most humiliating outcome of them all and it's not even the end state. At some point there will be a deal on the EU's terms.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".
There will be no second referendum with a remain option. That is not how we do things. There might be one with types of leave.
"That is not how we do things" sounds very gammony!
But I'm sure that's not you.
More to the point, Leave does not have a majority in either house. If another referendum is put to the country, it will leave Parliament with a Remain option included in it. Leavers could huff and puff until they're red in the face but they don't have the votes to stop it.
As if there any doubt a deal is dead and no deal is our destination, I see the papers say the EU are savaging mays deal. She can't do more, so at least 100% effort can be directed at no deal prep now.
She could do more. She could go for soft brexit, win the ensuing VONC, and ignore the meaningful vote. Or she could extend article 50 and call a second referendum. Whether she should do either is another question.
Hard leavers say what she is proposing is already a soft Brexit. She cannot do more to get a deal. She won't win a contest on a proposal to call a referendum - more and more may support the idea, but have different views on the question, so won't back it .
No, the EU aren't going to bend on any substantive points, and she needs them to to get any deal agreed. It's no deal, or a collapse.
The point is she doesn't need hard Leavers to survive until March and get a deal through.
She does though. Not all remainers are on board with her plan, Labour will stay right out of it, and so she cannot get it through. She proved that by having to accept the ERG amendments.
While a challenge should occur to settle this it might not, but she seems to lack the numbers for her deal as proposed, and certainly lacks them for bending even further to the EU. Whether the EU is reasonable or nor they aren't accepting it as is, and May just doesn't have the support to do what they want.
The problem we have is that all three potential outcomes hard, fudged or remain will cause significant economic and political problems. We simply have to pick the blend we prefer.
At present noone wants to, hence part of the reason some movement to a second ref is happening - we can take the blame again!
Who is David Whitley, and what actual arguments does he possess beyond insult? (Twitter is 99% mud-slinging and only 1% vaguely useful content anyway.)
I would be very surprised if there were an immediate outbreak of "riots" over a radical change in direction. Only increasing polarisation, extremism and the slow throttling to death of a reasonably tolerant, civilised society.
You cannot create a situation in which you give people a chance to say what they want, then ignore the answer because you don't like it, and expect this decision to be without consequence. Nor, incidentally, will arguing that the referendum question didn't say what *kind* of Leave there should be - and therefore it can be whatever is least unpalatable to the people who never wanted to go - suffice. There was a window of opportunity when the EEA might have been saleable to the electorate as a stepping stone to something new, but we are long past the point at which anyone will trust that proposal if the Government tries to sell it.
There must be trust that votes are meaningful, or else everything else falls.
When we leave the EU on 29th March 2019, the referendum mandate will have been honoured. Everything else is detail.
More to the point, Leave does not have a majority in either house. If another referendum is put to the country, it will leave Parliament with a Remain option included in it. Leavers could huff and puff until they're red in the face but they don't have the votes to stop it.
The person with the most agency over all of this in the UK is Theresa May, and her moment of maximum power is the day when the text of the withdrawal agreement is finalised (probably with a very brief political declaration about a future relationship with an Association Agreement structure). If she has an ounce of political sense, she will announce a second referendum with an option to Remain on that day. There will be no possibility that parliament will stand in her way, and a VoNC within the Tory party would be pointless.
What happens if turnout at a second referendum is much lower than before?
It's the result that matters. Did a GE become invalid because the turnout fell ?
Scotland 1979
That one worked well, it was a total fix and caused the hatred of Westminster and its Tory troughers.
Tory?
It was Labour that set the threshold. It was Labour that determined the threshold wasn't met so they'd take no further action. It was Labour the SNP decided they had no confidence in. It was Labour that lost power for a generation due to that vote.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
Who is David Whitley, and what actual arguments does he possess beyond insult? (Twitter is 99% mud-slinging and only 1% vaguely useful content anyway.)
I would be very surprised if there were an immediate outbreak of "riots" over a radical change in direction. Only increasing polarisation, extremism and the slow throttling to death of a reasonably tolerant, civilised society.
You cannot create a situation in which you give people a chance to say what they want, then ignore the answer because you don't like it, and expect this decision to be without consequence. Nor, incidentally, will arguing that the referendum question didn't say what *kind* of Leave there should be - and therefore it can be whatever is least unpalatable to the people who never wanted to go - suffice. There was a window of opportunity when the EEA might have been saleable to the electorate as a stepping stone to something new, but we are long past the point at which anyone will trust that proposal if the Government tries to sell it.
There must be trust that votes are meaningful, or else everything else falls.
I actually believe that if the EU had offered the UK the EEA with real restrictions on FOM straight after the referendum, it would have been accepted without too much fuss. I would not have personally welcomed it but at that time it would have worked. As you say, that boat has sailed. The EU were too busy playng tough to grab the opportunity. Now they have an existential risk that No Deal actually is not a problem because in this case the EU will fall apart. Only the myth of the SM holds it together.
The variant which you describe could not and would not have been offered under any circumstances. The Commission is utilising the Irish border as an excuse to try to manoeuvre the UK into accepting the terms that it prefers - i.e. EEA+CU - but that's all that ever would have been acceptable to it anyway.
Whatever terms we leave on will have little bearing on the eventual fate of the EU. As things stand, the failure to structure the Euro system properly is what will most likely finish it off.
What happens if turnout at a second referendum is much lower than before?
It's the result that matters. Did a GE become invalid because the turnout fell ?
Scotland 1979
That one worked well, it was a total fix and caused the hatred of Westminster and its Tory troughers.
Tory?
It was Labour that set the threshold. It was Labour that determined the threshold wasn't met so they'd take no further action. It was Labour the SNP decided they had no confidence in. It was Labour that lost power for a generation due to that vote.
??? Labour held the vast majority of MPs in Scotland throughout the 80s and 90s. I doubt the vote had any impact on their performance in England and Wales.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
No Deal hastens the collapse of the British political system. Quite possibly of Britain itself. At some point reality will hit. It's better for that to happen while we are still talking to people and not when are engulfed in major crisis. To be fair to the European Union they have been more aware of the dangers than our government has been.
What hyperbole. The marketplace is more sustainable than that. The absolute worse case is a temporary discontinuity of service. Something that all sides will rush to avoid at the last minute.
This doom mongering really just doesnt wash. The remain campaign shot their wad on Project fear which didnt come to pass, and even if their predictions had some merit in them, theyre not convincing anyone other than themselves.
I am addressing Acorn's assertion that No Deal is the stability option that will avoid national humiliation. It absolutely isn't and absolutely won't. No Deal isn't agreement by another name. No deal means no arrangements except those agreed by the EU ad hoc, on a temporary basis, to its advantage and in return for the UK doing stuff it wants. For the UK it's the most humiliating outcome of them all and it's not even the end state. At some point there will be a deal on the EU's terms.
Yes, even "No Deal" requires minimal Deal, simply to keep the planes flying etc.
F1: Mr. JohnL, yes. Did have a quick look at third practice but the weather forecast made the chance of rain minimal...
Any thoughts on qualifying? My initial thinking is Alonso, Leclerc for Q3, Williams for Q2. If it’s still raining (as opposed to drying ) there’s likely to be a couple of red flags and people knocked out early by accident (or by accidents).
I posted this focus group before - I wonder if I should have bothered - but it is at least an insight into where the public might actually be. There's an irony that this issue is all about the politicians having to listen to the public and yet so much of the debate on here is on the terms set by the political class. If you think these Brexit voters have got some kind of disease of the mind please explain.
Thank you for that. I did try and get thru it, but even at double speed it was a chore: too much Evan Thingy and pauses. Might have been better as a transcript: I'll try again later tonight.
Parenthetically, one problem with focus groups is that they're a group: not everybody answers every question. They're a bit of a lazy way to research. However, market research is a collection of short-cuts, so we'll just have to live with it.
I'm getting to be quite sanguine about the prospect of 'no deal'. Yes, there are going to be some unpleasant consequences, but they'll disproportionally affect the places that voted to leave - so that's justice of a sort. But the greatest prize is that it's going to see the Tories out of power for a generation. i.e. We're talking 'Black Wednesday' to the power of 10.
One good thing will come of it at least then.
+ Witnessing Toby Young's reaction when Jeremy Corbyn walks into 10 Downing Street. Priceless ...
"It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly. "
These people show up in the headline figures today. They are part of the 4.1%. That figure is not dependent on the eligibility for JSA/UC.
16 -18 year olds and students during vacation periods are not included.
Nor should they be they're students on holiday they're not unemployed.
If an employee takes 2 weeks vacation is he unemployed during those two weeks?
What happens if turnout at a second referendum is much lower than before?
It's the result that matters. Did a GE become invalid because the turnout fell ?
Scotland 1979
That one worked well, it was a total fix and caused the hatred of Westminster and its Tory troughers.
Tory?
It was Labour that set the threshold. It was Labour that determined the threshold wasn't met so they'd take no further action. It was Labour the SNP decided they had no confidence in. It was Labour that lost power for a generation due to that vote.
??? Labour held the vast majority of MPs in Scotland throughout the 80s and 90s. I doubt the vote had any impact on their performance in England and Wales.
But it was Labour in charge of the 78 referendum.
Labour only lost the vote or no confidence in 79 by a solitary vote due to the SNP too.
Tories came to power in the election that happened due to the SNP.
Hammond and Javid clash in Cabinet over FOM as Hammond says EU workers should get preferential treatment in coming to the UK while Javid insists free movement must end completely with no backdoor favours for EU citizens
Not tipping anything. But if someone wanted long odds, 251/326 (latter with boost) on Leclerc or the Renault drivers to win each way would be worth considering. That said, I think it'll be Hamilton, Verstappen and Vettel in the hunt.
"It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly. "
These people show up in the headline figures today. They are part of the 4.1%. That figure is not dependent on the eligibility for JSA/UC.
16 -18 year olds and students during vacation periods are not included.
Nor should they be they're students on holiday they're not unemployed.
If an employee takes 2 weeks vacation is he unemployed during those two weeks?
I am not arguing that point specifically - but the fact remains that in the mid-70s students were able to claim Unemployment Benefit! Moreover many students on holiday did make themselves available for work.
Who is David Whitley, and what actual arguments does he possess beyond insult? (Twitter is 99% mud-slinging and only 1% vaguely useful content anyway.)
I would be very surprised if there were an immediate outbreak of "riots" over a radical change in direction. Only increasing polarisation, extremism and the slow throttling to death of a reasonably tolerant, civilised society.
You cannot create a situation in which you give people a chance to say what they want, then ignore the answer because you don't like it, and expect this decision to be without consequence. Nor, incidentally, will arguing that the referendum question didn't say what *kind* of Leave there should be - and therefore it can be whatever is least unpalatable to the people who never wanted to go - suffice. There was a window of opportunity when the EEA might have been saleable to the electorate as a stepping stone to something new, but we are long past the point at which anyone will trust that proposal if the Government tries to sell it.
There must be trust that votes are meaningful, or else everything else falls.
When we leave the EU on 29th March 2019, the referendum mandate will have been honoured. Everything else is detail.
Sophistry. There's a world of difference between leaving the EU properly and leaving whilst being enmeshed into its structures and operating as something akin to a protectorate, and both the politicians and the general public know perfectly well the difference.
I invite you to consider what would've happened if Yes had won 52:48 in 2014 and Scotland had left the UK a couple of years back, but simultaneously entered into a new association agreement. This might have included, for arguments' sake, delegating external trade policy, the internal regulation of the British single market, monetary policy and territorial defence to a series of joint committees comprised entirely of English, Welsh and Northern Irish politicians, in exchange for the maintenance of an open border and seamless trade. The Union would have ended de jure but continued de facto in a less appealing form.
Your line of reasoning would insist that the referendum result had been fulfilled. The majority of Scots might not have been quite so sanguine about it.
What happens if turnout at a second referendum is much lower than before?
It's the result that matters. Did a GE become invalid because the turnout fell ?
Scotland 1979
That one worked well, it was a total fix and caused the hatred of Westminster and its Tory troughers.
Tory?
It was Labour that set the threshold. It was Labour that determined the threshold wasn't met so they'd take no further action. It was Labour the SNP decided they had no confidence in. It was Labour that lost power for a generation due to that vote.
??? Labour held the vast majority of MPs in Scotland throughout the 80s and 90s. I doubt the vote had any impact on their performance in England and Wales.
In fact the Tories' broken promise in 1979 that if Scotland voted against Devo they'd 'give' us something even better was probably a factor in their precipitous decline in Scotland.
"It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly. "
These people show up in the headline figures today. They are part of the 4.1%. That figure is not dependent on the eligibility for JSA/UC.
16 -18 year olds and students during vacation periods are not included.
Nor should they be they're students on holiday they're not unemployed.
If an employee takes 2 weeks vacation is he unemployed during those two weeks?
I am not arguing that point specifically - but the fact remains that in the mid-70s students were able to claim Unemployment Benefit! Moreover many students on holiday did make themselves available for work.
But the claimant count and the numbers unemployed are not the same thing!
Plus students can still make themselves available for work.
I disagree with you that No Deal is even a sustainable option. You want aeroplanes to fly? Ok, we'll give a list of permissions for the next fortnight. You need to do this and that for us and there's the small matter of €40 billion that you owe us. Want to avoid turning Kent into a lorry park and actually export Just in Time? And so on. At some point we will want rules, consistency and objectivity. That depends on agreement and us fitting into the EU system.
There will be dislocation, to what extent nobody seems to be able to agree. No matter: it's still preferable to the dire domestic ramifications of giving the Commission the settlement that it wants. The people who voted to Leave will actually get to leave properly and, whoever takes the blame for any consequences, and however many of those voters do or do not regret the decision in the long run, nobody will be able to advance the corrosive argument that Parliament thwarted the referendum outcome because it was one that the politicians didn't want to honour.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
A second referendum with a Remain option vs Brexit package is the only way of squaring that democratic circle. Not trouble free of course, but the people are entitled to either change their minds, or to pull the lever labelled "F*** Business".
There will be no second referendum with a remain option. That is not how we do things. There might be one with types of leave.
"That is not how we do things" sounds very gammony!
But I'm sure that's not you.
Thats a bit classy. I didnt realise racial abuse had become acceptable on PB.
Comments
Productivity is a flawed measure, but it’s not meaningless. Much of the country is employed in low value, low productivity jobs. Indeed it is one of the Brexiter complaints that high immigration prevents employers from making productivity improvements.
People in employment
People who are unemployed
Claimant Count
Your example would be picked up in the unemployment figures (4.1%) not the claimant count (2.5%).
Brexit keeps mutating, like a radioactive fatberg. If we No Deal, what will it mutate it into next?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/life-style/diets/908555/tom-watson-weight-loss-weird-trick/amp
But no sign of a Labour contest at present, though I cannot see May lasting 12 months. She looks as if she will survive until Brexit day, but will then go voluntarily or involuntarily.
A Tory who considers themselves a Thatcherite, and doesnt support the membership of the Single Market need to give themselves a bit of a shake.
Just glad there wasn't a practice market I could see.
"It is also the case that contribution-based Benefit was paid for 12 months - rather than the 6 months we see today. 16-18 year olds were able to claim as were students during vacations.If those changes were reversed, the headline figures would rise significantly. "
These people show up in the headline figures today. They are part of the 4.1%. That figure is not dependent on the eligibility for JSA/UC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmyHSMWK148
Using my previous example , of people over the age of 55.Who are made redundant and receive a small pension.However they are seeking work due to they can not live on such a pension.
They do not register unemployed as they realise , they are not entitled to any unemployment benefit.
Putting up with the way other people vote, however misguided we think they are, is the price we have to pay for universal suffrage. If we permit the creation of an atmosphere in which a large section of the population becomes convinced that only one philosophy will be allowed to prevail regardless of what they say, then democracy will, eventually, end. Because what argument do you then have left to persuade those people if they decide never to bother to vote again, or otherwise to try to elect any demagogue who comes along, however extreme, provided that they think he or she will give them what they want?
Averting the collapse of the British political system is a far greater priority than delays at ports, package holidays or anything else.
The number of unemployed people in the UK is measured by the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and includes people who meet the international definition of unemployment specified by the International Labour Organisation (ILO). This ILO definition defines unemployed people as being:
without a job, have been actively seeking work in the past four weeks and are available to start work in the next two weeks
out of work, have found a job and are waiting to start it in the next two weeks
There isn’t really a register of unemployed. There is the claimant count. He would not show up on the claimant count. But he would show up in a sample for the unemployment figures. The headline figures are almost always the unemployed, not the claimant count.
Appreciated.
PHASE 1: TRIBE. The word "British" used to denote a fealty, a tribe. It was a pledge of allegiance to something or somebody and implied a duty: a tithe, a tax, the obligation to fight for the Crown. This extended from the Middle Ages and survived the conversion to Westphalian states, all the way to the 20th Century. It began to end when the colonies became dominions and finally ended at some point in the 20th century.
PHASE 2: LAND. Then the word "British" developed borders. As the Empire collapsed the "United Kingdom" became coterminous with "British", and various nationality acts were passed to enforce this. Many people moved to the UK, for example Joanna Lumley (born British India) and Trevor McDonald (born Trinidad). This was the period of the Windrush generation. It ended at some point between 1979 and 1997, tho it was nothing to do with the Conservatives
PHASE 3: IDENTITY. Then we had globalisation and mass travel: populations have always moved but never so fast and so much. People live and work outside their sovereign state and speak via the Internet to newer tribes based on how they identify. Now "British" is something you feel inside, and is divorced from any concept of duty or taxation or location.
If you like, you can track this through passport covers and popular media. Passports from Mandatory Palestine and New Zealand in the 1950's still have "BRITISH PASSPORT" on the top, and characters in "On the Beach" (an Australian novel of the 1950's) still refer to the UK as "home" despite never living there.
Lastly, it is ironic that PB, a board that collectively disdains identity politics with respect to sexuality, gender or even politics itself, should embody it so strongly with respect to nationality.
(If you're interested, "The Rise and Fall of the British Nation: A Twentieth-Century History" by David Edgerton (ISBN: 9780141975979) is now out. You can buy it here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rise-Fall-British-Nation-Twentieth-Century/dp/1846147751 )
When I was still gainfully employed, I went to Brussels in a very minor capacity as a scientific advisor. When the meeting broke up, I was grabbed by some functionary to attend another meeting.
Having a few hours before my plane I was ushered into a large gathering of European bureaucrats, introduced as a UK 'expert' and interrogated by the civil servants.
They seemed to be short of a UK legal expert, as that's all they were interested in. Despite protesting that my knowledge of UK law was negligible, they persisted in asking me questions about the UK legal system. God knows why. Anyway, I made most of it up, but they seemed happy enough.
Fills you with confidence, doesn't it?
As someone once said, no deal is better than a bad deal.
I would be very surprised if there were an immediate outbreak of "riots" over a radical change in direction. Only increasing polarisation, extremism and the slow throttling to death of a reasonably tolerant, civilised society.
You cannot create a situation in which you give people a chance to say what they want, then ignore the answer because you don't like it, and expect this decision to be without consequence. Nor, incidentally, will arguing that the referendum question didn't say what *kind* of Leave there should be - and therefore it can be whatever is least unpalatable to the people who never wanted to go - suffice. There was a window of opportunity when the EEA might have been saleable to the electorate as a stepping stone to something new, but we are long past the point at which anyone will trust that proposal if the Government tries to sell it.
There must be trust that votes are meaningful, or else everything else falls.
No, the EU aren't going to bend on any substantive points, and she needs them to to get any deal agreed. It's no deal, or a collapse.
This doom mongering really just doesnt wash. The remain campaign shot their wad on Project fear which didnt come to pass, and even if their predictions had some merit in them, theyre not convincing anyone other than themselves.
........
........
For P1, I tipped Leclerc, Ericsson and Sirotkin each way at 326 and 2501, 2501, respectively.
**** the BBC weather forecast for third practice.
OK, look I know grief is tough, we've all had it. But you need to accept that we are leaving the EU, no iffs or butts. Put your efforts into trying to shape our relationship afterwards.
But I'm sure that's not you.
Now you appreciate a bit how sceptics felt. Polling opposed Lisbon by a much greater margin than current polls yet it still got ratified. Polls supported a Lisbon referendum by a vastly greater margin than a second one yet it got ratified without one. And of course no one ever voted for Lisbon, either at a referendum or a general election.
But the EU kept mutating like a radioactive fatberg. If we had remained what would it have mutated into next.
Karma is a funny old thing.
While a challenge should occur to settle this it might not, but she seems to lack the numbers for her deal as proposed, and certainly lacks them for bending even further to the EU. Whether the EU is reasonable or nor they aren't accepting it as is, and May just doesn't have the support to do what they want.
No deal wins by default.
Hatred of Tory troughers was more 1980's, wasn't it?
It was Labour that set the threshold.
It was Labour that determined the threshold wasn't met so they'd take no further action.
It was Labour the SNP decided they had no confidence in.
It was Labour that lost power for a generation due to that vote.
Whatever terms we leave on will have little bearing on the eventual fate of the EU. As things stand, the failure to structure the Euro system properly is what will most likely finish it off.
Parenthetically, one problem with focus groups is that they're a group: not everybody answers every question. They're a bit of a lazy way to research. However, market research is a collection of short-cuts, so we'll just have to live with it.
If an employee takes 2 weeks vacation is he unemployed during those two weeks?
Labour only lost the vote or no confidence in 79 by a solitary vote due to the SNP too.
Tories came to power in the election that happened due to the SNP.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/20/cabinet-war-philip-hammond-says-eu-workers-should-get-preferential/
Not tipping anything. But if someone wanted long odds, 251/326 (latter with boost) on Leclerc or the Renault drivers to win each way would be worth considering. That said, I think it'll be Hamilton, Verstappen and Vettel in the hunt.
I invite you to consider what would've happened if Yes had won 52:48 in 2014 and Scotland had left the UK a couple of years back, but simultaneously entered into a new association agreement. This might have included, for arguments' sake, delegating external trade policy, the internal regulation of the British single market, monetary policy and territorial defence to a series of joint committees comprised entirely of English, Welsh and Northern Irish politicians, in exchange for the maintenance of an open border and seamless trade. The Union would have ended de jure but continued de facto in a less appealing form.
Your line of reasoning would insist that the referendum result had been fulfilled. The majority of Scots might not have been quite so sanguine about it.
Plus students can still make themselves available for work.