politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the current CON leadership rules had been in place in Novem

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » If the current CON leadership rules had been in place in November 1990 Maggie would probably have survived

November 1990 – Mrs. T leaves Number 10

Read the full story here

RobD

First, like Thatcher!

Philip_Thompson

Disagreed.

Thatcher may not have won under the old rules but she did secure an absolute majority and so should have won the second round, at which point she would have been secure.

However the reality was that the first round 'victory' wasn't deemed practically enough and destroyed what was left of her authority so she resigned.

The same could happen still. In your scenario where a leader wins but only narrowly they could be persuaded (as Thatcher was) to walk anyway despite having survived because their victory wasn't practically enough.

williamglenn

Philip_Thompson said:

Disagreed.

Thatcher may not have won under the old rules but she did secure an absolute majority and so should have won the second round, at which point she would have been secure.

However the reality was that the first round 'victory' wasn't deemed practically enough and destroyed what was left of her authority so she resigned.

The same could happen still. In your scenario where a leader wins but only narrowly they could be persuaded (as Thatcher was) to walk anyway despite having survived because their victory wasn't practically enough.

Part of the reason she was persuaded to go was to stop Heseltine. That factor wouldn't apply after a narrowly won confidence vote.

edmundintokyo

Philip_Thompson said:

Disagreed.

Thatcher may not have won under the old rules but she did secure an absolute majority and so should have won the second round, at which point she would have been secure.

That doesn't follow, the second round may have had other candidates, and the loss of authority you mention in the first round could have led to a loss of votes in the second round. These things wouldn't apply under the current rules, because there wouldn't have been a second round to lose votes in.

tlg86

Thatcher may have lost a vote of no confidence. Some of her support may have been a vote against Heseltine.

DavidL

Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.

If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.

What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.

I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.

DavidL

O/T an interesting development in the Med as the Italians effectively stop the last private rescue ship: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45622431

It was a surprisingly quiet summer in the Med compared to previous years. Is it possible that the increased risk is finally discouraging people from making the journey?

SouthamObserver

DavidL said:

Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.

If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.

What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.

I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.

The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.

DecrepitJohnL

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

SouthamObserver

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

swing_voter

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.

If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.

What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.

I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.

The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.

But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.

DecrepitJohnL

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

McDonnell's shares plan would sfaict apply to large companies. Start-ups were encouraged to give share options to staff back in the last century. Charles would know if that is still commonplace.

philiph

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

One of the questions is who owns the 10%?

rkrkrk

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

Capped at 10% doesn't seem like a particularly large amount to lose. And under the current proposal it only matters once you have over 250 employees. I feel relaxed about it.

In general though I think they're underestimating how difficult it actually is to set up democratic structures that are meaningful. We already have employee owned companies - but does it really make much difference in practice to workers?

SouthamObserver

DecrepitJohnL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

McDonnell's shares plan would sfaict apply to large companies. Start-ups were encouraged to give share options to staff back in the last century. Charles would know if that is still commonplace.

We gave share options to key staff members a couple of years back (which they have now cashed in, in part), but not to everyone. I guess the model McDonnell is thinking of is John Lewis/Waitrose, but that is a UK business that is unlikely to move out of the UK. Many other businesses have a lot more flexibility - as Brexit will demonstrate. If you make a company a less attractive investment option, then you restrict its ability to grow and so render the shares given to staff superfluous. Obviously, it does not have to be that way, so it will be interesting to see the detail. I'd have thought tax breaks and incentives would be a much better option than compulsion.

rkrkrk

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

McDonnell's shares plan would sfaict apply to large companies. Start-ups were encouraged to give share options to staff back in the last century. Charles would know if that is still commonplace.

We gave share options to key staff members a couple of years back (which they have now cashed in, in part), but not to everyone. I guess the model McDonnell is thinking of is John Lewis/Waitrose, but that is a UK business that is unlikely to move out of the UK. Many other businesses have a lot more flexibility - as Brexit will demonstrate. If you make a company a less attractive investment option, then you restrict its ability to grow and so render the shares given to staff superfluous. Obviously, it does not have to be that way, so it will be interesting to see the detail. I'd have thought tax breaks and incentives would be a much better option than compulsion.

I think there's already a big tax incentive to sell up to an employee owned trust because you don't have to pay capital gains tax.

https://www.bdo.co.uk/en-gb/insights/tax/human-capital/employee-ownership-trusts

JosiasJessop

DavidL said:

O/T an interesting development in the Med as the Italians effectively stop the last private rescue ship: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45622431

It was a surprisingly quiet summer in the Med compared to previous years. Is it possible that the increased risk is finally discouraging people from making the journey?

"surprisingly quiet summer"

From the article:
"According to United Nations, more than 1,700 migrants have died trying to cross to Europe in 2018."

1,700 people dead. But their deaths can be dismissed.

SouthamObserver

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

Capped at 10% doesn't seem like a particularly large amount to lose. And under the current proposal it only matters once you have over 250 employees. I feel relaxed about it.

In general though I think they're underestimating how difficult it actually is to set up democratic structures that are meaningful. We already have employee owned companies - but does it really make much difference in practice to workers?

If you tell private equity that you are taking away 10% of the value of its investment - which is essentially what this means - then that will seem like a hell of a lot. I think it would significantly reduce incentives to invest in the first place. I can also see it leading to legal action from private equity investors who have already made investments and will find themselves above that threshold. What's more, if there is a jobs threshold, you create an incentive not to hit the threshold - or to cut jobs to get below it.

Beverley_C

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

O/T an interesting development in the Med as the Italians effectively stop the last private rescue ship: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45622431

It was a surprisingly quiet summer in the Med compared to previous years. Is it possible that the increased risk is finally discouraging people from making the journey?

"surprisingly quiet summer"

From the article:
"According to United Nations, more than 1,700 migrants have died trying to cross to Europe in 2018."

1,700 people dead. But their deaths can be dismissed.

3,100 people died crossing the Med in 2017, so 1,700 by this point in the year is a reduction. Pro Rata, it would be 2,300 for 2018.

Looking at it another way, more people did NOT lose their lives this year compared to last.

edmundintokyo

DavidL said:

Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.

If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.

Those are the old rules, from before Brexit and Corbyn. The new reality is that the only thing that matters is Brexit, and nobody has the faintest idea how to put a coherent program around it let alone get the various segments of the party to agree. I think this will continue to be true after the Brexit exit date, since there's no sign of any kind of stable settlement.

But for electoral purposes, that doesn't matter, because Corbyn.

PS

DavidL said:

I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.

I love the idea that Boris would hold back his own ambitions for fear of creating additional chaos.

daodao

swing_voter said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.

If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.

What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.

I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.

The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.

But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.

FPT:

Put the hard border in the Irish Sea (and damn the DUP), or along the Cheviots if Scotland decides to secede, and that will be acceptable to the EU and most people in both GB and Ireland.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

Alas, if Labour had a system like the Conservatives, the Supreme Leader would've been tossed overboard during the failed attempt to overthrow the self-declared friend of Hamas.

Just seen that the 'option' selected in the motion at Labour conference will be to 'not take a referendum off the table' rather than actually endorse one.

JosiasJessop

Beverley_C said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

O/T an interesting development in the Med as the Italians effectively stop the last private rescue ship: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45622431

It was a surprisingly quiet summer in the Med compared to previous years. Is it possible that the increased risk is finally discouraging people from making the journey?

"surprisingly quiet summer"

From the article:
"According to United Nations, more than 1,700 migrants have died trying to cross to Europe in 2018."

1,700 people dead. But their deaths can be dismissed.

3,100 people died crossing the Med in 2017, so 1,700 by this point in the year is a reduction. Pro Rata, it would be 2,300 for 2018.

Looking at it another way, more people did NOT lose their lives this year compared to last.

It's glossing over 1,700 deaths.

There's a principle here: I believe anyone in trouble at sea should be rescued, regardless of who they are or how they got into trouble. Saying we won't rescue some is deeply immoral.

This is a political problem, and one that should be solved politically, and not by turning a blind eye as people drown at sea - just because they're thew 'wrong' people.

IanB2

And we'd then have had a Kinnock government.

ydoethur

JosiasJessop said:

Beverley_C said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

O/T an interesting development in the Med as the Italians effectively stop the last private rescue ship: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45622431

It was a surprisingly quiet summer in the Med compared to previous years. Is it possible that the increased risk is finally discouraging people from making the journey?

"surprisingly quiet summer"

From the article:
"According to United Nations, more than 1,700 migrants have died trying to cross to Europe in 2018."

1,700 people dead. But their deaths can be dismissed.

3,100 people died crossing the Med in 2017, so 1,700 by this point in the year is a reduction. Pro Rata, it would be 2,300 for 2018.

Looking at it another way, more people did NOT lose their lives this year compared to last.

It's glossing over 1,700 deaths.

There's a principle here: I believe anyone in trouble at sea should be rescued, regardless of who they are or how they got into trouble. Saying we won't rescue some is deeply immoral.

This is a political problem, and one that should be solved politically, and not by turning a blind eye as people drown at sea - just because they're thew 'wrong' people.

I agree with that, but isn't there an issue with where they go afterwards?

If they are taken to Italy, Greece or Spain by rescue ships then that's an actual incentive for people traffickers to either send them out in unsafe vessels or sabotage them once they get out of sight of land - which would make matters worse.

If they were returned to Libya or Tunisia that would make setting off in unsafe vessels rather pointless as well as extremely dangerous.

Casino_Royale

I think on these old rules May would need 183 votes and could be ousted if she got less. Or, put it another way, 134+ votes against her would do it.

Bit easier than getting 159 votes against her, but it would still be a bit of an ask. I think her opponents could fairly easily muster 80-100 votes against her, but will really struggle with that extra 60.

ydoethur

IanB2 said:

And we'd then have had a Kinnock government.

For two years, then a long period of Conservative Government, then who knows?

Would have all been so very different if Labour had been in power in October 1992. It might easily have destroyed them altogether.

Foxy

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

O/T an interesting development in the Med as the Italians effectively stop the last private rescue ship: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45622431

It was a surprisingly quiet summer in the Med compared to previous years. Is it possible that the increased risk is finally discouraging people from making the journey?

"surprisingly quiet summer"

From the article:
"According to United Nations, more than 1,700 migrants have died trying to cross to Europe in 2018."

1,700 people dead. But their deaths can be dismissed.

I don't think anyone is dismissing the deaths, but arrivals this year in Italy and Greece were about 20 000 each, sharply down on previous years, though up a bit in Spain:

https://www.iom.int/news/mediterranean-migrant-arrivals-reach-61517-2018-deaths-reach-1524

It is a varirty of interventions making the difference, with a pan EU approach. The action of the Libyan coastguard and the low profile but successful actions on the Trans-Sahel smuggling routes are a big part.

I suspect the winding down of the war in Syria will help too, though the Idlib enclave could provoke a new wave of refugees.

Casino_Royale

Philip_Thompson said:

Disagreed.

Thatcher may not have won under the old rules but she did secure an absolute majority and so should have won the second round, at which point she would have been secure.

However the reality was that the first round 'victory' wasn't deemed practically enough and destroyed what was left of her authority so she resigned.

The same could happen still. In your scenario where a leader wins but only narrowly they could be persuaded (as Thatcher was) to walk anyway despite having survived because their victory wasn't practically enough.

Thatcher would have been clearly defeated in a second round.

Casino_Royale

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

Corbyn and McDonnell have no interest in wealth creation.

JosiasJessop

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

Beverley_C said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

O/T an interesting development in the Med as the Italians effectively stop the last private rescue ship: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45622431

It was a surprisingly quiet summer in the Med compared to previous years. Is it possible that the increased risk is finally discouraging people from making the journey?

"surprisingly quiet summer"

From the article:
"According to United Nations, more than 1,700 migrants have died trying to cross to Europe in 2018."

1,700 people dead. But their deaths can be dismissed.

3,100 people died crossing the Med in 2017, so 1,700 by this point in the year is a reduction. Pro Rata, it would be 2,300 for 2018.

Looking at it another way, more people did NOT lose their lives this year compared to last.

It's glossing over 1,700 deaths.

There's a principle here: I believe anyone in trouble at sea should be rescued, regardless of who they are or how they got into trouble. Saying we won't rescue some is deeply immoral.

This is a political problem, and one that should be solved politically, and not by turning a blind eye as people drown at sea - just because they're thew 'wrong' people.

I agree with that, but isn't there an issue with where they go afterwards?

If they are taken to Italy, Greece or Spain by rescue ships then that's an actual incentive for people traffickers to either send them out in unsafe vessels or sabotage them once they get out of sight of land - which would make matters worse.

If they were returned to Libya or Tunisia that would make setting off in unsafe vessels rather pointless as well as extremely dangerous.

And I agree with that - and that's why I said it is a political problem. The way to stop the charity boats that are actively rescuing people isn't to essentially 'ban' the boats by putting pressure on Panama: it's to make their services unnecessary.

Sadly, that's not what's happening: idiots are attacking those rescuing people at sea, as they're an easy target. They don't give a damn about those who die.

It's also rather comedic that Panama, of all places, deregisters this boat ...

welshowl

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

Capped at 10% doesn't seem like a particularly large amount to lose. And under the current proposal it only matters once you have over 250 employees. I feel relaxed about it.

In general though I think they're underestimating how difficult it actually is to set up democratic structures that are meaningful. We already have employee owned companies - but does it really make much difference in practice to workers?

This will deter investors of all flavours, and it’s also a great big carrot to not employ more than 250 either by stopping growth at 249, or by cutting to get to 249. It will also encourage all kinds of outsourcing as people keep a core of 249 and farm out as many functions as they possibly can to keep it that way.

Casino_Royale

DavidL said:

Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.

If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.

What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.

I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.

I actually think either of Javid or Hunt would do a better job than May. As would Gove.

That’s different to saying they’d be surefire election winners, of course.

JonathanD

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

Corbyn and McDonnell have no interest in wealth creation.

I assume the proposal does not involve anything as capitalistic as actually directly giving the workers shares in their company?

Probably the shares will just be held in trust on 'behalf' of the workers with some friend of Jeremy's being employed to run the trust and choose how to interfere with the running of the company according to their ideological whim.

Casino_Royale

IanB2 said:

And we'd then have had a Kinnock government.

Probably a hung parliament, in my view.

Labour weren’t convincing in 1992.

MarqueeMark

JosiasJessop said:

Beverley_C said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

O/T an interesting development in the Med as the Italians effectively stop the last private rescue ship: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45622431

It was a surprisingly quiet summer in the Med compared to previous years. Is it possible that the increased risk is finally discouraging people from making the journey?

"surprisingly quiet summer"

From the article:
"According to United Nations, more than 1,700 migrants have died trying to cross to Europe in 2018."

1,700 people dead. But their deaths can be dismissed.

3,100 people died crossing the Med in 2017, so 1,700 by this point in the year is a reduction. Pro Rata, it would be 2,300 for 2018.

Looking at it another way, more people did NOT lose their lives this year compared to last.

It's glossing over 1,700 deaths.

There's a principle here: I believe anyone in trouble at sea should be rescued, regardless of who they are or how they got into trouble. Saying we won't rescue some is deeply immoral.

This is a political problem, and one that should be solved politically, and not by turning a blind eye as people drown at sea - just because they're thew 'wrong' people.

But there is also a conflict with people who are complicit in the deeply immoral process of destroying a system of political asylum that protects those in greatest need. It has been overwhelmed by those who are not fleeing anything - but chancers looking to get round due immigrtion processes in the search for money.

There are no easy answers, but when thousands of people are sent out by people traffickers in rickety boats, in the expectation that most will be saved as soon as they get into trouble, then the immigration system into Europe has broken down. It is not appropriate to take the moral high ground when you are well away from the affected Med frontline. Would our position really be any different to Italy if tens of thousands were landing on the Isle of Wight?

david_herdson

I'm afraid I disagree with Mike.

Winning according to the rules isn't sufficient. You have to be able to win and retain your authority. To have more than two-fifths openly against you would have been so wounding that The Men in Grey Suits might well have been round to tell her that her time was up, win or no.

Further - and this point can't be emphasised enough - the 152 votes for Heseltine were not just votes against Thatcher but votes *for* him. That means that anyone who wanted Thatcher out but a third choice needed to think much more carefully than they would now. These days, the VoNC and leadership election are two separate processes - the risk of ending up with Heseltine by accident (as a proxy for anti-Thatcher votes, as Thatcher was a proxy for anti-Heath ones back in 1975), is greatly reduced.

I'd also question the security of the '12-month' rule. That's a provision of that part of the rules determined by the 1922 Committee, not the Party constitution. As such, it could be amended, AIUI, by a simple majority of the 1922 Exec within the space of a few days. If backbench feeling was roused sufficiently, that change could easily be made.

However, where I agree with Mike is in his final point about the 48 letters never having gone in - but my take is that the letters haven't been sent not only because of the prospect of not reaching 50% in a VoNC ballot, but because they fear they'd fail to prevent May from reaching a 'moral mandate' victory to continue.

That said, his final point is spot-on. It's not a lack of preference to remove May that's keeping her there; it's fear of who her successor might be. That balance will change though as time moves on, the 2022GE approaches, and Brexit issues become ever more sharp.

SouthamObserver

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

Corbyn and McDonnell have no interest in wealth creation.

It’s hard to find anyone in British politics who does these days.

matt

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

I look forward to understanding how rights issues will work. Or will we have classes of shareholder.

As an aside, anything like this could be seen as an expropriation event under default conditions in many loan agreements allowing loans to be accelerated. No such thing as a free lunch and all that.

MarqueeMark

JonathanD said:

Casino_Royale said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

Corbyn and McDonnell have no interest in wealth creation.

I assume the proposal does not involve anything as capitalistic as actually directly giving the workers shares in their company?

Probably the shares will just be held in trust on 'behalf' of the workers with some friend of Jeremy's being employed to run the trust and choose how to interfere with the running of the company according to their ideological whim.

With an almost total overlap between trustees and trade union officials...

matt

DecrepitJohnL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

McDonnell's shares plan would sfaict apply to large companies. Start-ups were encouraged to give share options to staff back in the last century. Charles would know if that is still commonplace.

Options. For purchase at value.

Sometimes people should read and think before posting.

david_herdson

Philip_Thompson said:

Disagreed.

Thatcher may not have won under the old rules but she did secure an absolute majority and so should have won the second round, at which point she would have been secure.

However the reality was that the first round 'victory' wasn't deemed practically enough and destroyed what was left of her authority so she resigned.

The same could happen still. In your scenario where a leader wins but only narrowly they could be persuaded (as Thatcher was) to walk anyway despite having survived because their victory wasn't practically enough.

In Thatcher's case, though, there was the additional pressure that many of those who voted for her in the first round were refusing to do so again in the second, which she'd almost certainly have lost.

But your point about authority is right and no doubt had that second-round provision not been there, events would have found a way.

MarqueeMark

DavidL said:

Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.

If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.

What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.

I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.

The gravest risk to May is Sajid Javid resigning from Cabinet over Brexit. That would fire the starting pistol.....

matt

On topic - isn’t the underlying assumption that people would behave the same way under a different rules system? If that’s correct, that always strikes me as a fairly heroic assumption.

Is like people looking at vote shares through a PR prism. It assumes that nothing would change except the electoral mechanism. That has to be nonsense.

Foxy

JosiasJessop said:

Beverley_C said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

O/T an interesting development in the Med as the Italians effectively stop the last private rescue ship: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45622431

It was a surprisingly quiet summer in the Med compared to previous years. Is it possible that the increased risk is finally discouraging people from making the journey?

"surprisingly quiet summer"

From the article:
"According to United Nations, more than 1,700 migrants have died trying to cross to Europe in 2018."

1,700 people dead. But their deaths can be dismissed.

3,100 people died crossing the Med in 2017, so 1,700 by this point in the year is a reduction. Pro Rata, it would be 2,300 for 2018.

Looking at it another way, more people did NOT lose their lives this year compared to last.

It's glossing over 1,700 deaths.

There's a principle here: I believe anyone in trouble at sea should be rescued, regardless of who they are or how they got into trouble. Saying we won't rescue some is deeply immoral.

This is a political problem, and one that should be solved politically, and not by turning a blind eye as people drown at sea - just because they're thew 'wrong' people.

Increasingly the migrants are being rescued and returned by the Libyan Coast Guard:

"As of 31 May 2018, 42.6 per cent of migrants and refugees who departed from Libya and lived to tell the tale ended up back where they started. This is a significant increase with respect to the same period in 2017, when the proportion was 11.2 per cent."

As well as the absolute drownings decreasing, the percentage drowning is also decreasing according to this pro-migrant website:

https://openmigration.org/en/analyses/in-the-hands-of-the-libyan-coast-guard-pushbacks-by-proxy/

Gradually the seaborder is being closed, though perhaps with a blind eye turned to some human rights abuses in Libya and the Sahel. Word gets back quickly that migrants are not getting through.

Beverley_C

JosiasJessop said:

Beverley_C said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

O/T an interesting development in the Med as the Italians effectively stop the last private rescue ship: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45622431

It was a surprisingly quiet summer in the Med compared to previous years. Is it possible that the increased risk is finally discouraging people from making the journey?

"surprisingly quiet summer"

From the article:
"According to United Nations, more than 1,700 migrants have died trying to cross to Europe in 2018."

1,700 people dead. But their deaths can be dismissed.

3,100 people died crossing the Med in 2017, so 1,700 by this point in the year is a reduction. Pro Rata, it would be 2,300 for 2018.

Looking at it another way, more people did NOT lose their lives this year compared to last.

It's glossing over 1,700 deaths.

I am not glossing over anything. I would rather that no one died. I view a reduction as progress.

JosiasJessop said:

There's a principle here: I believe anyone in trouble at sea should be rescued, regardless of who they are or how they got into trouble. Saying we won't rescue some is deeply immoral.

I completely agree

JosiasJessop said:

This is a political problem, and one that should be solved politically, and not by turning a blind eye as people drown at sea - just because they're thew 'wrong' people.

The correct solution would be to return them to the African coast, thus robbing the traffickers of their market. Even better would be to solve the conflicts that drove them to take such risks in the first place

SouthamObserver

matt said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

I look forward to understanding how rights issues will work. Or will we have classes of shareholder.

As an aside, anything like this could be seen as an expropriation event under default conditions in many loan agreements allowing loans to be accelerated. No such thing as a free lunch and all that.

It’s a policy with a whole lot of holes, that’s for sure! What it essentially means is diluting current share ownership. That has multiple implications for businesses wherever they are on their journeys and for shareholders, including all the funds so many pensions are built on. It will undoubtedly reduce incentives to invest if not handled with extreme care. That said, it’s a policy for these times. On left and right wealth creation is a secondary issue nowadays.

ydoethur

matt said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

McDonnell's shares plan would sfaict apply to large companies. Start-ups were encouraged to give share options to staff back in the last century. Charles would know if that is still commonplace.

Options. For purchase at value.

Sometimes people should read and think before posting.

Everyone please ignore this advice. It would make PB very dull.

Except on anything Brexit related, where it would be much better if people would think and then not post at all. That would make discussions about important subjects like pizza toppings, TSE's shocking taste in films and Ed Smith's guy love for Keaton Jennings much easier.

MarqueeMark

Beverley_C said:

The correct solution would be to return them to the African coast, thus robbing the traffickers of their market. Even better would be to solve the conflicts that drove them to take such risks in the first place

The conflict that drove most of them is economic. Our minimum wage is more than they could ever dream of earning at home.

Nigelb

Well if nothing else, this destroys the possibility of even a shred of good faith on the part of the Republicans regarding the Kavanaugh nomination:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez
Senior Republican staffers also learned of the allegation last week and, in conversations with The New Yorker, expressed concern about its potential impact on Kavanaugh’s nomination. Soon after, Senate Republicans issued renewed calls to accelerate the timing of a committee vote.

ydoethur

SouthamObserver said:

It’s a policy with a whole lot of holes, that’s for sure!

Surely not? It's a Macdonnell policy and we know how carefully he thinks things through. Why, the last manifesto was worked out so carefully that all his made-up figures added up to zero.

ydoethur

MarqueeMark said:

Beverley_C said:

The correct solution would be to return them to the African coast, thus robbing the traffickers of their market. Even better would be to solve the conflicts that drove them to take such risks in the first place

The conflict that drove most of them is economic. Our minimum wage is more than they could ever dream of earning at home.

Solving the economic problems of Africa sounds a noble goal to me.

It might however involve the removal of certain politicians and CEOs who benefit enormously from its current economic backwardness.

Edit: see this article from yesterday:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/23/things-are-getting-worse-economic-collapse-looms-again-in-zimbabwe

Have a good morning.

Sandpit

welshowl said:

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

Capped at 10% doesn't seem like a particularly large amount to lose. And under the current proposal it only matters once you have over 250 employees. I feel relaxed about it.

In general though I think they're underestimating how difficult it actually is to set up democratic structures that are meaningful. We already have employee owned companies - but does it really make much difference in practice to workers?

This will deter investors of all flavours, and it’s also a great big carrot to not employ more than 250 either by stopping growth at 249, or by cutting to get to 249. It will also encourage all kinds of outsourcing as people keep a core of 249 and farm out as many functions as they possibly can to keep it that way.

Yes, you’d just end up with complex corporate structures and loads of jobs for lawyers and accountants. Or worse, the sort of corporate structure that has everyone doing the primary work of the business as a self-employed contractor. All of McDonnell’s mad proposals are full of holes and unintended consequences, they may look great in a Marxist textbook but not in the global, interconnected world that is the current reality.

Alistair

Kavanaugh nomination heating up. I'm now revising my "He will definitely be confirmed" position.

Foxy

Sandpit said:

welshowl said:

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

Capped at 10% doesn't seem like a particularly large amount to lose. And under the current proposal it only matters once you have over 250 employees. I feel relaxed about it.

In general though I think they're underestimating how difficult it actually is to set up democratic structures that are meaningful. We already have employee owned companies - but does it really make much difference in practice to workers?

This will deter investors of all flavours, and it’s also a great big carrot to not employ more than 250 either by stopping growth at 249, or by cutting to get to 249. It will also encourage all kinds of outsourcing as people keep a core of 249 and farm out as many functions as they possibly can to keep it that way.

Yes, you’d just end up with complex corporate structures and loads of jobs for lawyers and accountants. Or worse, the sort of corporate structure that has everyone doing the primary work of the business as a self-employed contractor. All of McDonnell’s mad proposals are full of holes and unintended consequences, they may look great in a Marxist textbook but not in the global, interconnected world that is the current reality.

In other words: "Take Back Control" is a fiction.

As some of us already knew.

Sandpit

MarqueeMark said:

DavidL said:

Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.

If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.

What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.

I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.

The gravest risk to May is Sajid Javid resigning from Cabinet over Brexit. That would fire the starting pistol.....

I would have said Gove in the same scenario, after he’s quite clearly upset so many others by siding with the PM over Chequers. If he jumps then many of the benefit-of-the-doubters in the PCP will be behind him.

DecrepitJohnL

Alistair said:

Kavanaugh nomination heating up. I'm now revising my "He will definitely be confirmed" position.

Is any kind-hearted satchel-swinger offering odds?

JonathanD

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

welshowl said:

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

Capped at 10% doesn't seem like a particularly large amount to lose. And under the current proposal it only matters once you have over 250 employees. I feel relaxed about it.

In general though I think they're underestimating how difficult it actually is to set up democratic structures that are meaningful. We already have employee owned companies - but does it really make much difference in practice to workers?

This will deter investors of all flavours, and it’s also a great big carrot to not employ more than 250 either by stopping growth at 249, or by cutting to get to 249. It will also encourage all kinds of outsourcing as people keep a core of 249 and farm out as many functions as they possibly can to keep it that way.

Yes, you’d just end up with complex corporate structures and loads of jobs for lawyers and accountants. Or worse, the sort of corporate structure that has everyone doing the primary work of the business as a self-employed contractor. All of McDonnell’s mad proposals are full of holes and unintended consequences, they may look great in a Marxist textbook but not in the global, interconnected world that is the current reality.

In other words: "Take Back Control" is a fiction.

As some of us already knew.

No,no only the hard right are compotent enough to take back control properly. The hard left would just mess it up.

Nigelb

Alistair said:

Kavanaugh nomination heating up. I'm now revising my "He will definitely be confirmed" position.

I think he almost certainly won't be.
Unless the Republicans have taken leave entirely of their senses.... so maybe.

IanB2

Casino_Royale said:

IanB2 said:

And we'd then have had a Kinnock government.

Probably a hung parliament, in my view.

Labour weren’t convincing in 1992.

I think that's underestimating the difference that Major was able to make in putting some distance from Thatcher's record (e.g. Poll tax) and having a dramatically different personality and style. People had had enough of Thatcher by 92.

malcolmg

DavidL said:

O/T an interesting development in the Med as the Italians effectively stop the last private rescue ship: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45622431

It was a surprisingly quiet summer in the Med compared to previous years. Is it possible that the increased risk is finally discouraging people from making the journey?

Obvious to any fool I think David, if you have taxis waiting to pick them up , that the policies they were implementing would mean an explosion in the number of people trying to cross given they have no downside.

Sandpit

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

welshowl said:

rkrkrk said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

Capped at 10% doesn't seem like a particularly large amount to lose. And under the current proposal it only matters once you have over 250 employees. I feel relaxed about it.

In general though I think they're underestimating how difficult it actually is to set up democratic structures that are meaningful. We already have employee owned companies - but does it really make much difference in practice to workers?

This will deter investors of all flavours, and it’s also a great big carrot to not employ more than 250 either by stopping growth at 249, or by cutting to get to 249. It will also encourage all kinds of outsourcing as people keep a core of 249 and farm out as many functions as they possibly can to keep it that way.

Yes, you’d just end up with complex corporate structures and loads of jobs for lawyers and accountants. Or worse, the sort of corporate structure that has everyone doing the primary work of the business as a self-employed contractor. All of McDonnell’s mad proposals are full of holes and unintended consequences, they may look great in a Marxist textbook but not in the global, interconnected world that is the current reality.

In other words: "Take Back Control" is a fiction.

As some of us already knew.

I’m quite sure that if John McDonnell gets near the levers of power, the British people (with whom the control lies) would quickly vote to take it back and hand it to someone else at the next election.

NickPalmer

My mistake re the Bavarain election - it's not till Oct 14.

SouthamObserver

So, basically, McDonnell has joined right-wing Brexiteers in saying Fuck Business. Once, both the Tories and Labour believed in wealth creation - the former to allow tax cuts, the latter to enable redistribution. Those days are long gone. The hole in the centre of British politics is becoming a chasm.

Alistair

DecrepitJohnL said:

Alistair said:

Kavanaugh nomination heating up. I'm now revising my "He will definitely be confirmed" position.

Is any kind-hearted satchel-swinger offering odds?

Not that I can see which is fortunate as I was ready to lump on he would be confirmed in the middle of last week.

MarqueeMark

Sandpit said:

MarqueeMark said:

DavidL said:

Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.

If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.

What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.

I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.

The gravest risk to May is Sajid Javid resigning from Cabinet over Brexit. That would fire the starting pistol.....

I would have said Gove in the same scenario, after he’s quite clearly upset so many others by siding with the PM over Chequers. If he jumps then many of the benefit-of-the-doubters in the PCP will be behind him.

Gove is just not trusted.

Nigelb

Alistair said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Alistair said:

Kavanaugh nomination heating up. I'm now revising my "He will definitely be confirmed" position.

Is any kind-hearted satchel-swinger offering odds?

Not that I can see which is fortunate as I was ready to lump on he would be confirmed in the middle of last week.

I called it the other way - but I'd have felt pretty grubby betting on the outcome, anyway.

Sandpit

DecrepitJohnL said:

Alistair said:

Kavanaugh nomination heating up. I'm now revising my "He will definitely be confirmed" position.

Is any kind-hearted satchel-swinger offering odds?

Nothing on Betfair, from a quick look. Maybe Mr Eagles could appeal to @shadsy to price it up?

JosiasJessop

MarqueeMark said:

JosiasJessop said:

Beverley_C said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

O/T an interesting development in the Med as the Italians effectively stop the last private rescue ship: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45622431

It was a surprisingly quiet summer in the Med compared to previous years. Is it possible that the increased risk is finally discouraging people from making the journey?

"surprisingly quiet summer"

From the article:
"According to United Nations, more than 1,700 migrants have died trying to cross to Europe in 2018."

1,700 people dead. But their deaths can be dismissed.

3,100 people died crossing the Med in 2017, so 1,700 by this point in the year is a reduction. Pro Rata, it would be 2,300 for 2018.

Looking at it another way, more people did NOT lose their lives this year compared to last.

It's glossing over 1,700 deaths.

There's a principle here: I believe anyone in trouble at sea should be rescued, regardless of who they are or how they got into trouble. Saying we won't rescue some is deeply immoral.

This is a political problem, and one that should be solved politically, and not by turning a blind eye as people drown at sea - just because they're thew 'wrong' people.

But there is also a conflict with people who are complicit in the deeply immoral process of destroying a system of political asylum that protects those in greatest need. It has been overwhelmed by those who are not fleeing anything - but chancers looking to get round due immigrtion processes in the search for money.

There are no easy answers, but when thousands of people are sent out by people traffickers in rickety boats, in the expectation that most will be saved as soon as they get into trouble, then the immigration system into Europe has broken down. It is not appropriate to take the moral high ground when you are well away from the affected Med frontline. Would our position really be any different to Italy if tens of thousands were landing on the Isle of Wight?

I agree with most of that. In the past I've said the UN should treat international people trafficking as an 'international' crime and prosecute it themselves - as it's an international crime it too often falls between thee cracks as the countries concerned can't - or won't - prosecute. Get the people making millions from this evil trade, confiscate the proceeds and send them to jail.

The answer is not to obstruct the people trying to rescue people who are drowning. They are not the problem.

As for your last paragraph: I'd like to think we wouldn't be willing to allow people to drown just because it's inconvenient.

Beverley_C

MarqueeMark said:

Beverley_C said:

The correct solution would be to return them to the African coast, thus robbing the traffickers of their market. Even better would be to solve the conflicts that drove them to take such risks in the first place

The conflict that drove most of them is economic. Our minimum wage is more than they could ever dream of earning at home.

Indeed. And our minimum costs of living are far more than they would ever pay at home.

Nigelb

Unusually forthright set of opinions on F1 drivers, from a fellow driver.
Clearly not worried about making friends, but interesting:
https://www.formulapassion.it/fp-english/f1-marciello-vettel-not-at-the-level-of-hamilton-alonso-and-kubica-401278.html

SquareRoot

MarqueeMark said:

Sandpit said:

MarqueeMark said:

DavidL said:

Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.

If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.

What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.

I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.

The gravest risk to May is Sajid Javid resigning from Cabinet over Brexit. That would fire the starting pistol.....

I would have said Gove in the same scenario, after he’s quite clearly upset so many others by siding with the PM over Chequers. If he jumps then many of the benefit-of-the-doubters in the PCP will be behind him.

Gove is just not trusted.

.and with good reason..

JosiasJessop

Can someone from Labour explain what problem(s) they're trying to solve with this employee ownership proposal ?

MarqueeMark

JosiasJessop said:

I agree with most of that. In the past I've said the UN should treat international people trafficking as an 'international' crime and prosecute it themselves - as it's an international crime it too often falls between thee cracks as the countries concerned can't - or won't - prosecute. Get the people making millions from this evil trade, confiscate the proceeds and send them to jail.

The answer is not to obstruct the people trying to rescue people who are drowning. They are not the problem.

As for your last paragraph: I'd like to think we wouldn't be willing to allow people to drown just because it's inconvenient.

Agree with you about it being an international crime,

But tens of thousands landing in small communities is a little more than "inconvenient". I don't know what would happen here. We would likely have a raft of UKIP (or worse) councils screaming at Westminster to "do something". Under those circumstances, who knows how we would react.

OldKingCole

Beverley_C said:

MarqueeMark said:

Beverley_C said:

The correct solution would be to return them to the African coast, thus robbing the traffickers of their market. Even better would be to solve the conflicts that drove them to take such risks in the first place

The conflict that drove most of them is economic. Our minimum wage is more than they could ever dream of earning at home.

Indeed. And our minimum costs of living are far more than they would ever pay at home.

But the minimum standard of living we expect is higher than they would expect at home.

It’s a lot colder, though!

DecrepitJohnL

matt said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

McDonnell's shares plan would sfaict apply to large companies. Start-ups were encouraged to give share options to staff back in the last century. Charles would know if that is still commonplace.

Options. For purchase at value.

Sometimes people should read and think before posting.

Do I take it you never made a pile of cash on your options? Options to purchase at 10p shares which are, after the expected growth (or takeover bid) now worth £5 (or worth nothing because the company's gone bust).

McDonnell's plan is tweaked right wing orthodoxy and once the knee-jerking has stopped, I'd not be surprised if May and Hammond don't shoot Labour's fox by adopting something along the same lines.

MarqueeMark

SouthamObserver said:

So, basically, McDonnell has joined right-wing Brexiteers in saying Fuck Business. Once, both the Tories and Labour believed in wealth creation - the former to allow tax cuts, the latter to enable redistribution. Those days are long gone. The hole in the centre of British politics is becoming a chasm.

Hammond's upcoming Budget will not remotely be a "fuck business" Budget. Quit the hyperbole.

McDonnells first would though.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. B, not got much time to read up on stuff, but interesting he puts Kubica in the top group.

HYUFD

Yes, while Thatcher won the first round it was the fact she was weakened which made it likely she would lose to Heseltine in the final round. On a no confidence vote had she won she would have been safe for a year.

Only one Tory leader has been ousted after losing a no confidence vote, IDS in 2003

JosiasJessop

DecrepitJohnL said:

matt said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

SouthamObserver said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Mrs Thatcher would surely have applauded Labour's shares-for-workers scheme to create a share-owning democracy and reduce the risk of strikes.

I like the principle. The detail worries me. It could, for example, make it much harder for start-ups and SMEs to get investment, as it will reduce the equity they can offer to potential investors.

McDonnell's shares plan would sfaict apply to large companies. Start-ups were encouraged to give share options to staff back in the last century. Charles would know if that is still commonplace.

Options. For purchase at value.

Sometimes people should read and think before posting.

Do I take it you never made a pile of cash on your options? Options to purchase at 10p shares which are, after the expected growth (or takeover bid) now worth £5 (or worth nothing because the company's gone bust).

McDonnell's plan is tweaked right wing orthodoxy and once the knee-jerking has stopped, I'd not be surprised if May and Hammond don't shoot Labour's fox by adopting something along the same lines.

I have only ever indirectly made money from options - and that was after well over a decade and in unusual circumstances (they automatically vested because Acorn was taken over, giving me shares in ARM).

In about 2000 I was sitting on a six-figure theoretical profit on options with another company I was working for - within six months the profit was nothing. Mrs J has never made any money from options.

One thing I would like to see changed is that all options in a company should have the same rules, whether they are granted to a pleb or a director. Special option grants for directors that vest in a few months, whilst 'ordinary' staff have to wait for years - are destructive IMO.

Sandpit

Nigelb said:

Unusually forthright set of opinions on F1 drivers, from a fellow driver.
Clearly not worried about making friends, but interesting:
https://www.formulapassion.it/fp-english/f1-marciello-vettel-not-at-the-level-of-hamilton-alonso-and-kubica-401278.html

Obviously someone who’s given up the idea of ever getting a Ferrari factory drive in future. But he’s right, the difference between Hamilton and Vettel this season is that the guy leading the championship hasn’t made any personal errors, whereas the guy who’s second has made quite a few. Team strategy errors have pretty much cancelled each other out.

kle4

What cowards abstained in that vote?

kle4

Philip_Thompson said:

Disagreed.

Thatcher may not have won under the old rules but she did secure an absolute majority and so should have won the second round, at which point she would have been secure.

However the reality was that the first round 'victory' wasn't deemed practically enough and destroyed what was left of her authority so she resigned.

The same could happen still. In your scenario where a leader wins but only narrowly they could be persuaded (as Thatcher was) to walk anyway despite having survived because their victory wasn't practically enough.

Agreed. It's not a perfect comparison but the basic principle could still apply.

The Aussies still do direct challengers of course, and really should have a '1 challenge per year' clause, as we saw recently.

Casino_Royale

MarqueeMark said:

JosiasJessop said:

I agree with most of that. In the past I've said the UN should treat international people trafficking as an 'international' crime and prosecute it themselves - as it's an international crime it too often falls between thee cracks as the countries concerned can't - or won't - prosecute. Get the people making millions from this evil trade, confiscate the proceeds and send them to jail.

The answer is not to obstruct the people trying to rescue people who are drowning. They are not the problem.

As for your last paragraph: I'd like to think we wouldn't be willing to allow people to drown just because it's inconvenient.

Agree with you about it being an international crime,

But tens of thousands landing in small communities is a little more than "inconvenient". I don't know what would happen here. We would likely have a raft of UKIP (or worse) councils screaming at Westminster to "do something". Under those circumstances, who knows how we would react.

We’d double down on either side.

Those on the Left would demand they were accommodated and given money and homes, and redistributed around the UK.

Those on the Right would demand they were turned away or deported and held in detention centres in the meantime.

HYUFD

swing_voter said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.

If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.

What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.

I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.

The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.

But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.

Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated

Foxy

JosiasJessop said:

Can someone from Labour explain what problem(s) they're trying to solve with this employee ownership proposal ?

I haven't looked at the answer in detail, but the question is "how can we reverse the imbalance in profits being distributed between worker and capitalist?"

Bezos is one of the richest men in the world, while most of his workforce is casual labour on the minimum wage, And his commpany pays very little tax. I am not convinced Labour have the right answer, but thay are at least asking the right question.

MarqueeMark

HYUFD said:

swing_voter said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.

If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.

What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.

I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.

The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.

But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.

Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated

May would badly lose such an election. Asking the voters "what do you think?" is a blatant admission that you are not up to governing. It shows what a clown troupe surrounds her that they would ever think of it.

malcolmg

JosiasJessop said:

MarqueeMark said:

JosiasJessop said:

Beverley_C said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

O/T an interesting development in the Med as the Italians effectively stop the last private rescue ship: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45622431

It was a surprisingly quiet summer in the Med compared to previous years. Is it possible that the increased risk is finally discouraging people from making the journey?

"surprisingly quiet summer"

From the article:
"According to United Nations, more than 1,700 migrants have died trying to cross to Europe in 2018."

1,700 people dead. But their deaths can be dismissed.

3,100 people died crossing the Med in 2017, so 1,700 by this point in the year is a reduction. Pro Rata, it would be 2,300 for 2018.

Looking at it another way, more people did NOT lose their lives this year compared to last.

It's glossing over 1,700 deaths.

There's a principle here: I believe anyone in trouble at sea should be rescued, regardless of who they are or how they got into trouble. Saying we won't rescue some is deeply immoral.

This is a political problem, and one that should be solved politically, and not by turning a blind eye as people drown at sea - just because they're thew 'wrong' people.

I agree with most of that. In the past I've said the UN should treat international people trafficking as an 'international' crime and prosecute it themselves - as it's an international crime it too often falls between thee cracks as the countries concerned can't - or won't - prosecute. Get the people making millions from this evil trade, confiscate the proceeds and send them to jail.

The answer is not to obstruct the people trying to rescue people who are drowning. They are not the problem.

As for your last paragraph: I'd like to think we wouldn't be willing to allow people to drown just because it's inconvenient.

They should have had a blockade and taken them straight back to where they came from, that is the only way to stop it. Being all liberal and hand wringing and dumping hundreds of thousands of immigrants on Italy, Greece etc may seem great to weeping heart liberals from far away but is a recipe for disaster as we see.

kle4

SouthamObserver said:

So, basically, McDonnell has joined right-wing Brexiteers in saying Fuck Business. Once, both the Tories and Labour believed in wealth creation - the former to allow tax cuts, the latter to enable redistribution. Those days are long gone. The hole in the centre of British politics is becoming a chasm.

If there are few votes in the supposed centre how do we get them to go back to it?

eek

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Unusually forthright set of opinions on F1 drivers, from a fellow driver.
Clearly not worried about making friends, but interesting:
https://www.formulapassion.it/fp-english/f1-marciello-vettel-not-at-the-level-of-hamilton-alonso-and-kubica-401278.html

Obviously someone who’s given up the idea of ever getting a Ferrari factory drive in future. But he’s right, the difference between Hamilton and Vettel this season is that the guy leading the championship hasn’t made any personal errors, whereas the guy who’s second has made quite a few. Team strategy errors have pretty much cancelled each other out.

I thought it was obvious from the year Vettel and Riccardo were in the same Red Bull. Vettel is a good driver but can't cope with competition in the team let alone outside it...

Foxy

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

MarqueeMark said:

JosiasJessop said:

Beverley_C said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

O/T an interesting development in the Med as the Italians effectively stop the last private rescue ship: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45622431

It was a surprisingly quiet summer in the Med compared to previous years. Is it possible that the increased risk is finally discouraging people from making the journey?

"surprisingly quiet summer"

From the article:
"According to United Nations, more than 1,700 migrants have died trying to cross to Europe in 2018."

1,700 people dead. But their deaths can be dismissed.

3,100 people died crossing the Med in 2017, so 1,700 by this point in the year is a reduction. Pro Rata, it would be 2,300 for 2018.

Looking at it another way, more people did NOT lose their lives this year compared to last.

It's glossing over 1,700 deaths.

There's a principle here: I believe anyone in trouble at sea should be rescued, regardless of who they are or how they got into trouble. Saying we won't rescue some is deeply immoral.

This is a political problem, and one that should be solved politically, and not by turning a blind eye as people drown at sea - just because they're thew 'wrong' people.

I agree with most of that. In the past I've said the UN should treat international people trafficking as an 'international' crime and prosecute it themselves - as it's an international crime it too often falls between thee cracks as the countries concerned can't - or won't - prosecute. Get the people making millions from this evil trade, confiscate the proceeds and send them to jail.

The answer is not to obstruct the people trying to rescue people who are drowning. They are not the problem.

As for your last paragraph: I'd like to think we wouldn't be willing to allow people to drown just because it's inconvenient.

They should have had a blockade and taken them straight back to where they came from, that is the only way to stop it. Being all liberal and hand wringing and dumping hundreds of thousands of immigrants on Italy, Greece etc may seem great to weeping heart liberals from far away but is a recipe for disaster as we see.

As I pointed out, by and large that has been EU policy. The actions of the Libyan coastguard supported by the EU preceeded the change of government in Italy too.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Sandpit, I partly disagree. At some races earlier on, Hamilton seemed out of sorts, lacklustre, and a bit off the pace. Since then, Vettel's made some mistakes/misjudgements and Hamilton has not. In my last F1 blog, I mentioned this as Vettel's head letting him down and, earlier, Hamilton's heart doing likewise.

Things should be closer than they are.

Casino_Royale

HYUFD said:

swing_voter said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.

If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.

What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.

I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.

The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.

But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.

Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated

Madness. We’d lose.

AlastairMeeks

kle4 said:

SouthamObserver said:

So, basically, McDonnell has joined right-wing Brexiteers in saying Fuck Business. Once, both the Tories and Labour believed in wealth creation - the former to allow tax cuts, the latter to enable redistribution. Those days are long gone. The hole in the centre of British politics is becoming a chasm.

If there are few votes in the supposed centre how do we get them to go back to it?

Wait for bitter experience.

TheScreamingEagles

Casino_Royale said:

HYUFD said:

swing_voter said:

SouthamObserver said:

DavidL said:

Mike is of course absolutely right so far as the rules are concerned but I agree with @Philip_Thompson that the political realities are different.

If you take the present situation where we already have a minority government backed up by another party and conceive of May getting Maggie's 54% of the vote. Could she really survive? Could she have any confidence at all of getting her legislative program (such as it is) through the Commons? The reality is that a leader needs to be able to reach out to the various segments of the party and hold them together so that they can work as a cohesive unit in the Commons. Someone getting 54% has demonstrated per adventure that she can't do that.

What is keeping May in place, and has kept her in place since the disastrous election, is that the various factions are nervous that her replacement would be from a different faction and even less palatable to them than May herself. She will be at risk if someone such as Hunt or Javid wins enough support from the various factions that they think he would be better. So far that has not happened or they have looked at what happened to Hezza and thought holding the dagger was not the plan.

I also think Brexit itself is holding her in place. Our position is chaotic enough without a change of leadership. It would be irresponsible to add an additional layer of chaos at this point. This is what is keeping the likes of Boris quiet.

The fall-back to Canada being touted today will do for May and Johnson. It can be delivered by any number of potential PMs - and could have been delivered by the two of them 18 months ago.

But does Canada solve the problem of a N Ireland border? It doesnt as far as I can tell, so we are back to square one.

Which is why May aides were reported in the Sunday Times to be planning a November general election to get a Tory overall majority for a Canada style FTA with a customs union backstop for Northrrn Ireland. If the Tories got an overall majority in the UK they would no longer be reliant on the DUP blocking the backstop and the backstop could be agreed and the EU would then agree to the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period in which the FTA could be negotiated

Madness. We’d lose.

The only way it could be worse is if she called it the ‘Who Governs Britain’ election.

AlastairMeeks

On topic, the current Conservative party rules are designed to make challenges difficult. Unsurprisingly, they are making a challenge difficult.

eek

Foxy said:

JosiasJessop said:

Can someone from Labour explain what problem(s) they're trying to solve with this employee ownership proposal ?

I haven't looked at the answer in detail, but the question is "how can we reverse the imbalance in profits being distributed between worker and capitalist?"

Bezos is one of the richest men in the world, while most of his workforce is casual labour on the minimum wage, And his commpany pays very little tax. I am not convinced Labour have the right answer, but thay are at least asking the right question.

Technically the people in Amazon's warehouses are not his workforce but employed by agencies...

JosiasJessop

malcolmg said:

JosiasJessop said:

MarqueeMark said:

JosiasJessop said:

Beverley_C said:

JosiasJessop said:

DavidL said:

O/T an interesting development in the Med as the Italians effectively stop the last private rescue ship: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45622431

It was a surprisingly quiet summer in the Med compared to previous years. Is it possible that the increased risk is finally discouraging people from making the journey?

"surprisingly quiet summer"

From the article:
"According to United Nations, more than 1,700 migrants have died trying to cross to Europe in 2018."

1,700 people dead. But their deaths can be dismissed.

3,100 people died crossing the Med in 2017, so 1,700 by this point in the year is a reduction. Pro Rata, it would be 2,300 for 2018.

Looking at it another way, more people did NOT lose their lives this year compared to last.

It's glossing over 1,700 deaths.

There's a principle here: I believe anyone in trouble at sea should be rescued, regardless of who they are or how they got into trouble. Saying we won't rescue some is deeply immoral.

This is a political problem, and one that should be solved politically, and not by turning a blind eye as people drown at sea - just because they're thew 'wrong' people.

I agree with most of that. In the past I've said the UN should treat international people trafficking as an 'international' crime and prosecute it themselves - as it's an international crime it too often falls between thee cracks as the countries concerned can't - or won't - prosecute. Get the people making millions from this evil trade, confiscate the proceeds and send them to jail.

The answer is not to obstruct the people trying to rescue people who are drowning. They are not the problem.

As for your last paragraph: I'd like to think we wouldn't be willing to allow people to drown just because it's inconvenient.

They should have had a blockade and taken them straight back to where they came from, that is the only way to stop it. Being all liberal and hand wringing and dumping hundreds of thousands of immigrants on Italy, Greece etc may seem great to weeping heart liberals from far away but is a recipe for disaster as we see.

That would be good, as long as anyone who gets past the blockade and gets into trouble isn't allowed to drown.

I'm not saying 'we should let them all in'; just that we shouldn't let them drown.

edmundintokyo

Casino_Royale said:

Madness. We’d lose.

If ever there was a good election to lose it would be that one...

TheScreamingEagles

Opinium

Con 37 (-2)

Lab 39 (+1)

LD 9 (+2)

UKIP 8 (+2)

Fieldwork Tues-Thurs of last week.

https://www.opinium.co.uk/political-polling-18th-september-2018-2/