I suspect the pressure will grow for a Norway deal with some nod to immigration.
Above all else I would expect that to clear the HOC fairly easily despite the ERG objecting
The EU, however, is simply not going to compromise on immigration. A Norway deal will only pass as just that - like Norway - and the Tory grassroots will never accept it.
You have no idea in a negotiation what may happen. I would suggest you may want to remain.
I want to remain, but I'm just going on past form up to now, essentially. The EU has been exceptionally good at imposing discipline on individual member states on not diverging from the main line on FoM so far ; so something enormous would have to change for the UK government to find a more willing audience for changes to FoM, in the UK's case.
I wonder whether McDonnell's plan is compatible with EU rules?
It's also effectively nationalisation without compensation so is also going to run up against Human Rights legislation.
We are in need of politicians who can articulate why superfically attractive schemes like this are a bad idea. There also needs to be some fresh thinking to address the issues that this scheme purports to solve. The proposal is like the opening idea at a workshop that when subject to analysis is either dropped or heavily modified.
In fairness to the teaching assistant his thought is probably more along the lines that adults who had a good education wouldn't turn into Tory voters rather than they should be taught not to vote Tory. Sort of a mean point it could be said but I have heard the point made the opposite way at times.
Basically people often put their political opponents down as morally or mentally deficient, this guy feels a good education would overcome these things.
Most people in Wales despair of an education system (run by Labour since 1999) that has comprehensively performed worse than the educational systems in Scotland, N. Ireland and England.
PISA ranking in Mathematics, Wales == 36 th, below Lithuania and Latvia (England == 26th, N Ireland == 26th, Scotland = 29 th, Rep of Ireland ==17th)
PISA ranking in Science, Wales == 32th. (England == 13th, Scotland == 24th, N.Ireland == 23rd, Rep of Ireland == 19th).
Keep Wales poor and uneducated seems to be Labour's policy in the only part of the UK where they control the educational system.
Welsh Labour should not be listened to on education ... they need to STFU and learn from others.
See link for BBC article re McDonnell's plans and in particular Simon Jack's analysis near the bottom.
Surely there's a problem with Jack's analysis - Shell is a multinational company operating worldwide - McDonnell can't get his hands on operations outside UK.
Surely UK employees will be employed by UK subsidiary and McDonnell will only be able to get his hands on (10%) of the UK subsidiary's shares.
Ditto across the whole economy - UK subsidiaries of overseas parents won't even be listed.
More likely Shell will set up several subsidiary companies in the U.K. - none of whom will employ the required 250 staff. John McDonnell doesn’t have a clue how businesses work in the real world outside of his Marxist textbooks.
Anyone who thinks 250 staff or 10% is the long-term limit has never read a history of the far left.
200...150...100...50...
10%...12%...14%...16%...
Venezuela!!
The cat and mouse game would be hillarious. The end result is that every company would look like Uber with a base offshore and a bunch of self-employed contractors in the UK. And significantly less tax being paid.
McDonnell is writing the next three years of Conservative broadcasts this week.
McDonnell is a clueless nugget who would wreck the economy even quicker than PM Brown did.
Aviation impact document. Sounds a bit fingers crossed to me:
"If the UK leaves the EU in March 2019 with no agreement in place, UK and EU licensed airlines would lose the automatic right to operate air services between the UK and the EU without seeking advance permission. This would mean that airlines operating between the UK and the EU would need to seek individual permissions to operate. EU-licensed airlines would lose the ability to operate wholly within the UK (for example from Heathrow to Edinburgh) and UK-licensed airlines would lose the ability to operate intra-EU air services (for example from Milan to Paris).
If there is ‘no deal’ with the EU, airlines wishing to operate flights between the UK and the EU would have to seek individual permissions to operate from the respective states (be that the UK or an EU country). In this scenario the UK would envisage granting permission to EU airlines to continue to operate. We would expect EU countries to reciprocate in turn. It would not be in the interest of any EU country or the UK to restrict the choice of destinations that could be served, though, if such permissions are not granted, there could be disruption to some flights." (my bold)
I wonder whether McDonnell's plan is compatible with EU rules?
It's also effectively nationalisation without compensation so is also going to run up against Human Rights legislation.
We are in need of politicians who can articulate why superfically attractive schemes like this are a bad idea. There also needs to be some fresh thinking to address the issues that this scheme purports to solve. The proposal is like the opening idea at a workshop that when subject to analysis is either dropped or heavily modified.
See link for BBC article re McDonnell's plans and in particular Simon Jack's analysis near the bottom.
Surely there's a problem with Jack's analysis - Shell is a multinational company operating worldwide - McDonnell can't get his hands on operations outside UK.
Surely UK employees will be employed by UK subsidiary and McDonnell will only be able to get his hands on (10%) of the UK subsidiary's shares.
Ditto across the whole economy - UK subsidiaries of overseas parents won't even be listed.
More likely Shell will set up several subsidiary companies in the U.K. - none of whom will employ the required 250 staff. John McDonnell doesn’t have a clue how businesses work in the real world outside of his Marxist textbooks.
Anyone who thinks 250 staff or 10% is the long-term limit has never read a history of the far left.
200...150...100...50...
10%...12%...14%...16%...
Venezuela!!
The cat and mouse game would be hillarious. The end result is that every company would look like Uber with a base offshore and a bunch of self-employed contractors in the UK. And significantly less tax being paid.
McDonnell is writing the next three years of Conservative broadcasts this week.
McDonnell is a clueless nugget who would wreck the economy even quicker than PM Brown did.
The problem is unlike jezza he sounds more convincing to casual listener. On R4 he was even spinning this plan as akin to Thatcher saying the public needed to be shareholders in companies.
I wonder whether McDonnell's plan is compatible with EU rules?
It's also effectively nationalisation without compensation so is also going to run up against Human Rights legislation.
We are in need of politicians who can articulate why superfically attractive schemes like this are a bad idea. There also needs to be some fresh thinking to address the issues that this scheme purports to solve. The proposal is like the opening idea at a workshop that when subject to analysis is either dropped or heavily modified.
Yes. The Conservatives need to get a rapid-rebuttal office going to counter John McDonnell. He’s very good at communicating completely unworkable ideas in sensible language - see how YouGov framed their question on his proposals.
We should be out tonight shouting from the rooftops that this idea: 1. Is illegal under EU law, which is why the Labour leadership want us to leave the EU. 2. Leads to more companies like Uber where the work is outsourced to poorly-paid self-employed. 3. Leads over time to large companies choosing to be based elsewhere. 4. That the biggest victims of the theft of shares are not corporate fat cats, but yours and my pension funds. 5. That he’s not giving workers shares, he’s giving unions shares.
If nick Timothy was still with may, the Tories would probably copy all the worst bits of the share scheme and not even bribe the public with the £500.....
In fairness to the teaching assistant his thought is probably more along the lines that adults who had a good education wouldn't turn into Tory voters rather than they should be taught not to vote Tory. Sort of a mean point it could be said but I have heard the point made the opposite way at times.
Basically people often put their political opponents down as morally or mentally deficient, this guy feels a good education would overcome these things.
Apparently the teaching assistant included the words "and we'll have much less problems in our NHS" in his speech. Back to school for him.
Perhaps he was making a point that problems in the NHS is not something that can be counted
Hi everyone. Just as an update, my operation was a success but I’m still in the hospital. Hopefully they will let me go home soon. Thanks for all your kind words prior!
I wonder whether McDonnell's plan is compatible with EU rules?
It's also effectively nationalisation without compensation so is also going to run up against Human Rights legislation.
We are in need of politicians who can articulate why superfically attractive schemes like this are a bad idea. There also needs to be some fresh thinking to address the issues that this scheme purports to solve. The proposal is like the opening idea at a workshop that when subject to analysis is either dropped or heavily modified.
Yes. The Conservatives need to get a rapid-rebuttal office going to counter John McDonnell. He’s very good at communicating completely unworkable ideas in sensible language - see how YouGov framed their question on his proposals.
We should be out tonight shouting from the rooftops that this idea: 1. Is illegal under EU law, which is why the Labour leadership want us to leave the EU. 2. Leads to more companies like Uber where the work is outsourced to poorly-paid self-employed. 3. Leads over time to large companies choosing to be based elsewhere. 4. That the biggest victims of the theft of shares are not corporate fat cats, but yours and my pension funds.
The Tories seem totally unwilling and incapable of advocating why in general capitalism works, why these schemes don't (even Sweden dropped it), while developing policy for the globalised and ever increasingly technological future.
They have withdrawn from the battlefield on economics / business and the orange book lib Dems have gone AWOL.
See link for BBC article re McDonnell's plans and in particular Simon Jack's analysis near the bottom.
Surely there's a problem with Jack's analysis - Shell is a multinational company operating worldwide - McDonnell can't get his hands on operations outside UK.
Surely UK employees will be employed by UK subsidiary and McDonnell will only be able to get his hands on (10%) of the UK subsidiary's shares.
Ditto across the whole economy - UK subsidiaries of overseas parents won't even be listed.
More likely Shell will set up several subsidiary companies in the U.K. - none of whom will employ the required 250 staff. John McDonnell doesn’t have a clue how businesses work in the real world outside of his Marxist textbooks.
Anyone who thinks 250 staff or 10% is the long-term limit has never read a history of the far left.
200...150...100...50...
10%...12%...14%...16%...
Venezuela!!
The cat and mouse game would be hillarious. The end result is that every company would look like Uber with a base offshore and a bunch of self-employed contractors in the UK. And significantly less tax being paid.
McDonnell is writing the next three years of Conservative broadcasts this week.
McDonnell is a clueless nugget who would wreck the economy even quicker than PM Brown did.
The problem is unlike jezza he sounds more convincing to casual listener. On R4 he was even spinning this plan as akin to Thatcher saying the public needed to be shareholders in companies.
Nah - most voters can suss out he's a dangerous commie. The hardcore of Corbynite mongs will lap it up as they do with any other greed based policy of envy - they love stealing from those more successful to finance their lifestyles.
We should be out tonight shouting from the rooftops that this idea: 1. Is illegal under EU law, which is why the Labour leadership want us to leave the EU.
At one time, the Conservatives were able to argue that Labour were extreme for wanting to leave the EEC.
See link for BBC article re McDonnell's plans and in particular Simon Jack's analysis near the bottom.
Surely there's a problem with Jack's analysis - Shell is a multinational company operating worldwide - McDonnell can't get his hands on operations outside UK.
Surely UK employees will be employed by UK subsidiary and McDonnell will only be able to get his hands on (10%) of the UK subsidiary's shares.
Ditto across the whole economy - UK subsidiaries of overseas parents won't even be listed.
More likely Shell will set up several subsidiary companies in the U.K. - none of whom will employ the required 250 staff. John McDonnell doesn’t have a clue how businesses work in the real world outside of his Marxist textbooks.
Oh sure - though I imagine he'll probably try some anti-avoidance measures so that companies under the same ownership are grouped together for the purposes of what he's doing.
It's also bound to lead to a massive increase in outsourcing.
Don't doubt that outsourcing will be curbed as well, it's a major problem with so many on zero hours contracts being involved. When employment starts to get competitive as immigration will not be allowed to take up any slack, then the option of going on zero hours means that employers will have to pay full time to retain staff. And when you get down to the figures, it really does not make financial sense for companies. Just like off-shoring, a fad that collapses like a house of cards when pressure is applied. (Staff in India, qualified and trained up, find new, better paid jobs quite quickly, leaving their old jobs filled by second or third choice staff who need trained and qualified - who find new, better paid jobs quite quickly, repeat. And yes, a company I worked for disposed of the entire UK IT dept and off shored to India. Last I heard they had to bring the work back onshore.)
I wonder whether McDonnell's plan is compatible with EU rules?
It's also effectively nationalisation without compensation so is also going to run up against Human Rights legislation.
We are in need of politicians who can articulate why superfically attractive schemes like this are a bad idea. There also needs to be some fresh thinking to address the issues that this scheme purports to solve. The proposal is like the opening idea at a workshop that when subject to analysis is either dropped or heavily modified.
Yes. The Conservatives need to get a rapid-rebuttal office going to counter John McDonnell. He’s very good at communicating completely unworkable ideas in sensible language - see how YouGov framed their question on his proposals.
We should be out tonight shouting from the rooftops that this idea: 1. Is illegal under EU law, which is why the Labour leadership want us to leave the EU. 2. Leads to more companies like Uber where the work is outsourced to poorly-paid self-employed. 3. Leads over time to large companies choosing to be based elsewhere. 4. That the biggest victims of the theft of shares are not corporate fat cats, but yours and my pension funds.
The Tories seem totally unwilling and incapable of advocating why in general capitalism works, why these schemes don't (even Sweden dropped it), while developing policy for the globalised and ever increasingly technological future.
When the opponent was Blair, we didn’t need to argue capitalism from first principles, as he agreed with it and it was basically a given. It’s been 1983 since we had to argue for capitalism, and the institutional memory in Conservative politics has been forgotten.
We need to relearn it, and quickly. If I were in CCHQ I’d get people all over the media making the argument. It would also be good to get the more liberal Conservatives on board to show how big is the gap between the parties. Even Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry are sound Conservatives, if they disagree about the EU with most of the party. KC remembers opposing Foot in ‘83, he can teach the next generation an awful lot.
See link for BBC article re McDonnell's plans and in particular Simon Jack's analysis near the bottom.
Surely there's a problem with Jack's analysis - Shell is a multinational company operating worldwide - McDonnell can't get his hands on operations outside UK.
Surely UK employees will be employed by UK subsidiary and McDonnell will only be able to get his hands on (10%) of the UK subsidiary's shares.
Ditto across the whole economy - UK subsidiaries of overseas parents won't even be listed.
More likely Shell will set up several subsidiary companies in the U.K. - none of whom will employ the required 250 staff. John McDonnell doesn’t have a clue how businesses work in the real world outside of his Marxist textbooks.
Oh sure - though I imagine he'll probably try some anti-avoidance measures so that companies under the same ownership are grouped together for the purposes of what he's doing.
It's also bound to lead to a massive increase in outsourcing.
Don't doubt that outsourcing will be curbed as well, it's a major problem with so many on zero hours contracts being involved. When employment starts to get competitive as immigration will not be allowed to take up any slack, then the option of going on zero hours means that employers will have to pay full time to retain staff. And when you get down to the figures, it really does not make financial sense for companies. Just like off-shoring, a fad that collapses like a house of cards when pressure is applied. (Staff in India, qualified and trained up, find new, better paid jobs quite quickly, leaving their old jobs filled by second or third choice staff who need trained and qualified - who find new, better paid jobs quite quickly, repeat. And yes, a company I worked for disposed of the entire UK IT dept and off shored to India. Last I heard they had to bring the work back onshore.)
Ask British Airways what happens when you outsource your IT department to Tata in India.
We should be out tonight shouting from the rooftops that this idea: 1. Is illegal under EU law, which is why the Labour leadership want us to leave the EU.
At one time, the Conservatives were able to argue that Labour were extreme for wanting to leave the EEC.
We should be out tonight shouting from the rooftops that this idea: 1. Is illegal under EU law, which is why the Labour leadership want us to leave the EU.
At one time, the Conservatives were able to argue that Labour were extreme for wanting to leave the EEC.
The EEC was a great organisation. Sad what became of it.
See link for BBC article re McDonnell's plans and in particular Simon Jack's analysis near the bottom.
Surely there's a problem with Jack's analysis - Shell is a multinational company operating worldwide - McDonnell can't get his hands on operations outside UK.
Surely UK employees will be employed by UK subsidiary and McDonnell will only be able to get his hands on (10%) of the UK subsidiary's shares.
Ditto across the whole economy - UK subsidiaries of overseas parents won't even be listed.
More likely Shell will set up several subsidiary companies in the U.K. - none of whom will employ the required 250 staff. John McDonnell doesn’t have a clue how businesses work in the real world outside of his Marxist textbooks.
Oh sure - though I imagine he'll probably try some anti-avoidance measures so that companies under the same ownership are grouped together for the purposes of what he's doing.
It's also bound to lead to a massive increase in outsourcing.
Don't doubt that outsourcing will be curbed as well, it's a major problem with so many on zero hours contracts being involved. When employment starts to get competitive as immigration will not be allowed to take up any slack, then the option of going on zero hours means that employers will have to pay full time to retain staff. And when you get down to the figures, it really does not make financial sense for companies. Just like off-shoring, a fad that collapses like a house of cards when pressure is applied. (Staff in India, qualified and trained up, find new, better paid jobs quite quickly, leaving their old jobs filled by second or third choice staff who need trained and qualified - who find new, better paid jobs quite quickly, repeat. And yes, a company I worked for disposed of the entire UK IT dept and off shored to India. Last I heard they had to bring the work back onshore.)
Ask British Airways what happens when you outsource your IT department to Tata in India.
They'll send it to Tata so their employees have no steak in it?
In fairness to the teaching assistant his thought is probably more along the lines that adults who had a good education wouldn't turn into Tory voters rather than they should be taught not to vote Tory. Sort of a mean point it could be said but I have heard the point made the opposite way at times.
Basically people often put their political opponents down as morally or mentally deficient, this guy feels a good education would overcome these things.
I don't really see how that is 'in fairness' to the guy. It is an old standby that sides claim the other must be stupid or immoral (the former seems more commonly used by the right for the left, and vice versa, but you certainly see the reverse too) but it is still an insulting, silly thing for him to think.
Well it is in fairness as it is a fairly common flaw and assuming your opponents to be deficient in some way is not as bad as being actively in favour of brainwashing the young.
Which isn't to say that isn't a bad thing to think just not as bad as alternative.
I wonder whether McDonnell's plan is compatible with EU rules?
It's also effectively nationalisation without compensation so is also going to run up against Human Rights legislation.
We are in need of politicians who can articulate why superfically attractive schemes like this are a bad idea. There also needs to be some fresh thinking to address the issues that this scheme purports to solve. The proposal is like the opening idea at a workshop that when subject to analysis is either dropped or heavily modified.
Yes. The Conservatives need to get a rapid-rebuttal office going to counter John McDonnell. He’s very good at communicating completely unworkable ideas in sensible language - see how YouGov framed their question on his proposals.
We should be out tonight shouting from the rooftops that this idea: 1. Is illegal under EU law, which is why the Labour leadership want us to leave the EU. 2. Leads to more companies like Uber where the work is outsourced to poorly-paid self-employed. 3. Leads over time to large companies choosing to be based elsewhere. 4. That the biggest victims of the theft of shares are not corporate fat cats, but yours and my pension funds.
The Tories seem totally unwilling and incapable of advocating why in general capitalism works, why these schemes don't (even Sweden dropped it), while developing policy for the globalised and ever increasingly technological future.
They have withdrawn from the battlefield on economics / business and the orange book lib Dems have gone AWOL.
Johnson - “fuck business”
I’m not sure that majoring on it being illegal under EU law would be the best response. It would lead to the question of what we are leaving and remain people that more than a minority of Conservatives are happy to condone and indeed tactility encourage xenophobia in pursuit of their fantasies.
See link for BBC article re McDonnell's plans and in particular Simon Jack's analysis near the bottom.
Surely there's a problem with Jack's analysis - Shell is a multinational company operating worldwide - McDonnell can't get his hands on operations outside UK.
Surely UK employees will be employed by UK subsidiary and McDonnell will only be able to get his hands on (10%) of the UK subsidiary's shares.
Ditto across the whole economy - UK subsidiaries of overseas parents won't even be listed.
More likely Shell will set up several subsidiary companies in the U.K. - none of whom will employ the required 250 staff. John McDonnell doesn’t have a clue how businesses work in the real world outside of his Marxist textbooks.
Oh sure - though I imagine he'll probably try some anti-avoidance measures so that companies under the same ownership are grouped together for the purposes of what he's doing.
It's also bound to lead to a massive increase in outsourcing.
Don't doubt that outsourcing will be curbed as well, it's a major problem with so many on zero hours contracts being involved. When employment starts to get competitive as immigration will not be allowed to take up any slack, then the option of going on zero hours means that employers will have to pay full time to retain staff. And when you get down to the figures, it really does not make financial sense for companies. Just like off-shoring, a fad that collapses like a house of cards when pressure is applied. (Staff in India, qualified and trained up, find new, better paid jobs quite quickly, leaving their old jobs filled by second or third choice staff who need trained and qualified - who find new, better paid jobs quite quickly, repeat. And yes, a company I worked for disposed of the entire UK IT dept and off shored to India. Last I heard they had to bring the work back onshore.)
Ask British Airways what happens when you outsource your IT department to Tata in India.
They'll send it to Tata so their employees have no steak in it?
They no longer relish the idea, after their server room chips got fried and their customers’ data got poured away.
I wonder whether McDonnell's plan is compatible with EU rules?
It's also effectively nationalisation without compensation so is also going to run up against Human Rights legislation.
We are in need of politicians who can articulate why superfically attractive schemes like this are a bad idea. There also needs to be some fresh thinking to address the issues that this scheme purports to solve. The proposal is like the opening idea at a workshop that when subject to analysis is either dropped or heavily modified.
Yes. The Conservatives need to get a rapid-rebuttal office going to counter John McDonnell. He’s very good at communicating completely unworkable ideas in sensible language - see how YouGov framed their question on his proposals.
We should be out tonight shouting from the rooftops that this idea: 1. Is illegal under EU law, which is why the Labour leadership want us to leave the EU. 2. Leads to more companies like Uber where the work is outsourced to poorly-paid self-employed. 3. Leads over time to large companies choosing to be based elsewhere. 4. That the biggest victims of the theft of shares are not corporate fat cats, but yours and my pension funds.
The Tories seem totally unwilling and incapable of advocating why in general capitalism works, why these schemes don't (even Sweden dropped it), while developing policy for the globalised and ever increasingly technological future.
When the opponent was Blair, we didn’t need to argue capitalism from first principles, as he agreed with it and it was basically a given. It’s been 1983 since we had to argue for capitalism, and the institutional memory in Conservative politics has been forgotten.
We need to relearn it, and quickly. If I were in CCHQ I’d get people all over the media making the argument. It would also be good to get the more liberal Conservatives on board to show how big is the gap between the parties. Even Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry are sound Conservatives, if they disagree about the EU with most of the party. KC remembers opposing Foot in ‘83, he can teach the next generation an awful lot.
An aside but Clarke and Soubry are by any stretch sounder Conservatives than treacherous halfwits such as Duncan Smith. A what point have they sought to destroy a Conservative administration?
The Labour plan to sack all the bosses of the water companies....I seemed to remember that Venezuela conducted something similar with the oil companies..
That’s impressive, most festivals are a massive money machine (with the exception of Labour Live of course).
Reading between the lines they had an event washed out and didn’t have sufficient pluvient insurance.
It also can't help now that there is basically a festival every weekend during the summer. The market is absolutely saturated, and if you don't get some decent acts people have lots of other options.
See link for BBC article re McDonnell's plans and in particular Simon Jack's analysis near the bottom.
Surely there's a problem with Jack's analysis - Shell is a multinational company operating worldwide - McDonnell can't get his hands on operations outside UK.
Surely UK employees will be employed by UK subsidiary and McDonnell will only be able to get his hands on (10%) of the UK subsidiary's shares.
Ditto across the whole economy - UK subsidiaries of overseas parents won't even be listed.
More likely Shell will set up several subsidiary companies in the U.K. - none of whom will employ the required 250 staff. John McDonnell doesn’t have a clue how businesses work in the real world outside of his Marxist textbooks.
Oh sure - though I imagine he'll probably try some anti-avoidance measures so that companies under the same ownership are grouped together for the purposes of what he's doing.
It's also bound to lead to a massive increase in outsourcing.
Don't doubt that outsourcing will be curbed as well, it's a major problem with so many on zero hours contracts being involved. When employment starts to get competitive as immigration will not be allowed to take up any slack, then the option of going on zero hours means that employers will have to pay full time to retain staff. And when you get down to the figures, it really does not make financial sense for companies. Just like off-shoring, a fad that collapses like a house of cards when pressure is applied. (Staff in India, qualified and trained up, find new, better paid jobs quite quickly, leaving their old jobs filled by second or third choice staff who need trained and qualified - who find new, better paid jobs quite quickly, repeat. And yes, a company I worked for disposed of the entire UK IT dept and off shored to India. Last I heard they had to bring the work back onshore.)
Ask British Airways what happens when you outsource your IT department to Tata in India.
They'll send it to Tata so their employees have no steak in it?
They no longer relish the idea, after their server room chips got fried and their customers’ data got poured away.
They think it was a bit rare, and not very well done, so they are scampi-ing away from it as fast as they can?
I wonder whether McDonnell's plan is compatible with EU rules?
It's also effectively nationalisation without compensation so is also going to run up against Human Rights legislation.
We are in need of politicians who can articulate why superfically attractive schemes like this are a bad idea. There also needs to be some fresh thinking to address the issues that this scheme purports to solve. The proposal is like the opening idea at a workshop that when subject to analysis is either dropped or heavily modified.
(cut)
The Tories seem totally unwilling and incapable of advocating why in general capitalism works, why these schemes don't (even Sweden dropped it), while developing policy for the globalised and ever increasingly technological future.
When the opponent was Blair, we didn’t need to argue capitalism from first principles, as he agreed with it and it was basically a given. It’s been 1983 since we had to argue for capitalism, and the institutional memory in Conservative politics has been forgotten.
We need to relearn it, and quickly. If I were in CCHQ I’d get people all over the media making the argument. It would also be good to get the more liberal Conservatives on board to show how big is the gap between the parties. Even Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry are sound Conservatives, if they disagree about the EU with most of the party. KC remembers opposing Foot in ‘83, he can teach the next generation an awful lot.
An aside but Clarke and Soubry are by any stretch sounder Conservatives than treacherous halfwits such as Duncan Smith. A what point have they sought to destroy a Conservative administration?
I'll give you Clarke as sound, but Soubry is a stretch, at least as a politician. IDS isn't a halfwit. cf David Davis.
The Tories are victims of being less than the big issues demand, but there have been some quite big issues. Labour haven't been in the conversation.
CCHQ has no intellectual resource whatsoever though. I'm not sure there's been a new thought or conversation on the right for about 30 years. Contrast Labour - with their 0.5watt intellectual lightbulbs they pump out cretinous idea after cretinous idea.
I wonder whether McDonnell's plan is compatible with EU rules?
It's also effectively nationalisation without compensation so is also going to run up against Human Rights legislation.
We are in need of politicians who can articulate why superfically attractive schemes like this are a bad idea. There also needs to be some fresh thinking to address the issues that this scheme purports to solve. The proposal is like the opening idea at a workshop that when subject to analysis is either dropped or heavily modified.
(cut)
The Tories seem totally unwilling and incapable of advocating why in general capitalism works, why these schemes don't (even Sweden dropped it), while developing policy for the globalised and ever increasingly technological future.
When the opponent was Blair, we didn’t need to argue capitalism from first principles, as he agreed with it and it was basically a given. It’s been 1983 since we had to argue for capitalism, and the institutional memory in Conservative politics has been forgotten.
We need to relearn it, and quickly. If I were in CCHQ I’d get people all over the media making the argument. It would also be good to get the more liberal Conservatives on board to show how big is the gap between the parties. Even Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry are sound Conservatives, if they disagree about the EU with most of the party. KC remembers opposing Foot in ‘83, he can teach the next generation an awful lot.
An aside but Clarke and Soubry are by any stretch sounder Conservatives than treacherous halfwits such as Duncan Smith. A what point have they sought to destroy a Conservative administration?
I'll give you Clarke as sound, but Soubry is a stretch, at least as a politician. IDS isn't a halfwit. cf David Davis.
The Tories are victims of being less than the big issues demand, but there have been some quite big issues. Labour haven't been in the conversation.
CCHQ has no intellectual resource whatsoever though. I'm not sure there's been a new thought or conversation on the right for about 30 years. Contrast Labour - with their 0.5watt intellectual lightbulbs they pump out cretinous idea after cretinous idea. O
CV lies (would be sackable offence in the private sector), finds god as character bleach, “undistinguished” cabinet role, enthusiast for lying about Brexit. I’ll stick to halfwit if that’s ok.
Edit -I thought Davis though would rise to the role. All he did was prove how lucky the Conservatives were when they chose Cameron.
See link for BBC article re McDonnell's plans and in particular Simon Jack's analysis near the bottom.
Surely there's a problem with Jack's analysis - Shell is a multinational company operating worldwide - McDonnell can't get his hands on operations outside UK.
Surely UK employees will be employed by UK subsidiary and McDonnell will only be able to get his hands on (10%) of the UK subsidiary's shares.
Ditto across the whole economy - UK subsidiaries of overseas parents won't even be listed.
More likely Shell will set up several subsidiary companies in the U.K. - none of whom will employ the required 250 staff. John McDonnell doesn’t have a clue how businesses work in the real world outside of his Marxist textbooks.
Anyone who thinks 250 staff or 10% is the long-term limit has never read a history of the far left.
200...150...100...50...
10%...12%...14%...16%...
Venezuela!!
The cat and mouse game would be hillarious. The end result is that every company would look like Uber with a base offshore and a bunch of self-employed contractors in the UK. And significantly less tax being paid.
McDonnell is writing the next three years of Conservative broadcasts this week.
Given that the public has not had the chance to look at these proposals in any detail, let alone fully understand them, this sort of polling is meaningless
How many people went ahead and voted for Brexit without looking at the proposals in detail or fully understanding them?
See link for BBC article re McDonnell's plans and in particular Simon Jack's analysis near the bottom.
Surely there's a problem with Jack's analysis - Shell is a multinational company operating worldwide - McDonnell can't get his hands on operations outside UK.
Surely UK employees will be employed by UK subsidiary and McDonnell will only be able to get his hands on (10%) of the UK subsidiary's shares.
Ditto across the whole economy - UK subsidiaries of overseas parents won't even be listed.
More likely Shell will set up several subsidiary companies in the U.K. - none of whom will employ the required 250 staff. John McDonnell doesn’t have a clue how businesses work in the real world outside of his Marxist textbooks.
Anyone who thinks 250 staff or 10% is the long-term limit has never read a history of the far left.
200...150...100...50...
10%...12%...14%...16%...
Venezuela!!
The cat and mouse game would be hillarious. The end result is that every company would look like Uber with a base offshore and a bunch of self-employed contractors in the UK. And significantly less tax being paid.
McDonnell is writing the next three years of Conservative broadcasts this week.
Given that the public has not had the chance to look at these proposals in any detail, let alone fully understand them, this sort of polling is meaningless
How many people went ahead and voted for Brexit without looking at the proposals in detail or fully understanding them?
Most of them have sod all grasp of the consequences even now, yet the likes of Simon, HYUFD and Mortimer happily claim democratic legitimacy for a fairly extreme stop-the-furriners brand of their pet project.
I wonder whether McDonnell's plan is compatible with EU rules?
It's also effectively nationalisation without compensation so is also going to run up against Human Rights legislation.
We are in need of politicians who can articulate why superfically attractive schemes like this are a bad idea. There also needs to be some fresh thinking to address the issues that this scheme purports to solve. The proposal is like the opening idea at a workshop that when subject to analysis is either dropped or heavily modified.
(cut)
The Tories seem totally unwilling and incapable of advocating why in general capitalism works, why these schemes don't (even Sweden dropped it), while developing policy for the globalised and ever increasingly technological future.
When the opponent was Blair, we didn’t need to argue capitalism from first principles, as he agreed with it and it was basically a given. It’s been 1983 since we had to argue for capitalism, and the institutional memory in Conservative politics has been forgotten.
We need to relearn it, and quickly. If I were in CCHQ I’d get people all over the media making the argument. It would also be good to get the more liberal Conservatives on board to show how big is the gap between the parties. Even Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry are sound Conservatives, if they disagree about the EU with most of the party. KC remembers opposing Foot in ‘83, he can teach the next generation an awful lot.
An aside but Clarke and Soubry are by any stretch sounder Conservatives than treacherous halfwits such as Duncan Smith. A what point have they sought to destroy a Conservative administration?
I'll give you Clarke as sound, but Soubry is a stretch, at least as a politician. IDS isn't a halfwit. cf David Davis.
The Tories are victims of being less than the big issues demand, but there have been some quite big issues. Labour haven't been in the conversation.
CCHQ has no intellectual resource whatsoever though. I'm not sure there's been a new thought or conversation on the right for about 30 years. Contrast Labour - with their 0.5watt intellectual lightbulbs they pump out cretinous idea after cretinous idea.
I am sure that is unkind. IDS aspires to be a half wit and in a world of all win prizes he should be given the title.
See link for BBC article re McDonnell's plans and in particular Simon Jack's analysis near the bottom.
Surely there's a problem with Jack's analysis - Shell is a multinational company operating worldwide - McDonnell can't get his hands on operations outside UK.
Surely UK employees will be employed by UK subsidiary and McDonnell will only be able to get his hands on (10%) of the UK subsidiary's shares.
Ditto across the whole economy - UK subsidiaries of overseas parents won't even be listed.
More likely Shell will set up several subsidiary companies in the U.K. - none of whom will employ the required 250 staff. John McDonnell doesn’t have a clue how businesses work in the real world outside of his Marxist textbooks.
Anyone who thinks 250 staff or 10% is the long-term limit has never read a history of the far left.
200...150...100...50...
10%...12%...14%...16%...
Venezuela!!
The cat and mouse game would be hillarious. The end result is that every company would look like Uber with a base offshore and a bunch of self-employed contractors in the UK. And significantly less tax being paid.
McDonnell is writing the next three years of Conservative broadcasts this week.
Given that the public has not had the chance to look at these proposals in any detail, let alone fully understand them, this sort of polling is meaningless
How many people went ahead and voted for Brexit without looking at the proposals in detail or fully understanding them?
True, but at least they had people screeching at them from both sides for six weeks which they could choose to ignore or not, rather than a snap view and immediate reaction.
If McDonnell gets in, the rational response is to get anything of value that isn’t tied down out of the country.
That will definitely be good for the NHS and other public services.
Are you scared my right-wing friend? LOL!
Look at what the sleazy Tories have done! The Brexit calamity, austerity punishing the poor and vulnerable while the rich get away dodging paying their share.
Look in the mirror, my right-wing friend and then you'll understand why Labour will win the next GE.
I wonder whether McDonnell's plan is compatible with EU rules?
It's also effectively nationalisation without compensation so is also going to run up against Human Rights legislation.
We are in need of politicians who can articulate why superfically attractive schemes like this are a bad idea. There also needs to be some fresh thinking to address the issues that this scheme purports to solve. The proposal is like the opening idea at a workshop that when subject to analysis is either dropped or heavily modified.
Yes. The Conservatives need to get a rapid-rebuttal office going to counter John McDonnell. He’s very good at communicating completely unworkable ideas in sensible language - see how YouGov framed their question on his proposals.
We should be out tonight shouting from the rooftops that this idea: 1. Is illegal under EU law, which is why the Labour leadership want us to leave the EU. 2. Leads to more companies like Uber where the work is outsourced to poorly-paid self-employed. 3. Leads over time to large companies choosing to be based elsewhere. 4. That the biggest victims of the theft of shares are not corporate fat cats, but yours and my pension funds.
The Tories seem totally unwilling and incapable of advocating why in general capitalism works, why these schemes don't (even Sweden dropped it), while developing policy for the globalised and ever increasingly technological future.
When the opponent was Blair, we didn’t need to argue capitalism from first principles, as he agreed with it and it was basically a given. It’s been 1983 since we had to argue for capitalism, and the institutional memory in Conservative politics has been forgotten.
We need to relearn it, and quickly. If I were in CCHQ I’d get people all over the media making the argument. It would also be good to get the more liberal Conservatives on board to show how big is the gap between the parties. Even Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry are sound Conservatives, if they disagree about the EU with most of the party. KC remembers opposing Foot in ‘83, he can teach the next generation an awful lot.
An aside but Clarke and Soubry are by any stretch sounder Conservatives than treacherous halfwits such as Duncan Smith. A what point have they sought to destroy a Conservative administration?
Hear Hear....
Ken Clarke should go down as one of the great statesmen of our time when he retires... and there's not many others you can say that of I suggest...
Sad News. I went to Camp Bestival 10 years ago. It was the most family friendly festival that I have ever been to, and with a relaxed attitude to bringing in own food and drink. The main stage catered to all tastes from Mr Tumble the Clown at midday to Groove Armada at midnight.
Not one for Corbynista students, but geat relaxed family fun.
If McDonnell gets in, the rational response is to get anything of value that isn’t tied down out of the country.
That will definitely be good for the NHS and other public services.
Are you scared my right-wing friend? LOL!
Look at what the sleazy Tories have done! The Brexit calamity, austerity punishing the poor and vulnerable while the rich get away dodging paying their share.
Look in the mirror, my right-wing friend and then you'll understand why Labour will win the next GE.
I would expect Labour to win because, pending a government collapse, the Tories will hve been in office one way or another for 12 years. Practically buggins turn rather than Labour making a great offer, same way the Tories won in 2010.
Ken Clarke should go down as one of the great statesmen of our time when he retires... and there's not many others you can say that of I suggest...
He had the third-longest ministerial career of anyone whose time in office fell entirely within the twentieth century at 24 years, just behind Butler and a fair way behind Churchill.
With all his many faults - shall we say arrogance, bumptiousness, and dogmatism? - there was one very good reason for that. He was still a man of astounding ability and versatility. A bit like Churchill and Lloyd George, even though he had significant drawbacks his sheer capacity kept him going forward. It also ruled him out of the top job anent a major national emergency - and unlike the other two, that never came for him.
We should be out tonight shouting from the rooftops that this idea: 1. Is illegal under EU law, which is why the Labour leadership want us to leave the EU.
At one time, the Conservatives were able to argue that Labour were extreme for wanting to leave the EEC.
Apart from the first, and even that’s debatable, the rest is either already, or on course to be, official Labour Party policy.
Aviation impact document. Sounds a bit fingers crossed to me:
"If the UK leaves the EU in March 2019 with no agreement in place, UK and EU licensed airlines would lose the automatic right to operate air services between the UK and the EU without seeking advance permission. This would mean that airlines operating between the UK and the EU would need to seek individual permissions to operate. EU-licensed airlines would lose the ability to operate wholly within the UK (for example from Heathrow to Edinburgh) and UK-licensed airlines would lose the ability to operate intra-EU air services (for example from Milan to Paris).
If there is ‘no deal’ with the EU, airlines wishing to operate flights between the UK and the EU would have to seek individual permissions to operate from the respective states (be that the UK or an EU country). In this scenario the UK would envisage granting permission to EU airlines to continue to operate. We would expect EU countries to reciprocate in turn. It would not be in the interest of any EU country or the UK to restrict the choice of destinations that could be served, though, if such permissions are not granted, there could be disruption to some flights." (my bold)
That’s in line with what was expected on the trade side of aviation.
The biggest takeaway from those paragraphs is that Ryanair get banned from operating in the UK unless a deal on aviation is agreed. They have an Irish AOC and operate Irish registered planes. EasyJet (a British company) have set up a subsidiary in the EU to cover for this eventuality.
The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.
Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?
Full SM/CU is not Brexit.
It is for Norway, etc
Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.
EEA countries are not in the Customs Union.
The Tory party has committed to end free movement from the EU. So it isn't consistent with government policy to remain in the SM.
Yes I appreciate that EEA countries are not in the CU. And it is entirely my point that the Tory Party decided that the vote meant that "the people" don't want FoM. Now of course many don't but so what? Brexit was always going to disappoint many people so I don't see why the fuckers decided that freedom of movement should be so important.
Indeed so. This is the arse-wipe nonsense at the core of the entire Brexit conundrum. Basically Mortimer – a bloke on the internet – HYUFD – another bloke on the internet – and some reactionaries in the Tory party have decided that ending the free movement of furinners is some sort of incontrovertible golden principle. It is toilet of the lowest order.
The Tories have made a judgement that ending free movement is in the interest of Britain. Much to the distaste of other blokes on the internet, it is quite popular.
John Mann was waxing in in Parliament the other day saying how many of his constituents had voted Brexit so the railways could be renationalised. Renationalising the railways is a very popular idea. I assume you will be supporting its implementation on the same basis.
The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.
Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?
Full SM/CU is not Brexit.
It is for Norway, etc
Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.
EEA countries are not in the Customs Union.
The Tory party has committed to end free movement from the EU. So it isn't consistent with government policy to remain in the SM.
Yes I appreciate that EEA countries are not in the CU. And it is entirely my point that the Tory Party decided that the vote meant that "the people" don't want FoM. Now of course many don't but so what? Brexit was always going to disappoint many people so I don't see why the fuckers decided that freedom of movement should be so important.
Indeed so. This is the arse-wipe nonsense at the core of the entire Brexit conundrum. Basically Mortimer – a bloke on the internet – HYUFD – another bloke on the internet – and some reactionaries in the Tory party have decided that ending the free movement of furinners is some sort of incontrovertible golden principle. It is toilet of the lowest order.
The Tories have made a judgement that ending free movement is in the interest of Britain. Much to the distaste of other blokes on the internet, it is quite popular.
John Mann was waxing in in Parliament the other day saying how many of his constituents had voted Brexit so the railways could be renationalised. Renationalising the railways is a very popular idea. I assume you will be supporting its implementation on the same basis.
At the least it could not be objected to on the basis that it is not supported. There may be other reasons to object to it.
The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.
Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?
Full SM/CU is not Brexit.
It is for Norway, etc
Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.
EEA countries are not in the Customs Union.
The Tory party has committed to end free movement from the EU. So it isn't consistent with government policy to remain in the SM.
Yes I appreciate that EEA countries are not in the CU. And it is entirely my point that the Tory Party decided that the vote meant that "the people" don't want FoM. Now of course many don't but so what? Brexit was always going to disappoint many people so I don't see why the fuckers decided that freedom of movement should be so important.
Indeed so. This is the arse-wipe nonsense at the core of the entire Brexit conundrum. Basically Mortimer – a bloke on the internet – HYUFD – another bloke on the internet – and some reactionaries in the Tory party have decided that ending the free movement of furinners is some sort of incontrovertible golden principle. It is toilet of the lowest order.
The Tories have made a judgement that ending free movement is in the interest of Britain. Much to the distaste of other blokes on the internet, it is quite popular.
John Mann was waxing in in Parliament the other day saying how many of his constituents had voted Brexit so the railways could be renationalised. Renationalising the railways is a very popular idea. I assume you will be supporting its implementation on the same basis.
Conservative judgment (and my experience) is that public ownership isn’t in the interest of British people. You seemed to ignore that line of my comment.
The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.
Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?
Full SM/CU is not Brexit.
It is for Norway, etc
Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.
EEA countries are not in the Customs Union.
The Tory party has committed to end free movement from the EU. So it isn't consistent with government policy to remain in the SM.
Yes I appreciate that EEA countries are not in the CU. And it is entirely my point that the Tory Party decided that the vote meant that "the people" don't want FoM. Now of course many don't but so what? Brexit was always going to disappoint many people so I don't see why the fuckers decided that freedom of movement should be so important.
Indeed so. This is the arse-wipe nonsense at the core of the entire Brexit conundrum. Basically Mortimer – a bloke on the internet – HYUFD – another bloke on the internet – and some reactionaries in the Tory party have decided that ending the free movement of furinners is some sort of incontrovertible golden principle. It is toilet of the lowest order.
The Tories have made a judgement that ending free movement is in the interest of Britain. Much to the distaste of other blokes on the internet, it is quite popular.
John Mann was waxing in in Parliament the other day saying how many of his constituents had voted Brexit so the railways could be renationalised. Renationalising the railways is a very popular idea. I assume you will be supporting its implementation on the same basis.
Tories take note. ttps://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/1044279082236747777?s=21
Indeed. It’s quite heartening to see how little support there actually is within Labour in general for the second referendum - as opposed to the small number of loud voices who have been getting disproportionate media coverage for the last couple of years.
Tories take note. ttps://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/1044279082236747777?s=21
Indeed. It’s quite heartening to see how little support there actually is within Labour in general for the second referendum - as opposed to the small number of loud voices who have been getting disproportionate media coverage for the last couple of years.
Support for Remain in Labour ranks is very broad, but shallow.
Always worth remembering that Labour members gave Corbyn a second landslide victory in 2016, even after he'd explicitly said he would follow through on the Leave vote, against an opponent who made a second referendum one of the main parts of his platform.
The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.
Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?
Full SM/CU is not Brexit.
It is for Norway, etc
Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.
EEA countries are not in the Customs Union.
The Tory party has committed to end free movement from the EU. So it isn't consistent with government policy to remain in the SM.
Yes I appreciate that EEA countries are not in the CU. And it is entirely my point that the Tory Party decided that the vote meant that "the people" don't want FoM. Now of course many don't but so what? Brexit was always going to disappoint many people so I don't see why the fuckers decided that freedom of movement should be so important.
Indeed so. This is the arse-wipe nonsense at the core of the entire Brexit conundrum. Basically Mortimer – a bloke on the internet – HYUFD – another bloke on the internet – and some reactionaries in the Tory party have decided that ending the free movement of furinners is some sort of incontrovertible golden principle. It is toilet of the lowest order.
The Tories have made a judgement that ending free movement is in the interest of Britain. Much to the distaste of other blokes on the internet, it is quite popular.
John Mann was waxing in in Parliament the other day saying how many of his constituents had voted Brexit so the railways could be renationalised. Renationalising the railways is a very popular idea. I assume you will be supporting its implementation on the same basis.
Conservative judgment (and my experience) is that public ownership isn’t in the interest of British people. You seemed to ignore that line of my comment.
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
If McDonnell gets in, the rational response is to get anything of value that isn’t tied down out of the country.
That will definitely be good for the NHS and other public services.
Are you scared my right-wing friend? LOL!
Look at what the sleazy Tories have done! The Brexit calamity, austerity punishing the poor and vulnerable while the rich get away dodging paying their share.
Look in the mirror, my right-wing friend and then you'll understand why Labour will win the next GE.
I don’t consider people who long for a government driven by envy and hatred of those who have the temerity to make something of themselves my friends.
Then again, you’ll get your comeuppance eventually when the people like SeanT, who probably pay more tax in a year than you’ll pay in a lifetime, take their talent and their money elsewhere. Good luck paying for the NHS then.
The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.
Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?
Full SM/CU is not Brexit.
It is for Norway, etc
Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.
EEA countries are not in the Customs Union.
The Tory party has committed to end free movement from the EU. So it isn't consistent with government policy to remain in the SM.
Yes I appreciate that EEA countries are not in the CU. And it is entirely my point that the Tory Party decided that the vote meant that "the people" don't want FoM. Now of course many don't but so what? Brexit was always going to disappoint many people so I don't see why the fuckers decided that freedom of movement should be so important.
Indeed so. This is the arse-wipe nonsense at the core of the entire Brexit conundrum. Basically Mortimer – a bloke on the internet – HYUFD – another bloke on the internet – and some reactionaries in the Tory party have decided that ending the free movement of furinners is some sort of incontrovertible golden principle. It is toilet of the lowest order.
The Tories have made a judgement that ending free movement is in the interest of Britain. Much to the distaste of other blokes on the internet, it is quite popular.
John Mann was waxing in in Parliament the other day saying how many of his constituents had voted Brexit so the railways could be renationalised. Renationalising the railways is a very popular idea. I assume you will be supporting its implementation on the same basis.
Conservative judgment (and my experience) is that public ownership isn’t in the interest of British people. You seemed to ignore that line of my comment.
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
It’s just repressed pro-European sentiment. People envy Deutsche Bahn and SNCF.
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
One thing I’ll concede about railways is that the quality is very variable.
I live on the SWR Weymouth mainline. It’s frankly fantastic. Very regular service on clean and well run trains. And it returns a profit to the Treasury.
Actually, completely off topic, but I know there's a big wealth of knowledge out there and I'd like to tap it.
I've been trying to work out who the longest serving cabinet ministers are (that's Cabinet, not junior). It is surprisingly difficult to find the answer. Consecutively, since 1832 I think Lloyd George holds the record at 16 years 11 months - although if we're to be very picky, he was out of office for two days in the Palace Coup of 1916, which would I think leave Brown on top at 13 years and ten days (literally hours ahead of Straw and Darling and a couple of weeks longer than Butler).
If we go by non-consecutive appointments then I think Palmerston is top even if we discount his service under Liverpool (which technically was outside the Cabinet for eighteen of his twenty years) with 28 years of service. Churchill I think managed about 27 years. Gladstone would probably be near the top as well with 24 years. Others who had long tenure include Russell, Harrington/Devonshire, Hicks Beach, Balfour. I can't off-hand think of anybody else who clocked up two decades since 1832. (Obviously if we go before that then we could add Hawkesbury/Liverpool, Pitt, Addington/Sidmouh, Portland, Walpole, Wellington, North, etc.)
Have I missed anyone obvious or does that seem a fair summary?
Tories take note. ttps://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/1044279082236747777?s=21
Indeed. It’s quite heartening to see how little support there actually is within Labour in general for the second referendum - as opposed to the small number of loud voices who have been getting disproportionate media coverage for the last couple of years.
I rather thought that decimating Labour and preventing the election of Corbyn might appeal to you...
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
One thing I’ll concede about railways is that the quality is very variable.
I live on the SWR Weymouth mainline. It’s frankly fantastic. Very regular service on clean and well run trains. And it returns a profit to the Treasury.
Yet a few miles to the west of you is the Exmouth-Barnstaple service, of which the less said the better.
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
One thing I’ll concede about railways is that the quality is very variable.
I live on the SWR Weymouth mainline. It’s frankly fantastic. Very regular service on clean and well run trains. And it returns a profit to the Treasury.
SWR suburban are totally rubbish. Overcrowded and can't keep to time. Hopeless!
Isn't there a plan to bring all the suburban London lines back into public ownership under the Mayor?
The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.
Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?
Full SM/CU is not Brexit.
It is for Norway, etc
Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.
EEA countries are not in the Customs Union.
The Tory party has committed to end free movement from the EU. So it isn't consistent with government policy to remain in the SM.
.
Indeed so. This is the arse-wipe nonsense at the core of the entire Brexit conundrum. Basically Mortimer – a bloke on the internet – HYUFD – another bloke on the internet – and some reactionaries in the Tory party have decided that ending the free movement of furinners is some sort of incontrovertible golden principle. It is toilet of the lowest order.
The Tories have made a judgement that ending free movement is in the interest of Britain. Much to the distaste of other blokes on the internet, it is quite popular.
John Mann was waxing in in Parliament the other day saying how many of his constituents had voted Brexit so the railways could be renationalised. Renationalising the railways is a very popular idea. I assume you will be supporting its implementation on the same basis.
Conservative judgment (and my experience) is that public ownership isn’t in the interest of British people. You seemed to ignore that line of my comment.
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
The Beeching cuts were a misguided endeavour to make the railways more efficient and we based on a prime misconception; that people would drive to mainline railways stations, leave their cars there (where, often) and then take the train for long distance travel.
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
One thing I’ll concede about railways is that the quality is very variable.
I live on the SWR Weymouth mainline. It’s frankly fantastic. Very regular service on clean and well run trains. And it returns a profit to the Treasury.
SWR was a pretty good service (as South West Trains) when I was using it regularly on the Exeter line up to Waterloo. But... the issue is lack of investment. There was no incentive for South West Trains to invest long term because of the lack of certainty about how long they would have the franchise for.
If McDonnell gets in, the rational response is to get anything of value that isn’t tied down out of the country.
That will definitely be good for the NHS and other public services.
Are you scared my right-wing friend? LOL!
Look at what the sleazy Tories have done! The Brexit calamity, austerity punishing the poor and vulnerable while the rich get away dodging paying their share.
Look in the mirror, my right-wing friend and then you'll understand why Labour will win the next GE.
I don’t consider people who long for a government driven by envy and hatred of those who have the temerity to make something of themselves my friends.
Then again, you’ll get your comeuppance eventually when the people like SeanT, who probably pay more tax in a year than you’ll pay in a lifetime, take their talent and their money elsewhere. Good luck paying for the NHS then.
Do you know how much I earn? Stop being so presumptions you pea-brained right-wing moron!
Comments
We are in need of politicians who can articulate why superfically attractive schemes like this are a bad idea. There also needs to be some fresh thinking to address the issues that this scheme purports to solve. The proposal is like the opening idea at a workshop that when subject to analysis is either dropped or heavily modified.
PISA ranking in Mathematics, Wales == 36 th, below Lithuania and Latvia (England == 26th, N Ireland == 26th, Scotland = 29 th, Rep of Ireland ==17th)
PISA ranking in Science, Wales == 32th. (England == 13th, Scotland == 24th, N.Ireland == 23rd, Rep of Ireland == 19th).
Keep Wales poor and uneducated seems to be Labour's policy in the only part of the UK where they control the educational system.
Welsh Labour should not be listened to on education ... they need to STFU and learn from others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_travel_disruption_after_the_2010_Eyjafjallajökull_eruption
Good evening, everyone.
We should be out tonight shouting from the rooftops that this idea:
1. Is illegal under EU law, which is why the Labour leadership want us to leave the EU.
2. Leads to more companies like Uber where the work is outsourced to poorly-paid self-employed.
3. Leads over time to large companies choosing to be based elsewhere.
4. That the biggest victims of the theft of shares are not corporate fat cats, but yours and my pension funds.
5. That he’s not giving workers shares, he’s giving unions shares.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMasonBBC/status/1044252842318602241
They have withdrawn from the battlefield on economics / business and the orange book lib Dems have gone AWOL.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/the-londoner-hire-staff-to-fight-antisemitism-a3943916.html?amp
We need to relearn it, and quickly. If I were in CCHQ I’d get people all over the media making the argument. It would also be good to get the more liberal Conservatives on board to show how big is the gap between the parties. Even Ken Clarke and Anna Soubry are sound Conservatives, if they disagree about the EU with most of the party. KC remembers opposing Foot in ‘83, he can teach the next generation an awful lot.
Which isn't to say that isn't a bad thing to think just not as bad as alternative.
I’m not sure that majoring on it being illegal under EU law would be the best response. It would lead to the question of what we are leaving and remain people that more than a minority of Conservatives are happy to condone and indeed tactility encourage xenophobia in pursuit of their fantasies.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6201619/Bestival-Camp-Bestival-face-axe-company-festivals-goes-administration.html
Reading between the lines they had an event washed out and didn’t have sufficient pluvient insurance.
Belgian political candidate called Luc Anus is barred from campaigning on Facebook under his real name.
It mustard been a really stupid idea then...
Edit - I did know a woman called Emma who married a man called Royde. She kept her maiden name for some reason...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Kox
More amusing would be ambushing Angela Rayner with this story and asking if pseudonyms should be allowed to such people.
The Tories are victims of being less than the big issues demand, but there have been some quite big issues. Labour haven't been in the conversation.
CCHQ has no intellectual resource whatsoever though. I'm not sure there's been a new thought or conversation on the right for about 30 years. Contrast Labour - with their 0.5watt intellectual lightbulbs they pump out cretinous idea after cretinous idea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Baumgardner
Rubbish idea? Monthly bin collections in Welsh county
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45616328
And in the main body:
From the outset, the year-long monthly bin collection trial in Conwy county - brought in for 11,000 homes in in 2016 - caused a stink.
Edit -I thought Davis though would rise to the role. All he did was prove how lucky the Conservatives were when they chose Cameron.
Under the Free Owls for All act 2019, it'll be covered by some 999 year govt bonds.
That will definitely be good for the NHS and other public services.
Look at what the sleazy Tories have done! The Brexit calamity, austerity punishing the poor and vulnerable while the rich get away dodging paying their share.
Look in the mirror, my right-wing friend and then you'll understand why Labour will win the next GE.
Ken Clarke should go down as one of the great statesmen of our time when he retires... and there's not many others you can say that of I suggest...
Not one for Corbynista students, but geat relaxed family fun.
With all his many faults - shall we say arrogance, bumptiousness, and dogmatism? - there was one very good reason for that. He was still a man of astounding ability and versatility. A bit like Churchill and Lloyd George, even though he had significant drawbacks his sheer capacity kept him going forward. It also ruled him out of the top job anent a major national emergency - and unlike the other two, that never came for him.
https://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/1044279082236747777?s=21
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/23/potsdam-inside-the-worlds-first-autonomous-tram
Always worth remembering that Labour members gave Corbyn a second landslide victory in 2016, even after he'd explicitly said he would follow through on the Leave vote, against an opponent who made a second referendum one of the main parts of his platform.
Then again, you’ll get your comeuppance eventually when the people like SeanT, who probably pay more tax in a year than you’ll pay in a lifetime, take their talent and their money elsewhere. Good luck paying for the NHS then.
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
I live on the SWR Weymouth mainline. It’s frankly fantastic. Very regular service on clean and well run trains. And it returns a profit to the Treasury.
I've been trying to work out who the longest serving cabinet ministers are (that's Cabinet, not junior). It is surprisingly difficult to find the answer. Consecutively, since 1832 I think Lloyd George holds the record at 16 years 11 months - although if we're to be very picky, he was out of office for two days in the Palace Coup of 1916, which would I think leave Brown on top at 13 years and ten days (literally hours ahead of Straw and Darling and a couple of weeks longer than Butler).
If we go by non-consecutive appointments then I think Palmerston is top even if we discount his service under Liverpool (which technically was outside the Cabinet for eighteen of his twenty years) with 28 years of service. Churchill I think managed about 27 years. Gladstone would probably be near the top as well with 24 years. Others who had long tenure include Russell, Harrington/Devonshire, Hicks Beach, Balfour. I can't off-hand think of anybody else who clocked up two decades since 1832. (Obviously if we go before that then we could add Hawkesbury/Liverpool, Pitt, Addington/Sidmouh, Portland, Walpole, Wellington, North, etc.)
Have I missed anyone obvious or does that seem a fair summary?
Isn't there a plan to bring all the suburban London lines back into public ownership under the Mayor?