Cammo presented a woeful countenance at PMQ's today. First time I've watched it in full for ages. Pity that parliament seats government and opposition 2 sword lenghts away from each other, otherwise, apart from the usual put up questions, there might have been a free-for-all and blood on the carpet.
Merkel may want to bring about the de facto end of nation states in the Eurozone - but it's not at all clear that the people of the Eurozone are in the same place. I don't think Redward will frace the referendum conundrum you pose. It would require the French, for example, to agree to abolish France. Ain't gonna happen.
Right, either their economies are still screwed, in which case the mainstream parties in the periphery are going to be terrified of getting killed by their respective left-wing and right-wing populists, or they're better and everything's back to normal, and Merkel no longer has any leverage.
Nope. A referendum is coming. My bet is that it will happen under Miliband. Nightmare for him.
Sean,
If a referendum on the creation of the EUSSR is coming our way then it is coming France's way too. And also to the Netherlands. And Spain. And Italy and all the others. Only a problem for the Miliblob if we get to go first surely? Or are you seriously suggesting the other countries will ratify without referenda or that such referenda could be passed? Really?
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond to convene emergency Cabinet meeting later today to discuss 'hugely disappointing' #Grangemouth closure
If Salmond can somehow 'save Grangemouth', Scottish Labour will be grateful and thankful for the jobs saved and economy boosted I am sure. This is a big play for Salmon, could work out very well or badly for SNP.
@tim - As I said, I think the response will come in the Autumn Statement. That's the opposite of making it up as he goes along. Obviously he coudn't pre-empt any announcements, and nor can the PM's spokesman, but Cameron dropped about as many hints as you could possibly expect.
What it will amount to is another matter. We can only speculate - it might be not much (a 'review'), or it might be concrete measures to reduce taxes/levies, and hence bills, in the short term. We'll have to wait and see, but this is round 1, not the end of the bout.
I am actually hugely encouraged by all the noise about enrgy at the moment. I work in the energy industry and the incoherence of policy for many years has been very annoying. It is now clear to all that energy is a hugely important thing, that it requires technically and economically viable solutions and that our politicians suck. A dose of realism from all sides is forcing its way back in. Funny how the threat of blackouts can sharpen the political mind! It's also very clear that the general opinion of green subsidy from the man on the Clapham Omnibus is NOT where the treehuggers would like. Cheap and reliable power is what people want (duh!).
Davey making the point that the government is trying to avoid 'taking sides' in the Grangemouth dispute to get "both sides round the table" - unlike the questions he's getting from Labour........
Yes, what a waste of time. The fact that neither Ed Miliband nor any of his MP's felt able to bring up the grim news about Grangemouth at PMQ's looks terrible up here in Scotland. It felt like the twilight zone today, Ed Miliband going on energy, but unable to mention Grangemouth. It wasn't a day for jokes from Miliband of all people, what planet is this Labour Leader on? The fact that Watson and Dromey have both been on their feet in the Commons just now speaks volumes as to the seriousness of the Grangemouth closure is a disaster for the Scottish economy.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond to convene emergency Cabinet meeting later today to discuss 'hugely disappointing' #Grangemouth closure
If Salmond can somehow 'save Grangemouth', Scottish Labour will be grateful and thankful for the jobs saved and economy boosted I am sure. This is a big play for Salmon, could work out very well or badly for SNP.
At least they will try , unlike Labour and Tories
It looks like both the Coalition and the Edinburgh government are working for a solution - Labour back benchers are rushing to blame INEOS - and hence deflect blame from UNITE. I wonder why they would want to do that?
tim: "And I know you'll moan that its not fair but the backbenchers know it"
Who are "you"? What the F are you on about? Who is this "you" that you think you are addressing?
In all seriousness, you need time away from pb. Lots and lots of time. Find a job, do some gardening, say hello to your kids, stop talking to your laptop screen as if it is a friend.
'tim' imagines that he's a pretendy MP smiting political opponents.
Thanks R. I didn't know that. Everyone just goes on about "The Big Six"
My flabber has been gasted!!!!!
Don't get too excited - it's really just a marketing front for (in this case) British Gas, who provide all the billing infrastructure. But you can sometimes get better prices from these co-marketing ventures.
Watson's intervention was utterly transparent just now in Commons. Ed Miliband acting like this is nothing to do with him as Labour Leader or LotO, incredible in the circumstances. First comment from Andrew Neil on Daily Politics after PMQ's the fact that Grangemouth was not mentioned, he gets the seriousness of this.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond to convene emergency Cabinet meeting later today to discuss 'hugely disappointing' #Grangemouth closure
If Salmond can somehow 'save Grangemouth', Scottish Labour will be grateful and thankful for the jobs saved and economy boosted I am sure. This is a big play for Salmon, could work out very well or badly for SNP.
At least they will try , unlike Labour and Tories
It looks like both the Coalition and the Edinburgh government are working for a solution - Labour back benchers are rushing to blame INEOS - and hence deflect blame from UNITE. I wonder why they would want to do that?
Its amazing how excited the left are today about Miliband finally having a decent PMQs. Where are they during the 90% of the time Miliband has a bad PMQs.
It also quite sad that Milibands performance today is far more important to them than all the job losses there will be at Grangemouth due to Unite playing silly political games.
Thanks R. I didn't know that. Everyone just goes on about "The Big Six"
My flabber has been gasted!!!!!
Don't get too excited - it's really just a marketing front for (in this case) British Gas, who provide all the billing infrastructure. But you can sometimes get better prices from these co-marketing ventures.
I don;t see how anything can be done by the government or anybody else on Grangemouth.
The plant is losing money hand over fist and the workers won;t accept revised working conditions.
End of story.
I believe Vince Cable as BIS has been tasked to find a buyer – But as you say, short of a large cash injection or nationalisation, what can Salmond or Whitehall do?
Merkel may want to bring about the de facto end of nation states in the Eurozone - but it's not at all clear that the people of the Eurozone are in the same place. I don't think Redward will frace the referendum conundrum you pose. It would require the French, for example, to agree to abolish France. Ain't gonna happen.
Right, either their economies are still screwed, in which case the mainstream parties in the periphery are going to be terrified of getting killed by their respective left-wing and right-wing populists, or they're better and everything's back to normal, and Merkel no longer has any leverage.
Nope. A referendum is coming. My bet is that it will happen under Miliband. Nightmare for him.
Sean,
If a referendum on the creation of the EUSSR is coming our way then it is coming France's way too. And also to the Netherlands. And Spain. And Italy and all the others. Only a problem for the Miliblob if we get to go first surely? Or are you seriously suggesting the other countries will ratify without referenda or that such referenda could be passed? Really?
I think Germany is (understandably) determined that eurogeddon must NEVER happen again: for that reason we will see a treaty change, because the kind of reform Germany wants cannot be pushed through stealthily and incrementally, whatever the eurocrats pretend.
Most countries will try to ratify without a referendum. Some will be unable to avoid a vote, including the UK. Nonetheless even these countries will vote YES because it will be presented as an in/out choice.
But the UK? It will be the moment of truth for europhiles and eurosceptics alike. It will happen sometime between 2018-2022, so very possibly under PM Miliband.
In which case the German political class is deluded. The USSR fell apart despite being a 'united' whole. The EUSSR will not last either. There is no demos. There can be no democracy.
But as you say, short of a large cash injection or nationalisation, what can Salmond or Whitehall do?
That's the annoying part. Senior Scottish politicians are giving the people the impression that things are in hand, whilst they know its game over. Its pure and cynical damage limitation.
Maybe Cameron could win some friends in Scotland by trying to do something about it.
It does appear the era of easily implementable "stealth" taxes is over. First with petrol fuel duty and now with green taxes on energy the public have had enough and I can't see these imposts returning any time soon.
I don;t see how anything can be done by the government or anybody else on Grangemouth.
The plant is losing money hand over fist and the workers won;t accept revised working conditions.
End of story.
I believe Vince Cable as BIS has been tasked to find a buyer – But as you say, short of a large cash injection or nationalisation, what can Salmond or Whitehall do?
Why would a buyer take on a loss-making plant? Surely any such buyer will want to strip out the costs which make it loss-making and that deal could surely be reached with the current owners?
The chemicals plant is clearly a separate legal entity. Ineos can't walk from it. But a buyer could simply buy the assets and offer new employment contracts to staff on a take it or leave it (and we'll find someone else) basis. I very much expect that what the liquidators will seek is to sell is the assets not the company. Unite will love that !!!
Its amazing how excited the left are today about Miliband finally having a decent PMQs. Where are they during the 90% of the time Miliband has a bad PMQs.
It also quite sad that Milibands performance today is far more important to them than all the job losses there will be at Grangemouth due to Unite playing silly political games.
I don't think on most neutral measures he loses PMQs 90% of the time. I'd say it was about 50-50. Perhaps it is 10-90 in PB Tory World.
Watson's intervention was utterly transparent just now in Commons. Ed Miliband acting like this is nothing to do with him as Labour Leader or LotO, incredible in the circumstances. First comment from Andrew Neil on Daily Politics after PMQ's the fact that Grangemouth was not mentioned, he gets the seriousness of this.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond to convene emergency Cabinet meeting later today to discuss 'hugely disappointing' #Grangemouth closure
If Salmond can somehow 'save Grangemouth', Scottish Labour will be grateful and thankful for the jobs saved and economy boosted I am sure. This is a big play for Salmon, could work out very well or badly for SNP.
At least they will try , unlike Labour and Tories
It looks like both the Coalition and the Edinburgh government are working for a solution - Labour back benchers are rushing to blame INEOS - and hence deflect blame from UNITE. I wonder why they would want to do that?
Salmond was careful in his comments to praise "the workforce" at Grangemouth - didn't mention the Union once - presumably keeping his powder dry if a deal falls through..
Merkel may want to bring about the de facto end of nation states in the Eurozone - but it's not at all clear that the people of the Eurozone are in the same place. I don't think Redward will frace the referendum conundrum you pose. It would require the French, for example, to agree to abolish France. Ain't gonna happen.
nd Merkel no longer has any leverage.
Nope. A referendum is coming. My bet is that it will happen under Miliband. Nightmare for him.
Sean,
If a referendum on the creation of the EUSSR is coming our way then it is coming France's way too. And also to the Netherlands. And Spain. And Italy and all the others. Only a problem for the Miliblob if we get to go first surely? Or are you seriously suggesting the other countries will ratify without referenda or that such referenda could be passed? Really?
. Nonetheless even these countries will vote YES because it will be presented as an in/out choice.
In which case the German political class is deluded. The USSR fell apart despite being a 'united' whole. The EUSSR will not last either. There is no demos. There can be no democracy.
I disagree. Brits consistently underestimate the commitment of continental politicians and voters to the European cause. The EU remains fundamentally attractive as a concept, even - especially - in the periphery. We can note the absurdity of this, maybe even the false consciousness, but it is the case.
e.g. Greek support for euro has fallen, but it is still over 50% - and this is a country being crucified by its single currency membership.
My bet is that if in/out referendums were held across Europe, nearly every nation would vote In. Only the UK (and maybe Sweden or Ireland) might possibly vote Out.
Maybe - but both France and Holland voted "No" and that was before the euro's recent travails.
It does appear the era of easily implementable "stealth" taxes is over. First with petrol fuel duty and now with green taxes on energy the public have had enough and I can't see these imposts returning any time soon.
Does 2015 count as soon? Pre-election politicians say whatever it sounds like the voters want to hear and do occasionally small, symbolic things to make them think they mean it, but once they get back to actual governing they're obviously going to tax things things they want to discourage like fossil fuel consumption, instead of things they want to encourage like work.
I don;t see how anything can be done by the government or anybody else on Grangemouth.
The plant is losing money hand over fist and the workers won;t accept revised working conditions.
End of story.
I believe Vince Cable as BIS has been tasked to find a buyer – But as you say, short of a large cash injection or nationalisation, what can Salmond or Whitehall do?
Why would a buyer take on a loss-making plant? Surely any such buyer will want to strip out the costs which make it loss-making and that deal could surely be reached with the current owners?
Oh I quite agree. - If a buyer could be found, it would have happened before now. - meanwhile the politicians will placate those that want 'something done' even if there is little or no chance of success.
Sounds like a stormy PMQs. Is there a link where I can view the tape?
Miliband utterly bested Cameron.
However: 1) Miliband should have apologised to Mitchell. He led with the Mitchell furore in a couple of PMQ's last year; he should use PMQs to apologise. The fact he cannot do that is telling of the man. 2) Grangemouth was the elephant in the room, and sadly did not get one mention. For clarity, he should release Labour's internal report into Falkirk, a mess which contributed to the closure.
As OGH says, the coalition need to get a comprehensive and coherent reply to Miliband's energy madness. The problem is that it's sometimes quite hard to combat such populist stupidity.
I disagree. Brits consistently underestimate the commitment of continental politicians and voters to the European cause. The EU remains fundamentally attractive as a concept, even - especially - in the periphery. We can note the absurdity of this, maybe even the false consciousness, but it is the case.
e.g. Greek support for euro has fallen, but it is still over 50% - and this is a country being crucified by its single currency membership.
My bet is that if in/out referendums were held across Europe, nearly every nation would vote In. Only the UK (and maybe Sweden or Ireland) might possibly vote Out.
Maybe - but both France and Holland voted "No" and that was before the euro's recent travails.
Those were referendums on treaties, whereas seanT's talking about in/out referendums. He's right that most countries would vote "in", but I don't see why they'd be having in/out referendums in the first place instead of ones on the actual treaty they were trying to pass, especially in countries where the in/out question isn't even a question.
A lot of countries would skip the referendums, but they'd still have a lot of difficult parliamentary votes to get through. It's always been hard to pass EU treaties even when everyone basically agrees on them, and this one would be on all the stuff they've been putting off because it's too contentious.
The plant is losing money hand over fist and the workers won;t accept revised working conditions.
End of story.
I'm not au fait with the ins and outs and the various claims and counter claims about Unite conveners, and if and how much Ineos are losing but it does strike me that the (well some of) workers have not come to terms with the fact that on a world scale their plant may not viable at their current rates of pay and conditions. If it were, the company would not be calling in the liquidators to limit their losses pronto (well unless this is ultimate poker face brinksmanship and they are hoping Unite start back pedalling fast).
This is part of the levelling effect as different parts of the world catch up with and have access to the equipment and processes the West enjoyed a relative monopoly on till recently, but are prepared to do it for a bit less. Polish plumber syndrome on a grand scale effectively. Essentially the world's best practices and equipment for large industrial plant are largely open to an ever expanding group of people, and we in the West have vast legacy costs in the shape of high taxes to fund all the public goodies we enjoy, and pensions that are being made unsustainable by longevity and absurdly rigid Govt regulation. I have every sympathy with both the workers with the pension part of the dispute, as it's not their fault that the promises of final salary schemes have become utterly unsustainable, nor indeed is it the company's, who have probably just despaired of wrestling with it and realised the only way out long term is to control the costs of the scheme by legally replacing it with something that is sustainable, which involved a consenting workforce. Failing that walking away, however painful, and concentrating on other bits of the business becomes the only financially sane option, even at the cost of bad publicity due the social issues it will be perceived to have left in many quarters.
It's not good all round I'm afraid, and this will not be the last such event involving final salary pensions, though hopefully it will act as a salutary warning to both companies and workers/Unions that walking close to the cliff edge can and will result in accidents as all and sundry go over the edge. Nationalising your way out of Grangemouth is possible (ie the tax payer picks up the loss) of course, but you cannot nationalise all loss makers in all circumstances.
Popcorn and fizzy drinks time from 2.25pm as the Select Committee gently grill the police over Plebgate.
Oh goody - Will we hear both 'conman' and 'lyingbastards' in parliment today?
I love HASC sessions - the face pulling, huff-puffing and awkward feet shuffling of the attendees is always great entertainment. There's something about the police/great and good being put on the spot that always make it worth watching.
Sounds like a stormy PMQs. Is there a link where I can view the tape?
Miliband utterly bested Cameron.
However: 1) Miliband should have apologised to Mitchell. He led with the Mitchell furore in a couple of PMQ's last year; he should use PMQs to apologise. The fact he cannot do that is telling of the man. 2) Grangemouth was the elephant in the room, and sadly did not get one mention. For clarity, he should release Labour's internal report into Falkirk, a mess which contributed to the closure.
As OGH says, the coalition need to get a comprehensive and coherent reply to Miliband's energy madness. The problem is that it's sometimes quite hard to combat such populist stupidity.
Did you not spot Cameron lining up his own apology, but clearly he thinks it too soon. ANd there was an urgent question on Grangemouth straight after PMQs so obviously it wasn't going to be brought 20 mins before.
Oh Lordy, are you really that thick and hate-filled?
Miliband mentioned it several times at PMQ's. He used it, despite many of us suspecting that it was a big, suspicious pile of crock. Other Labour MPs have apologised.
Wisely skipping over the steps where: 1) Merkel whacks the card table and 26 countries say, "No, not a handbag! We'll do whatever you say!". 2) They decide to include the UK and other non-Euro countries in their Eurozone thing instead of using Enhanced Cooperation, because everybody knows how helpful the British are when you're trying to do this kind of thing. 3) None of 27 countries' lower houses, upper houses, constitutional courts, presidents and referendums feel like getting in the way before Miliband gets around to doing his referendum.
I disagree. Brits consistently underestimate the commitment of continental politicians and voters to the European cause. The EU remains fundamentally attractive as a concept, even - especially - in the periphery. We can note the absurdity of this, maybe even the false consciousness, but it is the case.
e.g. Greek support for euro has fallen, but it is still over 50% - and this is a country being crucified by its single currency membership.
My bet is that if in/out referendums were held across Europe, nearly every nation would vote In. Only the UK (and maybe Sweden or Ireland) might possibly vote Out.
Maybe - but both France and Holland voted "No" and that was before the euro's recent travails.
Those were referendums on treaties, whereas seanT's talking about in/out referendums. He's right that most countries would vote "in", but I don't see why they'd be having in/out referendums in the first place instead of ones on the actual treaty they were trying to pass, especially in countries where the in/out question isn't even a question.
A lot of countries would skip the referendums, but they'd still have a lot of difficult parliamentary votes to get through. It's always been hard to pass EU treaties even when everyone basically agrees on them, and this one would be on all the stuff they've been putting off because it's too contentious.
No, I'm saying that, as these referendums would be difficult to pass, they would be presented to their voters as de facto in/out jobbies, to frighten everyone into voting Yes/In. But most countries would avoid votes altogether - perhaps the vast majority.
My bad, in that case CycleFree is right. They can pull that on the smaller peripheral countries towards the end of the process, but not until everybody central has passed it.
Wisely skipping over the steps where: 1) Merkel whacks the card table and 26 countries say, "No, not a handbag! We'll do whatever you say!". 2) They decide to include the UK and other non-Euro countries in their Eurozone thing instead of using Enhanced Cooperation, because everybody knows how helpful the British are when you're trying to do this kind of thing. 3) None of 27 countries' lower houses, upper houses, constitutional courts, presidents and referendums feel like getting in the way before Miliband gets around to doing his referendum.
A referendum is inevitable now. It's just a matter of which politician has to eat that bucket of shit, as they wisely say in Baltimore.
I don't see any of them volunteering for that assignment, in which case it can't be inevitable. In the Tory case I suppose the party might make the dinner reservation on their leader's behalf, but it's hard to see Labour doing that.
Popcorn and fizzy drinks time from 2.25pm as the Select Committee gently grill the police over Plebgate.
Not been invited to The Christening then Mr Jack?
Mrs JackW just couldn't find the right shoes ....
Time you bought her a new pair, Jack? The carboard ones must be just about through by now....
Btw, enlighten me: where was the spelling mistake in my earlier post? I know I'm a bit of a dunce but even the spellcheck couldn't find it. Do tell.
I believe you mean "what was the spelling mistake" and your "carboard" is a bit thin.
Titters ....
Actually I meant the pair you made out of the running board of your old car, but perhaps cardboard is correct.
Now stop teasing....what, or where was the spelling mistake? You know how willing I am to learn from the older generation.
Oh .... the spelling mistake .... you mean the incorrect conjoin of numerous letters that together indicated a less than adequate appreciation of or seemingly temporary loss of cerebral function.
Er .... the spelling mistake was a non-runner but I just knew you'd think it was in the stalls !!
Popcorn and fizzy drinks time from 2.25pm as the Select Committee gently grill the police over Plebgate.
Not been invited to The Christening then Mr Jack?
Mrs JackW just couldn't find the right shoes ....
Time you bought her a new pair, Jack? The carboard ones must be just about through by now....
Btw, enlighten me: where was the spelling mistake in my earlier post? I know I'm a bit of a dunce but even the spellcheck couldn't find it. Do tell.
I believe you mean "what was the spelling mistake" and your "carboard" is a bit thin.
Titters ....
Actually I meant the pair you made out of the running board of your old car, but perhaps cardboard is correct.
Now stop teasing....what, or where was the spelling mistake? You know how willing I am to learn from the older generation.
Oh .... the spelling mistake .... you mean the incorrect conjoin of numerous letters that together indicated a less than adequate appreciation of or seemingly temporary loss of cerebral function.
Er .... the spelling mistake was a non-runner but I just knew you'd think it was in the stalls !!
Oh ok, Jack.
Do you not think think you should get out a bit more and spend a little less time with your head in your ARSE?
Perhaps you could stroll round to the House to listen to this afternoon's Hearings. Should be fun!
A small point you may wish to raise with the Telegraph blogs editor. Your post on Merkel is not there! Sure your link worked. But if you actually go to the DT site and click on the Comment tab your piece is not there under the blogs column. I have noticed that the blogs column tends to stay unchanging there for a while and you can't go back in time as the old separate blogs tab used to do. I like the merged comment / blog page but the blog bit is not as 'live' as it used to be or as complete.
Popcorn and fizzy drinks time from 2.25pm as the Select Committee gently grill the police over Plebgate.
Oh goody - Will we hear both 'conman' and 'lyingbastards' in parliment today?
I love HASC sessions - the face pulling, huff-puffing and awkward feet shuffling of the attendees is always great entertainment. There's something about the police/great and good being put on the spot that always make it worth watching.
.
Then I trust you will have a comfy seat and victuals to hand, ready to report back on the proceedings?
Popcorn and fizzy drinks time from 2.25pm as the Select Committee gently grill the police over Plebgate.
Not been invited to The Christening then Mr Jack?
Mrs JackW just couldn't find the right shoes ....
Time you bought her a new pair, Jack? The carboard ones must be just about through by now....
Btw, enlighten me: where was the spelling mistake in my earlier post? I know I'm a bit of a dunce but even the spellcheck couldn't find it. Do tell.
I believe you mean "what was the spelling mistake" and your "carboard" is a bit thin.
Titters ....
Actually I meant the pair you made out of the running board of your old car, but perhaps cardboard is correct.
Now stop teasing....what, or where was the spelling mistake? You know how willing I am to learn from the older generation.
Oh .... the spelling mistake .... you mean the incorrect conjoin of numerous letters that together indicated a less than adequate appreciation of or seemingly temporary loss of cerebral function.
Er .... the spelling mistake was a non-runner but I just knew you'd think it was in the stalls !!
Oh ok, Jack.
Do you not think think you should get out a bit more and spend a little less time with your head in your ARSE?
Perhaps you could stroll round to the House to listen to this afternoon's Hearings. Should be fun!
Note: No political axe to grind, for once. Some points for discussion, not necessarily in order
Grangemouth dispute is unusual and one that I have been following, as much as one can through the media and press.
Firstly, Unite and Ineos have been at daggers drawn for some time, really since Ineos lost face big time in a legal dispute over pensions a couple of years ago.
It "seems" that Ineos have been waiting for payback time since.
The Unite Rep., Stephen Deans was suspended due to supposedly working on company time on Labour Party business and reinstated under investigation by the company.See Falkirk local election rumpas
Ineos are a multi billion dollar company, 75% owned by Jim Ratcliffe, with a reputation for unsentimentallity and ruthlessness in business, plus having a certain reticence in paying tax.
Rafferty wanted Unite to accept a non strike agreement till Christmas, plus changes to wages and pensions.
Unite were quite willing to accept the non strike agreement, but wanted discussions on the wage and pension changes.
I would like to note here that I have been past Grangemouth many times at night, and the sight of the flame stacks flaring off gases and lighting up the countryside can give you an amazing overview of the size of the works. Would I work there, nope. Why? The thought of being in an area which if it went bang, would wipe out a large part of the central belt of Scotland. High wages due to high risk and training requirements
Also, there seems to be some doubt over why a production plant which was last year supposedly making a generous profit now seems to making a disastrous loss. Ineos wants Unite to accept restricted qualified accounts from one of the Big 4, while UNITE wants to spend it's own money on getting a review of Ineos accounts to find alternatives from one of the others.
Add to the mess that PetroChina have a 49.5% ownership of the refinery, Ineos has the other 50.5%.
Then also consider that Grangemouth cracks a lot of oil to make important chemicals for businesses all over the UK (eg. makes 30% of all Ethylene used in UK Used in plastic bags, packaging, botlles etc.etc. plus many others)
Sounds like a stormy PMQs. Is there a link where I can view the tape?
Miliband utterly bested Cameron.
However: 1) Miliband should have apologised to Mitchell. He led with the Mitchell furore in a couple of PMQ's last year; he should use PMQs to apologise. The fact he cannot do that is telling of the man. 2) Grangemouth was the elephant in the room, and sadly did not get one mention. For clarity, he should release Labour's internal report into Falkirk, a mess which contributed to the closure.
As OGH says, the coalition need to get a comprehensive and coherent reply to Miliband's energy madness. The problem is that it's sometimes quite hard to combat such populist stupidity.
Did you not spot Cameron lining up his own apology, but clearly he thinks it too soon. ANd there was an urgent question on Grangemouth straight after PMQs so obviously it wasn't going to be brought 20 mins before.
Oh Lordy, are you really that thick and hate-filled?
Miliband mentioned it several times at PMQ's. He used it, despite many of us suspecting that it was a big, suspicious pile of crock. Other Labour MPs have apologised.
Are you saying Miliband shouldn't apologise?
Lets see what comes out. What I do know is that Cameron had deliberately chosen to keep evidence under wraps that cast doubt on the case for three months of PMQs
Several of us have mentioned passim why *anything* Cameron did back then would now be criticised by people such as yourself. Whatever he did in response to this fabricated story could be criticised.
Labour did have free rein, however. And they backed the wrong horse.
So answer the question: should Miliband apologise?
Note: No political axe to grind, for once. Some points for discussion, not necessarily in order
Grangemouth dispute is unusual and one that I have been following, as much as one can through the media and press.
Firstly, Unite and Ineos have been at daggers drawn for some time, really since Ineos lost face big time in a legal dispute over pensions a couple of years ago.
It "seems" that Ineos have been waiting for payback time since.
The Unite Rep., Stephen Deans was suspended due to supposedly working on company time on Labour Party business and reinstated under investigation by the company.See Falkirk local election rumpas
Ineos are a multi billion dollar company, 75% owned by Jim Ratcliffe, with a reputation for unsentimentallity and ruthlessness in business, plus having a certain reticence in paying tax.
Rafferty wanted Unite to accept a non strike agreement till Christmas, plus changes to wages and pensions.
Unite were quite willing to accept the non strike agreement, but wanted discussions on the wage and pension changes.
I would like to note here that I have been past Grangemouth many times at night, and the sight of the flame stacks flaring off gases and lighting up the countryside can give you an amazing overview of the size of the works. Would I work there, nope. Why? The thought of being in an area which if it went bang, would wipe out a large part of the central belt of Scotland. High wages due to high risk and training requirements
Also, there seems to be some doubt over why a production plant which was last year supposedly making a generous profit now seems to making a disastrous loss. Ineos wants Unite to accept restricted qualified accounts from one of the Big 4, while UNITE wants to spend it's own money on getting a review of Ineos accounts to find alternatives from one of the others.
Add to the mess that PetroChina have a 49.5% ownership of the refinery, Ineos has the other 50.5%.
Then also consider that Grangemouth cracks a lot of oil to make important chemicals for businesses all over the UK (eg. makes 30% of all Ethylene used in UK Used in plastic bags, packaging, botlles etc.etc. plus many others)
So! You are saying that Unite are squeeky clean and Ineos have the proverbial horns sticking out of their corporate head. No politacal axe? pull the other one matey.
John Major was a good man, a prisoner of the "bastards", who has now put them in his place. Con man David Cameron is one of the "bastards" now a prisoner of super Ed, the CAN DO man.
The Unite Rep., Stephen Deans was suspended due to supposedly working on company time on Labour Party business
Ineos are a multi billion dollar company, 75% owned by Jim Ratcliffe, with a reputation for unsentimentallity and ruthlessness in business, plus having a certain reticence in paying tax.
Also, there seems to be some doubt over why a production plant which was last year supposedly making a generous profit now seems to making a disastrous loss.
Hmm.
As to the last point, no-one in their right mind would close a profitable business, unless you're suggesting Ratcliffe is one of the Lizard People and this a scheme from the OWG.
@tim - Oh, and it was a spectacularly loaded question, putting the positive side ("based on realistic living costs in the capital") with absolutely zilch about any possible downside ("even if that leads to job losses" would have been a good start).
Popcorn and fizzy drinks time from 2.25pm as the Select Committee gently grill the police over Plebgate.
Oh goody - Will we hear both 'conman' and 'lyingbastards' in parliment today?
I love HASC sessions - the face pulling, huff-puffing and awkward feet shuffling of the attendees is always great entertainment. There's something about the police/great and good being put on the spot that always make it worth watching.
.
Then I trust you will have a comfy seat and victuals to hand, ready to report back on the proceedings?
Further proof of how extreme the PB Tea Party Tories are.
People say 'Yes' when they're asked if they'd like a magic wand to be waved to dole out free money, or to cut energy bills.
What a surprise.
I recall the doom and gloom the Tories prophesied would happen when Labour had proposed the Minimum Wage. Have the Tories abolished it yet ? They have in government for 3.5 years. Of course, without having won a majority.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond to convene emergency Cabinet meeting later today to discuss 'hugely disappointing' #Grangemouth closure
If Salmond can somehow 'save Grangemouth', Scottish Labour will be grateful and thankful for the jobs saved and economy boosted I am sure. This is a big play for Salmon, could work out very well or badly for SNP.
At least they will try , unlike Labour and Tories
It looks like both the Coalition and the Edinburgh government are working for a solution - Labour back benchers are rushing to blame INEOS - and hence deflect blame from UNITE. I wonder why they would want to do that?
labour in Scotland have been up to their necks in it, hopefully the blame is put firmly on the Unite regional sub office led by Lamont.
It is thanks to the moderate co-operation of UNITE and the sacrifices that have been made by its members that the situation has been resolved. Let us hope that the employers keep their word,
Comments
Sources say that the review of green taxes and regulations will be spelt out in the Autumn statement
http://www.sainsburysenergy.com
If a referendum on the creation of the EUSSR is coming our way then it is coming France's way too. And also to the Netherlands. And Spain. And Italy and all the others. Only a problem for the Miliblob if we get to go first surely? Or are you seriously suggesting the other countries will ratify without referenda or that such referenda could be passed? Really?
Cam taking one for the team? not exactly in character.
What it will amount to is another matter. We can only speculate - it might be not much (a 'review'), or it might be concrete measures to reduce taxes/levies, and hence bills, in the short term. We'll have to wait and see, but this is round 1, not the end of the bout.
My flabber has been gasted!!!!!
The plant is losing money hand over fist and the workers won;t accept revised working conditions.
End of story.
It also quite sad that Milibands performance today is far more important to them than all the job losses there will be at Grangemouth due to Unite playing silly political games.
Oh goody - Will we hear both 'conman' and 'lyingbastards' in parliment today?
That's the annoying part. Senior Scottish politicians are giving the people the impression that things are in hand, whilst they know its game over. Its pure and cynical damage limitation.
Maybe Cameron could win some friends in Scotland by trying to do something about it.
Btw, enlighten me: where was the spelling mistake in my earlier post? I know I'm a bit of a dunce but even the spellcheck couldn't find it. Do tell.
The chemicals plant is clearly a separate legal entity. Ineos can't walk from it. But a buyer could simply buy the assets and offer new employment contracts to staff on a take it or leave it (and we'll find someone else) basis. I very much expect that what the liquidators will seek is to sell is the assets not the company. Unite will love that !!!
Titters ....
You'd have thought the only buyer would be an asset stripper type hedge fund far less benign that the current owners.
However:
1) Miliband should have apologised to Mitchell. He led with the Mitchell furore in a couple of PMQ's last year; he should use PMQs to apologise. The fact he cannot do that is telling of the man.
2) Grangemouth was the elephant in the room, and sadly did not get one mention. For clarity, he should release Labour's internal report into Falkirk, a mess which contributed to the closure.
As OGH says, the coalition need to get a comprehensive and coherent reply to Miliband's energy madness. The problem is that it's sometimes quite hard to combat such populist stupidity.
Now stop teasing....what, or where was the spelling mistake? You know how willing I am to learn from the older generation.
A lot of countries would skip the referendums, but they'd still have a lot of difficult parliamentary votes to get through. It's always been hard to pass EU treaties even when everyone basically agrees on them, and this one would be on all the stuff they've been putting off because it's too contentious.
The plant is losing money hand over fist and the workers won;t accept revised working conditions.
End of story.
I'm not au fait with the ins and outs and the various claims and counter claims about Unite conveners, and if and how much Ineos are losing but it does strike me that the (well some of) workers have not come to terms with the fact that on a world scale their plant may not viable at their current rates of pay and conditions. If it were, the company would not be calling in the liquidators to limit their losses pronto (well unless this is ultimate poker face brinksmanship and they are hoping Unite start back pedalling fast).
This is part of the levelling effect as different parts of the world catch up with and have access to the equipment and processes the West enjoyed a relative monopoly on till recently, but are prepared to do it for a bit less. Polish plumber syndrome on a grand scale effectively. Essentially the world's best practices and equipment for large industrial plant are largely open to an ever expanding group of people, and we in the West have vast legacy costs in the shape of high taxes to fund all the public goodies we enjoy, and pensions that are being made unsustainable by longevity and absurdly rigid Govt regulation. I have every sympathy with both the workers with the pension part of the dispute, as it's not their fault that the promises of final salary schemes have become utterly unsustainable, nor indeed is it the company's, who have probably just despaired of wrestling with it and realised the only way out long term is to control the costs of the scheme by legally replacing it with something that is sustainable, which involved a consenting workforce. Failing that walking away, however painful, and concentrating on other bits of the business becomes the only financially sane option, even at the cost of bad publicity due the social issues it will be perceived to have left in many quarters.
It's not good all round I'm afraid, and this will not be the last such event involving final salary pensions, though hopefully it will act as a salutary warning to both companies and workers/Unions that walking close to the cliff edge can and will result in accidents as all and sundry go over the edge. Nationalising your way out of Grangemouth is possible (ie the tax payer picks up the loss) of course, but you cannot nationalise all loss makers in all circumstances.
PAC is also tremendous fun.
Miliband mentioned it several times at PMQ's. He used it, despite many of us suspecting that it was a big, suspicious pile of crock. Other Labour MPs have apologised.
Are you saying Miliband shouldn't apologise?
1) Merkel whacks the card table and 26 countries say, "No, not a handbag! We'll do whatever you say!".
2) They decide to include the UK and other non-Euro countries in their Eurozone thing instead of using Enhanced Cooperation, because everybody knows how helpful the British are when you're trying to do this kind of thing.
3) None of 27 countries' lower houses, upper houses, constitutional courts, presidents and referendums feel like getting in the way before Miliband gets around to doing his referendum.
Er .... the spelling mistake was a non-runner but I just knew you'd think it was in the stalls !!
Do you not think think you should get out a bit more and spend a little less time with your head in your ARSE?
Perhaps you could stroll round to the House to listen to this afternoon's Hearings. Should be fun!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/24493540
A small point you may wish to raise with the Telegraph blogs editor. Your post on Merkel is not there! Sure your link worked. But if you actually go to the DT site and click on the Comment tab your piece is not there under the blogs column. I have noticed that the blogs column tends to stay unchanging there for a while and you can't go back in time as the old separate blogs tab used to do. I like the merged comment / blog page but the blog bit is not as 'live' as it used to be or as complete.
Popcorn Plebgate proceedings pending ....
Grangemouth dispute is unusual and one that I have been following, as much as one can through the media and press.
Firstly, Unite and Ineos have been at daggers drawn for some time, really since Ineos lost face big time in a legal dispute over pensions a couple of years ago.
It "seems" that Ineos have been waiting for payback time since.
The Unite Rep., Stephen Deans was suspended due to supposedly working on company time on Labour Party business and reinstated under investigation by the company.See Falkirk local election rumpas
Ineos are a multi billion dollar company, 75% owned by Jim Ratcliffe, with a reputation for unsentimentallity and ruthlessness in business, plus having a certain reticence in paying tax.
Rafferty wanted Unite to accept a non strike agreement till Christmas, plus changes to wages and pensions.
Unite were quite willing to accept the non strike agreement, but wanted discussions on the wage and pension changes.
I would like to note here that I have been past Grangemouth many times at night, and the sight of the flame stacks flaring off gases and lighting up the countryside can give you an amazing overview of the size of the works. Would I work there, nope. Why? The thought of being in an area which if it went bang, would wipe out a large part of the central belt of Scotland. High wages due to high risk and training requirements
Also, there seems to be some doubt over why a production plant which was last year supposedly making a generous profit now seems to making a disastrous loss. Ineos wants Unite to accept restricted qualified accounts from one of the Big 4, while UNITE wants to spend it's own money on getting a review of Ineos accounts to find alternatives from one of the others.
Add to the mess that PetroChina have a 49.5% ownership of the refinery, Ineos has the other 50.5%.
Then also consider that Grangemouth cracks a lot of oil to make important chemicals for businesses all over the UK (eg. makes 30% of all Ethylene used in UK Used in plastic bags, packaging, botlles etc.etc. plus many others)
Labour did have free rein, however. And they backed the wrong horse.
So answer the question: should Miliband apologise?
What a surprise.
As to the last point, no-one in their right mind would close a profitable business, unless you're suggesting Ratcliffe is one of the Lizard People and this a scheme from the OWG.