Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Northern Rail to be nationalised and it looks like HS2 is goin

SystemSystem Posts: 12,170
edited January 2020 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Northern Rail to be nationalised and it looks like HS2 is going to be approved

Confirmed – Northern Rail into public ownership from March 1st

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Johnson is trying to spend his way out of trouble through the self-harm effects of Brexit. It might be the right strategy to try and correct a daft one, and it could just work. Some might observe that sensible economics and monetarism is dead. Someone ought to tell those Tories that sleep with a picture of the Blessed Margaret under their pillows!
  • Yay and boo.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,767
    2nd like HS2.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    Basic problem, approving HS2 is a blank cheque. If it costs £150bn, the Govt just has to suck it up.

    It won't surprise me if it costs at least that.

    But I don't see how the Govt. cans it. It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however. It has allowed the narrative to develop of it being all about London. It has to make a big push on it being about additional capacity for the whole rail network.

    Oh, and don't even TRY to sell us the "every £x spent mean an added £x + y benefit to the economy" line. Nobody is buying it.

  • We are still a great nation and it is time those in the EU move on and construct a friendly future
  • Indeed. His graciousness is no doubt genuine, but makes us look like petulant adolescents, which of course 52% (in 2016) were/are.
  • Basic problem, approving HS2 is a blank cheque. If it costs £150bn, the Govt just has to suck it up.

    It won't surprise me if it costs at least that.

    But I don't see how the Govt. cans it. It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however. It has allowed the narrative to develop of it being all about London. It has to make a big push on it being about additional capacity for the whole rail network.

    Oh, and don't even TRY to sell us the "every £x spent mean an added £x + y benefit to the economy" line. Nobody is buying it.

    Firstly, I expect that the Overtree report will say that the costs are estimated to be £86bn, with £20bn to cover any currently unforeseen cost over runs, but that will probably get little coverage.

    Even at £106bn it has a £1.40 benefit for every £1 cost, that has already been leaked.

    Finally, the alternatives are far worse in terms of costs and benefits and unless you have decided to write off the infrastructure that the business and political community of the north are crying out for, you are going to have to do something very radical to increase capacity up and down and across the countries railways.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,228
    edited January 2020

    Johnson is trying to spend his way out of trouble through the self-harm effects of Brexit. It might be the right strategy to try and correct a daft one, and it could just work. Some might observe that sensible economics and monetarism is dead. Someone ought to tell those Tories that sleep with a picture of the Blessed Margaret under their pillows!

    And if it does eff up the economy, it will leave whoever is next in government a hell of a mess to sort out...

    He really is stealing Labour's clothes. :smile:
  • Nigelb said:

    Johnson is trying to spend his way out of trouble through the self-harm effects of Brexit. It might be the right strategy to try and correct a daft one, and it could just work. Some might observe that sensible economics and monetarism is dead. Someone ought to tell those Tories that sleep with a picture of the Blessed Margaret under their pillows!

    And if it does eff up the economy, it will leave whoever is next in government a hell of a mess to sort out...

    He really is stealing Labour's clothes. :smile:
    Over spending normally catches up with one in the end. The Tories will have their turn to leave a note saying "sorry there is no money left"
  • We are still a great nation and it is time those in the EU move on and construct a friendly future
    We have demeaned our once proud status of a "great nation" by mean mindedness and petty small minded nationalism. It will take us a long time to recover our international reputation, probably longer than it will for the US post-Trump.
  • Nigelb said:

    Johnson is trying to spend his way out of trouble through the self-harm effects of Brexit. It might be the right strategy to try and correct a daft one, and it could just work. Some might observe that sensible economics and monetarism is dead. Someone ought to tell those Tories that sleep with a picture of the Blessed Margaret under their pillows!

    And if it does eff up the economy, it will leave whoever is next in government a hell of a mess to sort out...

    He really is stealing Labour's clothes. :smile:
    It will not manifest financial problems over the next decade or so
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    edited January 2020

    We are still a great nation and it is time those in the EU move on and construct a friendly future
    A future where the likes of Von Der Leyen and Tusk have to run for office.

    The EU needs a leader that has campaigned in all three of Birmingham, Barcelona and Bavaria. And everywhere else.
  • We are still a great nation and it is time those in the EU move on and construct a friendly future
    We have demeaned our once proud status of a "great nation" by mean mindedness and petty small minded nationalism. It will take us a long time to recover our international reputation, probably longer than it will for the US post-Trump.
    It has upset many for certain but equally it is a chance to forge a new outward looking nation beyond the narrow view that all is good and great in the EU
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,935
    Only twice? Isn't he forgetting about the wars of the nth coalition? :smiley:
  • Indeed. His graciousness is no doubt genuine, but makes us look like petulant adolescents, which of course 52% (in 2016) were/are.
    I certainly agree that you are being a petulant adolescent.

    The rest of us are moving on. When you're ready to finish your strop come and find us.
  • Read the manifesto. It's all in there.

    The railways need accountability, not nationalisation. Oh, hold on; not that bit. These bits:

    We will build Northern Powerhouse Rail between Leeds and Manchester and then focus on Liverpool, Tees Valley, Hull, Sheffield and Newcastle.

    We will invest in the Midlands Rail Hub, strengthening rail links including those between Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham, Coventry, Derby, Hereford and Worcester.

    We will also invest in improving train lines to the South West and East Anglia.

    We will give city regions the funding to upgrade their bus, tram and train services to make them as good as London’s

    HS2 is a great ambition, but will now cost at least £81 billion and will not reach Leeds or Manchester until as late as 2040. We will consider the findings of the Oakervee review into costs and timings and work with leaders of the Midlands and the North to decide the optimal outcome.

    we will restore many of the Beeching lines, reconnecting smaller towns such as Fleetwood and Willenhall
  • Read the manifesto. It's all in there.

    The railways need accountability, not nationalisation. Oh, hold on; not that bit. These bits:

    We will build Northern Powerhouse Rail between Leeds and Manchester and then focus on Liverpool, Tees Valley, Hull, Sheffield and Newcastle.

    We will invest in the Midlands Rail Hub, strengthening rail links including those between Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham, Coventry, Derby, Hereford and Worcester.

    We will also invest in improving train lines to the South West and East Anglia.

    We will give city regions the funding to upgrade their bus, tram and train services to make them as good as London’s

    HS2 is a great ambition, but will now cost at least £81 billion and will not reach Leeds or Manchester until as late as 2040. We will consider the findings of the Oakervee review into costs and timings and work with leaders of the Midlands and the North to decide the optimal outcome.

    we will restore many of the Beeching lines, reconnecting smaller towns such as Fleetwood and Willenhall

    Yep and those who continue to oppose it need to accept the outcome of a democratic vote, as we are so often reminded.

    Oakervee review provided and optimal outcome seemingly decided.

    Time for people to end their stropping and accept the democratic decision.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    And, by denying a vote for so long on various integrationist treaties of the EU, ultimately guaranteed we’d have one on full membership instead. He also turbocharged its chances with a policy of unlimited free movement from the accession countries in 2004.

    Epic fail.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491
    The lesson the genius that is Verhofstadt has learnt.

    Brexit is because err.. we had too many opt-outs and opt-ins:

    https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1222553258633441281?s=20
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however.

    Yes "£1,060,000,000 for 35 minutes off Birmingham to London" doesn't remotely do the project justice - the selling point should be on the freed up capacity on the existing WCML - with the shorter journeys on HS2 as a bonus.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,767

    And, by denying a vote for so long on various integrationist treaties of the EU, ultimately guaranteed we’d have one on full membership instead. He also turbocharged its chances with a policy of unlimited free movement from the accession countries in 2004.

    Epic fail.
    From the article:

    "Blair was later forced into offering a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty in 2004 because Charlie Kennedy supported Michael Howard’s call for one and a good number of Labour MPs would have voted for the plebiscite.

    France saved Blair by voting down the constitution in 2005. Perhaps if Blair had held a referendum then and lost, as President Chirac did in France, that might have taught David Cameron that holding plebiscites on Europe could only produce one outcome."
  • Nigel Farage documentary 9pm Channel 4.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,229
    Wow. If he carries on pissing off Trump, building tons of infrastructure, boosting the north, and bringing transport & utilities back where they belong - into public ownership - I will have to seriously consider re-badging him from dodgy brand "Boris" to PM Boris Johnson, Good Socialist, Great Man.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,491

    And, by denying a vote for so long on various integrationist treaties of the EU, ultimately guaranteed we’d have one on full membership instead. He also turbocharged its chances with a policy of unlimited free movement from the accession countries in 2004.

    Epic fail.
    From the article:

    "Blair was later forced into offering a referendum on the EU Constitutional Treaty in 2004 because Charlie Kennedy supported Michael Howard’s call for one and a good number of Labour MPs would have voted for the plebiscite.

    France saved Blair by voting down the constitution in 2005. Perhaps if Blair had held a referendum then and lost, as President Chirac did in France, that might have taught David Cameron that holding plebiscites on Europe could only produce one outcome."
    If it had been held and lost then concessions would have been given on Lisbon (the original burner for Cameron) and the heat taken out of the balloon.

    The idea that simply denying any vote whatsoever on the EU ad infinitum was a serious political answer to euroscepticism in the UK is for the birds.
  • It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however.

    Yes "£1,060,000,000 for 35 minutes off Birmingham to London" doesn't remotely do the project justice - the selling point should be on the freed up capacity on the existing WCML - with the shorter journeys on HS2 as a bonus.

    Which I think too be fair is what most connected to the scheme have been saying.

    However, if you are an editor of a national newspaper and live in the Chilterns why not stick with speed as the issue, therefore undermining the real reasons the scheme is planned?

    If you look at HS2 part of the DfT website it is full of capacity reports and news releases, never picked up by the media.

    It's part of the problem in this country, reality is someone living in the Chilterns has a much better chance of having the ability to affect the nations mood and government policy than someone living in an inner city council estate in Manchester.

    The positive affect on the poor person in Manchester never gets a look in but all the negatives for those 'poor' people in the Chilterns never leaves the coverage.
  • It will add to the gaiety of the nation if PMQs has two known liars facing each other across the despatch box.
  • She’s a pound shop His Excellency Professor The Lord Paul Nuttall QC DSO KCVO
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    The lesson the genius that is Verhofstadt has learnt.

    Brexit is because err.. we had too many opt-outs and opt-ins:

    https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1222553258633441281?s=20

    As ever, MORE EUROPE!
  • eekeek Posts: 28,405
    Arriva though it may look English is actually Deutsch Bahn under another name.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,216

    It will add to the gaiety of the nation if PMQs has two known liars facing each other across the despatch box.
    In fairness only one of them is accomplished, the other one is just incompetent.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789

    It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however.

    Yes "£1,060,000,000 for 35 minutes off Birmingham to London" doesn't remotely do the project justice - the selling point should be on the freed up capacity on the existing WCML - with the shorter journeys on HS2 as a bonus.

    Which I think too be fair is what most connected to the scheme have been saying.

    However, if you are an editor of a national newspaper and live in the Chilterns why not stick with speed as the issue, therefore undermining the real reasons the scheme is planned?

    If you look at HS2 part of the DfT website it is full of capacity reports and news releases, never picked up by the media.

    It's part of the problem in this country, reality is someone living in the Chilterns has a much better chance of having the ability to affect the nations mood and government policy than someone living in an inner city council estate in Manchester.

    The positive affect on the poor person in Manchester never gets a look in but all the negatives for those 'poor' people in the Chilterns never leaves the coverage.
    I do think that linking the benefits of HS2 to the positive effect for a poor person in Manchester is hard to argue in precise beneficial terms which will be seen as making a difference to that person (or more accurately, their grandchildren).
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,468
    eek said:

    Arriva though it may look English is actually Deutsch Bahn under another name.
    The Arriva North East bus app is dog sh*t. The sooner we have tap on tap off contactless the better.

    Another promise I hope Boris keeps...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,806
    That Blair comment is 100% wrong.

    Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).

    Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.

    The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.
  • matt said:

    It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however.

    Yes "£1,060,000,000 for 35 minutes off Birmingham to London" doesn't remotely do the project justice - the selling point should be on the freed up capacity on the existing WCML - with the shorter journeys on HS2 as a bonus.

    Which I think too be fair is what most connected to the scheme have been saying.

    However, if you are an editor of a national newspaper and live in the Chilterns why not stick with speed as the issue, therefore undermining the real reasons the scheme is planned?

    If you look at HS2 part of the DfT website it is full of capacity reports and news releases, never picked up by the media.

    It's part of the problem in this country, reality is someone living in the Chilterns has a much better chance of having the ability to affect the nations mood and government policy than someone living in an inner city council estate in Manchester.

    The positive affect on the poor person in Manchester never gets a look in but all the negatives for those 'poor' people in the Chilterns never leaves the coverage.
    I do think that linking the benefits of HS2 to the positive effect for a poor person in Manchester is hard to argue in precise beneficial terms which will be seen as making a difference to that person (or more accurately, their grandchildren).
    I consider what the economy of Manchester would be without the WCML or M6.

    HS2 is simply the next step on that path, those opposed to the scheme seem to suggest that Manchester (and other places) would not be adversely affected if the WCML and M6 had never existed.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,934
    edited January 2020

    twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1222558321179271168

    Already posted.
  • kinabalu said:

    Wow. If he carries on pissing off Trump, building tons of infrastructure, boosting the north, and bringing transport & utilities back where they belong - into public ownership - I will have to seriously consider re-badging him from dodgy brand "Boris" to PM Boris Johnson, Good Socialist, Great Man.

    I have said repeatedly that Boris is not a right wing tory, he is very much a liberal and he has not surprised me in his actions so far. I did not vote for him, and at one time I resigned my membership as a result of his action against dissenting conservatives but that changed when he re-instated most of them, and to be honest he has impressed me on the upside since the GE

    His optimistic can do attitude is infectious and is the right receipe at the present time
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,119
    edited January 2020

    The lesson the genius that is Verhofstadt has learnt.

    Brexit is because err.. we had too many opt-outs and opt-ins:

    https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1222553258633441281?s=20

    I remember the BBC doing a documentary shortly after the Brexit vote where they interviewed the EU top brass about why Brexit occurred, what the future of the EU was and why the rise/ how to tackle the likes of 5 Star in Italy.

    The response was a bit like the hard left types you already respond to claims socialism never works, with we don't have a proper european union, the only way future is a much more integrated closer nit EU with more powers centralized.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,767
    "Can a RBMK reactor core blow up comrade?"

    "No."

    "Then you cannot have seen it blow up then can you."
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,288
    edited January 2020

    matt said:

    It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however.

    Yes "£1,060,000,000 for 35 minutes off Birmingham to London" doesn't remotely do the project justice - the selling point should be on the freed up capacity on the existing WCML - with the shorter journeys on HS2 as a bonus.

    Which I think too be fair is what most connected to the scheme have been saying.

    However, if you are an editor of a national newspaper and live in the Chilterns why not stick with speed as the issue, therefore undermining the real reasons the scheme is planned?

    If you look at HS2 part of the DfT website it is full of capacity reports and news releases, never picked up by the media.

    It's part of the problem in this country, reality is someone living in the Chilterns has a much better chance of having the ability to affect the nations mood and government policy than someone living in an inner city council estate in Manchester.

    The positive affect on the poor person in Manchester never gets a look in but all the negatives for those 'poor' people in the Chilterns never leaves the coverage.
    I do think that linking the benefits of HS2 to the positive effect for a poor person in Manchester is hard to argue in precise beneficial terms which will be seen as making a difference to that person (or more accurately, their grandchildren).
    I consider what the economy of Manchester would be without the WCML or M6.

    HS2 is simply the next step on that path, those opposed to the scheme seem to suggest that Manchester (and other places) would not be adversely affected if the WCML and M6 had never existed.
    What is more Manchester's growth needs to be fed by faster connectivity to Liverpool, Leeds and, particularly, Sheffield and points between. NPR is a bit hotch potch for my taste.

    Had it been addressed 15 years ago, we'd have been talking about a Ruhr model. Now, I tend to think Manchester would be a much more dominant focal point if connectivity improved.

    Put any new (electric??) airport somewhere north of London along HS2, and the infrastructure job for the north would be substantially done.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,767

    twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/1222558321179271168

    Already posted.
    Yes, sorry. Brain fog today.
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780
    edited January 2020

    It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however.

    Yes "£1,060,000,000 for 35 minutes off Birmingham to London" doesn't remotely do the project justice - the selling point should be on the freed up capacity on the existing WCML - with the shorter journeys on HS2 as a bonus.

    If only the cost were a mere £1,060,000,000.

    As opposed to a hundred times that, at £106,000,000,000.

    Or more if the costs continue to escalate, with a figure of £130,000,000,000 including contingencies now being mooted.

    Most of those travelling from the West Midlands to London will in fact see a time saving of 0 minutes, not least from the Black Country, since Curzon Street is so remote from the rest of the creaking West Midlands transport hub centred on New Street that most will find it quicker (and cheaper) to continue to use the WCML or Chiltern Line. As for the WCML capacity issues, they are largely contrived, which is why they were only brought to the fore once the original business case collapsed.

    Meanwhile, here's the sort of thing that people in the West Midlands would actually benefit from, delivering transport benefits far more quickly at a tiny fraction of the cost, on the sort of transport links that the people and businesses of the region actually rely upon.

    https://www.expressandstar.com/news/transport/2020/01/27/how-hs2-billions-could-be-spent-on-our-region/
  • Re the discussion earlier about those coming back from China and self-isolation vs the government putting them into quarantine.

    Seems that some crossed wires in the media, those being asked to self-isolate are those coming back from areas other than Wuhan. Those the government are evacuating from Wuhan are going into quarantine.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,119
    edited January 2020
    BBC News to close 450 posts as part of £80m savings drive
    ....
    BBC suspend the turn off red button service that costs £39m a year to run

    This is like when BBC had choice of closing down the likes of BBC Three and bottled it. You think Amazon, Netflix or Sky would hesitate to keep a service that is used by bugger all people and will only continue to decline every single week.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    edited January 2020
    Much like her mentor, Corbyn.
  • The lesson the genius that is Verhofstadt has learnt.

    Brexit is because err.. we had too many opt-outs and opt-ins:

    https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1222553258633441281?s=20

    I remember the BBC doing a documentary shortly after the Brexit vote where they interviewed the EU top brass about why Brexit occurred, what the future of the EU was and why the rise/ how to tackle the likes of 5 Star in Italy.

    The response was a bit like the hard left types you already respond to claims socialism never works, with we don't have a proper european union, the only way future is a much more integrated closer nit EU with more powers centralized.
    It is a valid criticism, but by the same token I suggest that when Brexit turns out to be the inevitable pile of shit that almost all economists believe, people such as yourself will be saying the reason was that it wasn't pure and Brexity enough 😂😂
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,119
    edited January 2020

    The lesson the genius that is Verhofstadt has learnt.

    Brexit is because err.. we had too many opt-outs and opt-ins:

    https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1222553258633441281?s=20

    I remember the BBC doing a documentary shortly after the Brexit vote where they interviewed the EU top brass about why Brexit occurred, what the future of the EU was and why the rise/ how to tackle the likes of 5 Star in Italy.

    The response was a bit like the hard left types you already respond to claims socialism never works, with we don't have a proper european union, the only way future is a much more integrated closer nit EU with more powers centralized.
    It is a valid criticism, but by the same token I suggest that when Brexit turns out to be the inevitable pile of shit that almost all economists believe, people such as yourself will be saying the reason was that it wasn't pure and Brexity enough 😂😂
    You know I voted Remain right? I wrote a big post the other day about my thoughts on it. Cliff notes, I don't buy the end of the world stuff, but it is very difficult task ahead and we are more than likely to swap one lot of red tape for another. If new red tape is better than old red tape, is totally uncertain.

    If we voted to Remain, it wasn't for the status quo, it was for ever closer union. Now if in 20-30 years being in a protected trading block against the likes of what will be the global superpower of China is better than fighting out in the world, but being able to be a bit more nibble, who knows.
  • speedy2speedy2 Posts: 981
    This is not an act of a campaign that thinks it can win, Ted Cruz did the same thing with Carly Fiorina in 2016:

    https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/1222373352360349696
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318

    That Blair comment is 100% wrong.

    Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).

    Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.

    The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.

    There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
  • "Can a RBMK reactor core blow up comrade?"

    "No."

    "Then you cannot have seen it blow up then can you."
    Maybe she is that naïve that she thinks she needs to mirror the mendaciousness of the current Prime Minister
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    BBC News to close 450 posts as part of £80m savings drive
    ....
    BBC suspend the turn off red button service that costs £39m a year to run

    This is like when BBC had choice of closing down the likes of BBC Three and bottled it. You think Amazon, Netflix or Sky would hesitate to keep a service that is used by bugger all people and will only continue to decline every single week.

    BBC News not been the same since my departure in 1984
  • DAFUQ?

    Everton reject a €100 million bid from Barcelona for Richarlison.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 82,119
    edited January 2020
    Cyclefree said:

    That Blair comment is 100% wrong.

    Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).

    Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.

    The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.

    There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
    I suspect if Blair had also followed the likes of Germany and put in place a transition period, in which numbers were limited, that would have helped against such feeling.
  • The lesson the genius that is Verhofstadt has learnt.

    Brexit is because err.. we had too many opt-outs and opt-ins:

    https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1222553258633441281?s=20

    I remember the BBC doing a documentary shortly after the Brexit vote where they interviewed the EU top brass about why Brexit occurred, what the future of the EU was and why the rise/ how to tackle the likes of 5 Star in Italy.

    The response was a bit like the hard left types you already respond to claims socialism never works, with we don't have a proper european union, the only way future is a much more integrated closer nit EU with more powers centralized.
    It is a valid criticism, but by the same token I suggest that when Brexit turns out to be the inevitable pile of shit that almost all economists believe, people such as yourself will be saying the reason was that it wasn't pure and Brexity enough 😂😂
    You know I voted Remain right? I wrote a big post the other day about my thoughts on it. Cliff notes, I don't buy the end of the world stuff, but it is very difficult task ahead and we are more than likely to swap one lot of red tape for another. If new red tape is better than old red tape, is totally uncertain.

    If we voted to Remain, it wasn't for the status quo, it was for ever closer union. Now if in 20-30 years being in a protected trading block against the likes of what will be the global superpower of China is better than fighting out in the world, but being able to be a bit more nibble, who knows.
    Ever closer union is a meaningless phrase that is not/was not on the agendas of the genuinely powerful in the EU, i.e. the Council of Ministers. It had become more and more redundant. It was like Labour's Clause 4 before Blair removed it. Thanks to us taking an isolationist view for very dubious benefit to ourselves, ever closer union has slightly more momentum in the remaining 27, but there will continue to be about 27 different views as to what it means.

    The EU's strength is in it's weakness; it cannot and will not become the bogeyman that Farage et al conned people in this country into believing because it is simply inefficient in it's ambition.
  • BBC News to close 450 posts as part of £80m savings drive
    ....
    BBC suspend the turn off red button service that costs £39m a year to run

    This is like when BBC had choice of closing down the likes of BBC Three and bottled it. You think Amazon, Netflix or Sky would hesitate to keep a service that is used by bugger all people and will only continue to decline every single week.

    BBC News not been the same since my departure in 1984
    Ah, that's the problem! I've always wondered why it suddenly deteriorated.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,767
    speedy2 said:

    This is not an act of a campaign that thinks it can win, Ted Cruz did the same thing with Carly Fiorina in 2016:

    https://twitter.com/jmartNYT/status/1222373352360349696

    Possible veep selection?
  • The lesson the genius that is Verhofstadt has learnt.

    Brexit is because err.. we had too many opt-outs and opt-ins:

    https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1222553258633441281?s=20

    I remember the BBC doing a documentary shortly after the Brexit vote where they interviewed the EU top brass about why Brexit occurred, what the future of the EU was and why the rise/ how to tackle the likes of 5 Star in Italy.

    The response was a bit like the hard left types you already respond to claims socialism never works, with we don't have a proper european union, the only way future is a much more integrated closer nit EU with more powers centralized.
    It is a valid criticism, but by the same token I suggest that when Brexit turns out to be the inevitable pile of shit that almost all economists believe, people such as yourself will be saying the reason was that it wasn't pure and Brexity enough 😂😂
    You know I voted Remain right? I wrote a big post the other day about my thoughts on it. Cliff notes, I don't buy the end of the world stuff, but it is very difficult task ahead and we are more than likely to swap one lot of red tape for another. If new red tape is better than old red tape, is totally uncertain.

    If we voted to Remain, it wasn't for the status quo, it was for ever closer union. Now if in 20-30 years being in a protected trading block against the likes of what will be the global superpower of China is better than fighting out in the world, but being able to be a bit more nibble, who knows.
    Ever closer union is a meaningless phrase that is not/was not on the agendas of the genuinely powerful in the EU, i.e. the Council of Ministers. It had become more and more redundant. It was like Labour's Clause 4 before Blair removed it. Thanks to us taking an isolationist view for very dubious benefit to ourselves, ever closer union has slightly more momentum in the remaining 27, but there will continue to be about 27 different views as to what it means.

    The EU's strength is in it's weakness; it cannot and will not become the bogeyman that Farage et al conned people in this country into believing because it is simply inefficient in it's ambition.
    Given the realistic situation of the world, ever closer union would be coming up regardless. It is the obvious way to combat the likes of China, to form an even closer more protected trading block.

    It isn't just Brexit, as I said in the BBC documentary straight after Brexit, the EU top brass were already talking about this being the only way to deal with inequalities within the different EU countries, which was seeing a rise of populist parties.
  • DAFUQ?

    Everton reject a €100 million bid from Barcelona for Richarlison.

    Have Barcelona confused him with some other player of a similar name?
  • Animal_pbAnimal_pb Posts: 608

    The lesson the genius that is Verhofstadt has learnt.

    Brexit is because err.. we had too many opt-outs and opt-ins:

    https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1222553258633441281?s=20

    I remember the BBC doing a documentary shortly after the Brexit vote where they interviewed the EU top brass about why Brexit occurred, what the future of the EU was and why the rise/ how to tackle the likes of 5 Star in Italy.

    The response was a bit like the hard left types you already respond to claims socialism never works, with we don't have a proper european union, the only way future is a much more integrated closer nit EU with more powers centralized.
    It is a valid criticism, but by the same token I suggest that when Brexit turns out to be the inevitable pile of shit that almost all economists believe, people such as yourself will be saying the reason was that it wasn't pure and Brexity enough 😂😂
    You know I voted Remain right? I wrote a big post the other day about my thoughts on it. Cliff notes, I don't buy the end of the world stuff, but it is very difficult task ahead and we are more than likely to swap one lot of red tape for another. If new red tape is better than old red tape, is totally uncertain.

    If we voted to Remain, it wasn't for the status quo, it was for ever closer union. Now if in 20-30 years being in a protected trading block against the likes of what will be the global superpower of China is better than fighting out in the world, but being able to be a bit more nibble, who knows.
    That is a priceless typo. I guess it is Year of the Rat...
  • It does need to have some very savvy PR selling it far better than has been done to date, however.

    Yes "£1,060,000,000 for 35 minutes off Birmingham to London" doesn't remotely do the project justice - the selling point should be on the freed up capacity on the existing WCML - with the shorter journeys on HS2 as a bonus.

    If only the cost were a mere £1,060,000,000.

    As opposed to a hundred times that, at £106,000,000,000.

    Or more if the costs continue to escalate, with a figure of £130,000,000,000 including contingencies now being mooted.

    Most of those travelling from the West Midlands to London will in fact see a time saving of 0 minutes, not least from the Black Country, since Curzon Street is so remote from the rest of the creaking West Midlands transport hub centred on New Street that most will find it quicker (and cheaper) to continue to use the WCML or Chiltern Line. As for the WCML capacity issues, they are largely contrived, which is why they were only brought to the fore once the original business case collapsed.

    Meanwhile, here's the sort of thing that people in the West Midlands would actually benefit from, delivering transport benefits far more quickly at a tiny fraction of the cost, on the sort of transport links that the people and businesses of the region actually rely upon.

    https://www.expressandstar.com/news/transport/2020/01/27/how-hs2-billions-could-be-spent-on-our-region/
    The £20bn contingency is in the £106bn.

    What is the alternative?

    Honest question, fact no one has provided one in 12 years explains why HS2 or something incredibly similar will eventually be built.

    Maybe the issues on the legacy network need HS2 for them to be fixed?
  • Wulfrun_PhilWulfrun_Phil Posts: 4,780

    The lesson the genius that is Verhofstadt has learnt.

    Brexit is because err.. we had too many opt-outs and opt-ins:

    https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1222553258633441281?s=20

    Is this really what the SNP would describe as the desired political outcome to deliver "independence"?
  • The ITV newsreader Alastair Stewart is stepping down from his presenting duties following “errors of judgment in Alastair’s use of social media”, ITN has said.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/29/alastair-stewart-quits-as-itv-presenter-over-errors-of-judgment
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,229
    edited January 2020
    Cyclefree said:

    There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.

    One of the big problems back then, as I recall, was that people felt they "couldn't talk about it".

    But not to worry because they have certainly made up for it since.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148

    Cyclefree said:

    That Blair comment is 100% wrong.

    Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).

    Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.

    The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.

    There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
    I suspect if Blair had also followed the likes of Germany and put in place a transition period, in which numbers were limited, that would have helped against such feeling.
    Indeed Merkel said Germany introduced transition controls for 7 years even if it meant no short term boost to the economy to ensure social cohesion. Blair did not and eventually reaped the whirlwind as a diehard Remainer. When Merkel tried to get some controls on free movement for Cameron Eastern Europe vetoed it
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    edited January 2020

    Cyclefree said:

    That Blair comment is 100% wrong.

    Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).

    Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.

    The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.

    There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
    I suspect if Blair had also followed the likes of Germany and put in place a transition period, in which numbers were limited, that would have helped against such feeling.
    Yes - that might have helped.

    My personal view though is that we were right to let Poles and others in. The accession of those states - after the terrible time they had under Soviet control - was a wonderful moment and achievement in European history. To keep their people at arms’ length seemed petty and unworthy, especially when so many of them - Poles particularly - had fought alongside us in WW2 and been betrayed at the end of that war. Something mean-spirited about Germany’s exclusion of them, I felt. If there was one area to which the Germans owed a moral debt of honour, it was to Poland and the Baltic states.

    The issue of migration - asylum-seeking and family reunions and cousin marriages in Pakistani communities - should have been dealt with much earlier and more effectively. Then it would have been easier to persuade people of the benefits of FoM. That and not coming up with such obviously bogus figures as 13,000 migrants.

    It was the sense that the government had lost control - or had deliberately abandoned all pretence of control - long before 2005 that did for the government. Hence, also, the brilliance of the “Take Back Control” slogan.
  • The ITV newsreader Alastair Stewart is stepping down from his presenting duties following “errors of judgment in Alastair’s use of social media”, ITN has said.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jan/29/alastair-stewart-quits-as-itv-presenter-over-errors-of-judgment

    I'm going with dick pics.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,229
    HYUFD said:

    Indeed Merkel said Germany introduced transition controls for 7 years even if it meant no short term boost to the economy to ensure social cohesion. Blair did not and eventually reaped the whirlwind as a diehard Remainer. When Merkel tried to get some controls on free movement for Cameron Eastern Europe vetoed it

    That sounds on the surface to be a possibly fair point.

    But on the BIG one -

    Are the first pangs of doubt stirring yet as to the impossibility of Bernie beating the Donald? Bet they are.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,486
    Hard to argue with the Goodster on this particular point!
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 62,767
    "We know that every contested nomination since 1972 has gone to a candidate that finished first, second, or third place in Iowa, then either first or second in New Hampshire. We also know that the last four Democratic nominations have gone to the winner of the Iowa caucus. Theoretically at least, that means in the next three weeks, the race should be down to two viable candidates."

    "...maybe it's time to throw out those traditional yardsticks."

    "Only a lunatic would try to predict a Democratic nominee under these circumstances and I certainly won’t. But put me down for Biden with a 50 percent chance and Bloomberg at 25 percent, with 25 percent split between Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and who the heck else."


    https://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/picture-remain-cloudy-after-iowa-and-new-hampshire
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That Blair comment is 100% wrong.

    Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).

    Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.

    The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.

    There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
    I suspect if Blair had also followed the likes of Germany and put in place a transition period, in which numbers were limited, that would have helped against such feeling.
    Indeed Merkel said Germany introduced transition controls for 7 years even if it meant no short term boost to the economy to ensure social cohesion. Blair did not and eventually reaped the whirlwind as a diehard Remainer. When Merkel tried to get some controls on free movement for Cameron Eastern Europe vetoed it
    She didn’t give a toss about social cohesion when she let in a million Syrians and others at a moment’s notice.

    Britain did not use the controls it had under EU law. Anyway all water under the bridge now.

    I do wonder if diehard Leave voters will be pleased with the increased migration from Africa Boris is promising them - https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/World/Britain-will-be-more-open-to-migrants-from-Africa/688340-5425566-a8af0vz/index.html.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Indeed Merkel said Germany introduced transition controls for 7 years even if it meant no short term boost to the economy to ensure social cohesion. Blair did not and eventually reaped the whirlwind as a diehard Remainer. When Merkel tried to get some controls on free movement for Cameron Eastern Europe vetoed it

    That sounds on the surface to be a possibly fair point.

    But on the BIG one -

    Are the first pangs of doubt stirring yet as to the impossibility of Bernie beating the Donald? Bet they are.
    Glad we agree on free movement, on Bernie no, I would not be surprised if the Donald was secretly contributing to the Sanders campaign
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,229

    I have said repeatedly that Boris is not a right wing tory, he is very much a liberal and he has not surprised me in his actions so far. I did not vote for him, and at one time I resigned my membership as a result of his action against dissenting conservatives but that changed when he re-instated most of them, and to be honest he has impressed me on the upside since the GE

    His optimistic can do attitude is infectious and is the right receipe at the present time

    Hmm, we will see. I am watching him very VERY carefully. Open mind, that's only fair, but I will be surprised - and a little disappointed too - if he does not do something utterly appalling by Easter.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That Blair comment is 100% wrong.

    Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).

    Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.

    The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.

    There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
    I suspect if Blair had also followed the likes of Germany and put in place a transition period, in which numbers were limited, that would have helped against such feeling.
    Indeed Merkel said Germany introduced transition controls for 7 years even if it meant no short term boost to the economy to ensure social cohesion. Blair did not and eventually reaped the whirlwind as a diehard Remainer. When Merkel tried to get some controls on free movement for Cameron Eastern Europe vetoed it
    She didn’t give a toss about social cohesion when she let in a million Syrians and others at a moment’s notice.

    Britain did not use the controls it had under EU law. Anyway all water under the bridge now.

    I do wonder if diehard Leave voters will be pleased with the increased migration from Africa Boris is promising them - https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/World/Britain-will-be-more-open-to-migrants-from-Africa/688340-5425566-a8af0vz/index.html.
    African migrants will have to meet the skills required under the Boris points system, just as EU migrants will, a level playing field not an open door for EU immigrants
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609

    The lesson the genius that is Verhofstadt has learnt.

    Brexit is because err.. we had too many opt-outs and opt-ins:

    https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/1222553258633441281?s=20

    Is this really what the SNP would describe as the desired political outcome to deliver "independence"?
    "We let one bastard escape our clutches. There will not be a second."
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    kinabalu said:

    I have said repeatedly that Boris is not a right wing tory, he is very much a liberal and he has not surprised me in his actions so far. I did not vote for him, and at one time I resigned my membership as a result of his action against dissenting conservatives but that changed when he re-instated most of them, and to be honest he has impressed me on the upside since the GE

    His optimistic can do attitude is infectious and is the right receipe at the present time

    Hmm, we will see. I am watching him very VERY carefully. Open mind, that's only fair, but I will be surprised - and a little disappointed too - if he does not do something utterly appalling by Easter.
    The Huawei decision seems pretty appalling to me.

    There was a pro-Uighur campaigner on the WATO today making an emotional appeal for Britain to do the moral thing (I know, the very idea!) wrt Huawei given their involvement in the surveillance and other techniques used to oppress the poor Uighurs.

    Reposting this on this topic - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/12/09/lets-talk-about-islamophobia/.
  • HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That Blair comment is 100% wrong.

    Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).

    Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.

    The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.

    There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
    I suspect if Blair had also followed the likes of Germany and put in place a transition period, in which numbers were limited, that would have helped against such feeling.
    Indeed Merkel said Germany introduced transition controls for 7 years even if it meant no short term boost to the economy to ensure social cohesion. Blair did not and eventually reaped the whirlwind as a diehard Remainer. When Merkel tried to get some controls on free movement for Cameron Eastern Europe vetoed it
    She didn’t give a toss about social cohesion when she let in a million Syrians and others at a moment’s notice.

    Britain did not use the controls it had under EU law. Anyway all water under the bridge now.

    I do wonder if diehard Leave voters will be pleased with the increased migration from Africa Boris is promising them - https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/World/Britain-will-be-more-open-to-migrants-from-Africa/688340-5425566-a8af0vz/index.html.
    African migrants will have to meet the skills required under the Boris points system, just as EU migrants will, a level playing field not an open door for EU immigrants
    I love the fanbois description of "Boris points system (sic)" as though the Great Man writes it himself. Frighteningly reminiscent of how the gullible supported despots through history.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,898
    HYUFD said:



    African migrants will have to meet the skills required under the Boris points system, just as EU migrants will, a level playing field not an open door for EU immigrants

    I'm very pleased the whole world is being treated equally and it's a positive from leaving the EU in my view.

    However, we've already heard from business calls for an opt out to allow low skilled immigration from the EU and the problem is with employment at a record high and unemployment so low where is the labour capacity to promote continued economic growth?

    Back in the 80s, we got to the point in the SE when we had full employment and the problem was workers could command their own wages - wage inflation led to price inflation and the economy collapsed into recession.

    With labour supply being restricted and Johnson determined to over-stimulate the economy, what is going to prevent capacity problems and wage-led inflation returning?

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That Blair comment is 100% wrong.

    Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).

    Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.

    The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.

    There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
    I suspect if Blair had also followed the likes of Germany and put in place a transition period, in which numbers were limited, that would have helped against such feeling.
    Indeed Merkel said Germany introduced transition controls for 7 years even if it meant no short term boost to the economy to ensure social cohesion. Blair did not and eventually reaped the whirlwind as a diehard Remainer. When Merkel tried to get some controls on free movement for Cameron Eastern Europe vetoed it
    She didn’t give a toss about social cohesion when she let in a million Syrians and others at a moment’s notice.

    Britain did not use the controls it had under EU law. Anyway all water under the bridge now.

    I do wonder if diehard Leave voters will be pleased with the increased migration from Africa Boris is promising them - https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/World/Britain-will-be-more-open-to-migrants-from-Africa/688340-5425566-a8af0vz/index.html.
    African migrants will have to meet the skills required under the Boris points system, just as EU migrants will, a level playing field not an open door for EU immigrants
    It always wryly amused me, when I was gallivanting around the Dark Continent - try and get INTO an African country without the correct visa.... You'll invariably be marched off to jail.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,229
    HYUFD said:

    African migrants will have to meet the skills required under the Boris points system, just as EU migrants will, a level playing field not an open door for EU immigrants

    Oh it's the "Boris points" system now, is it? No more Australia.

    I wonder how many Boris Points will be needed to get in here. Low bar or high bar? He has a fine line to tread on this. A liberal or a reactionary? 2 big parts of his voting coalition want opposite things.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    That Blair comment is 100% wrong.

    Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).

    Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.

    The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.

    There was, however, a big issue with asylum seekers during Blair’s premiership. The arrival of workers from the EU Accession States from 2004 onwards was the last straw, I suspect, for many people. Had Blair tackled asylum claims more effectively then the arrival of hard-working Poles etc might not have proved such a problem. By then people felt that there was simply no effective control over any form of migration into the country. FoM became the scapegoat for many of those concerns.
    I suspect if Blair had also followed the likes of Germany and put in place a transition period, in which numbers were limited, that would have helped against such feeling.
    Indeed Merkel said Germany introduced transition controls for 7 years even if it meant no short term boost to the economy to ensure social cohesion. Blair did not and eventually reaped the whirlwind as a diehard Remainer. When Merkel tried to get some controls on free movement for Cameron Eastern Europe vetoed it
    She didn’t give a toss about social cohesion when she let in a million Syrians and others at a moment’s notice.

    Britain did not use the controls it had under EU law. Anyway all water under the bridge now.

    I do wonder if diehard Leave voters will be pleased with the increased migration from Africa Boris is promising them - https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/World/Britain-will-be-more-open-to-migrants-from-Africa/688340-5425566-a8af0vz/index.html.
    African migrants will have to meet the skills required under the Boris points system, just as EU migrants will, a level playing field not an open door for EU immigrants
    Do you think the sorts of people to whom the two immigration posters during the referendum campaign were directed were primarily concerned about the migrants’ skills or possibly something else?

    After all most EU migrants were not benefit seekers, were pretty highly skilled and contributed greatly to our economy.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,153

    isam said:

    In the North East Seats at GE 2019, Labour went down by 14.31% on average, The Brexit Party got 11.65% and the Tories gained 1.85%

    Really? That seems to suggest that the popularity of Boris in that region is a myth - a massive antipathy towards Jezza was the driving factor. Once this sinks in I suspect that the Tories' currently fascination with the north will turn out to be a five-minute wonder.
    It might, but many Tories seem aware that they are not necessarily super popular in the north, which explains why they are fascinated - they know they've been given a chance to become popular if they play things right.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,318
    HYUFD said:
    Blimey! Who thought there could be so many ways of saying “They need us more than we need them.”
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,806
    Boris Points sounds like a rating system for women.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 123,148
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:



    African migrants will have to meet the skills required under the Boris points system, just as EU migrants will, a level playing field not an open door for EU immigrants

    I'm very pleased the whole world is being treated equally and it's a positive from leaving the EU in my view.

    However, we've already heard from business calls for an opt out to allow low skilled immigration from the EU and the problem is with employment at a record high and unemployment so low where is the labour capacity to promote continued economic growth?

    Back in the 80s, we got to the point in the SE when we had full employment and the problem was workers could command their own wages - wage inflation led to price inflation and the economy collapsed into recession.

    With labour supply being restricted and Johnson determined to over-stimulate the economy, what is going to prevent capacity problems and wage-led inflation returning?

    Leave won because of low skilled workers wanting higher wages in large part, big business backed Remain, Leave won
  • nunu2nunu2 Posts: 1,453
    I had a strange dream/nightmare where RLB won the leadership race because it turned out the big jump in membership was for her!
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,898

    That Blair comment is 100% wrong.

    Cameron lost narrowly despite having, compared to Blair a decade earlier, a much harder situation. There was no major UKIP surge in Blair's time. There was no migrant crisis. There was no major party leader batting for both sides (Corbyn).

    Part of the reason we ended up voting to leave was because those who might've voted either way saw that Labour was perfectly happy to promise a referendum during a campaign and then not hold one once they were safely ensconced in office.

    The actions of Blair and Brown encouraged the vote to leave. If they'd held the Lisbon Treaty referendum it would've been lost, a strong sceptical signal would've been sent, and we'd still be in the EU.

    I'm afraid you're wrong, Mr Dancer.

    Cameron's commitment was not to have an IN/OUT vote but a vote on a renegotiated membership. It was his and the EU's failure to agree a set of revised membership terms that forced Cameron into an IN/OUT vote.

    Even then, he must have thought, having won the 2015 GE against the odds, his own personal popularity would carry REMAIN over the line and for those who opposed him within his Party such as Gove and Johnson it was a huge political gamble. Had REMAIN won, their political careers would have been over and Johnson's Journeys would be a hit show on BBC2 as we follow the bumptious buffoon on his globe-trotting odyssey.

    The gamble paid off and the Conservative Party was taken over by the LEAVE brigade as Cameron and then May were effectively forced out.

    Blair's action was ancient history just as Maastricht was (and we had no referendum then with the main opposition coming from the likes of IDS in Parliament - whatever happened to him?).

    The basic problem from my perspective was no one ever made a telling case for us being in the EU - we wanted to be part of Europe but at the same time apart from Europe. In the end, we had a half-hearted half-baked semi-membership which in the end satisfied no one and annoyed everyone.

    The attitude to Europe which existed at Messina still prevails 60 years or more later.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,229
    Cyclefree said:

    The Huawei decision seems pretty appalling to me.

    There was a pro-Uighur campaigner on the WATO today making an emotional appeal for Britain to do the moral thing (I know, the very idea!) wrt Huawei given their involvement in the surveillance and other techniques used to oppress the poor Uighurs.

    Reposting this on this topic - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2019/12/09/lets-talk-about-islamophobia/.

    I'm no tech expert but I don't feel the same as you on this one. Instinctively, I feel OK with the decision not to delay our 5G rollout purely due to a fear of China.

    But I read the various posts from you and others in the opposite camp with interest.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,609
    kinabalu said:

    I have said repeatedly that Boris is not a right wing tory, he is very much a liberal and he has not surprised me in his actions so far. I did not vote for him, and at one time I resigned my membership as a result of his action against dissenting conservatives but that changed when he re-instated most of them, and to be honest he has impressed me on the upside since the GE

    His optimistic can do attitude is infectious and is the right receipe at the present time

    Hmm, we will see. I am watching him very VERY carefully. Open mind, that's only fair, but I will be surprised - and a little disappointed too - if he does not do something utterly appalling by Easter.
    "He was doing so well - right up until he shagged that Easter Bunny....."
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,806
    Apparently it was a Shakespeare quote that did for him:
    https://twitter.com/EtanSmallman/status/1222569997073113088
This discussion has been closed.