Fortunately most politicians struggle to be backed when they make outright lies, even small ones which is why most restrict themselves to obfuscation, omission and the like (obviously the present day has some major examples od exceptions), which does make it very odd when lies occur with inconsequential things.
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."
Let me put a contrary view. Much like Megxit, you cannot be half-in or half-out. In or out. There is a logic to it and it forces a country to truly understand what it is signing up to rather than deceiving itself, as so many in our political class did for so many years. And in so doing deceiving the public.
The only other choice was to have a genuine multi-speed type of EU or some form of associate membership. But it was never conceived or constructed in that way and when something approximating to that was offered it was rejected.
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.
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.
Yep. There's been the passion of regret about that ever since, or blaming media, the standing excuse as though its not possible to overcome media, but it goes back to that.
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 rns.
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.
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.
Low skilled workers were, the Boris points system will restrict low skilled immigration while still being open to needed high skilled migrants
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.
They`re a bit like Avios points - promise a lot but end up being mildly disappointing.
Surely it has to be more than that. It can't surely be one tweet, given he has used it to cut down other idiots on tw@tter and his donkeys years in public life without any similar allegations (that I am aware of).
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.
I think he`ll surprise you , he`s more of a Heseltine than a Thatcher.
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.
I think he`ll surprise you , he`s more of a Heseltine than a Thatcher.
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.
Surely it has to be more than that. It can't surely be one tweet, given he has used it to cut down other idiots on tw@tter and his donkeys years in public life without any similar allegations (that I am aware of).
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.
I think he`ll surprise you , he`s more of a Heseltine than a Thatcher.
Boris is Heseltine crossed with Berlusconi
Yes - nice - I can see that. Moderate Tory with a dash of populism.
Fortunately most politicians struggle to be backed when they make outright lies, even small ones which is why most restrict themselves to obfuscation, omission and the like (obviously the present day has some major examples od exceptions), which does make it very odd when lies occur with inconsequential things.
She doesn’t have much to offer. That’s why she has to make up stories about herself. I mean really, what does she has to offer?
Not much history in the Labour Party. And she lied about that. No history of activism outside it. A career which does not suggest any great concern for Labour issues - and she lied about that too. No bills sponsored or causes championed. Nothing memorable said. When she opens her mouth or writes articles all that comes out is vacuous drivel. She didn’t even manage to issue the repeated ritual and agonised denunciations of anti-semitism on Twitter that her rivals managed.
Other than clamp her tongue firmly to Corbyn and McDonnell’s arses, what is the evidence for any leadership skills?
Surely it has to be more than that. It can't surely be one tweet, given he has used it to cut down other idiots on tw@tter and his donkeys years in public life without any similar allegations (that I am aware of).
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.
I think he`ll surprise you , he`s more of a Heseltine than a Thatcher.
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.
80% of Leave voters are happy with levels of high skilled migration staying the same or rising but a majority of Leave voters and half of Remain voters want levels of low skilled migration cut
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.
I think he`ll surprise you , he`s more of a Heseltine than a Thatcher.
If that is the case, he's a Hezza riding an unpredictable dragon.
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.
I disagree. Any such absolute right into one nation (with a pool of tens of millions) with large wealth disparities between the two was foolhardy.
Yes, it might have been nice and emotionally feelgood for all sorts of reasons, but rational states don’t make decisions on emotion alone: they consider the practical consequences as well.
Blair failed to do so, in a not entirely dissimilar way to Merkel over 10 years later in a similarly emotionally charged situation (remember that poor dead toddler on the beach?) and we all know what happened next.
We pay and vote for our leaders on the basis they will exercise intelligent statecraft, and that’s as true now as it always will be.
Fortunately most politicians struggle to be backed when they make outright lies, even small ones which is why most restrict themselves to obfuscation, omission and the like (obviously the present day has some major examples od exceptions), which does make it very odd when lies occur with inconsequential things.
She doesn’t have much to offer. That’s why she has to make up stories about herself. I mean really, what does she has to offer?
Not much history in the Labour Party. And she lied about that. No history of activism outside it. A career which does not suggest any great concern for Labour issues - and she lied about that too. No bills sponsored or causes championed. Nothing memorable said. When she opens her mouth or writes articles all that comes out is vacuous drivel. She didn’t even manage to issue the repeated ritual and agonised denunciations of anti-semitism on Twitter that her rivals managed.
Other than clamp her tongue firmly to Corbyn and McDonnell’s arses, what is the evidence for any leadership skills?
Achievement is no longer necessary. After all, look at the most popular Labour leader ever and greatest anti-racist in history, who at the same time led Labour to terrible defeat and often relies on the 'didn't notice it/they were racist' defence.
Is there a link to the HS2 story? That's the wrong call on that I think. Sends a terrible message on return on investment and responsible use of public finances. Ah well. I wish the project well, and hope it fulfills the lofty aspirations.
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.
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.
I don’t pretend to understand all the techie aspects but I have long felt that China - in its present incarnation anyway - is not to be trusted at all, to be feared and to be supped with, with a very long spoon indeed.
We are far far too sanguine about the growth of a nasty authoritarian power with the willingness to crush the human spirit, as China is doing with its more or less permanent spying of its citizens. How can privacy exist in such a society? And if no privacy, how can freedom exist?
And if that becomes the dominant power then what are the chances of our privacy and freedoms remaining as valued as they are now (though not as much as I would like)?
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.
It was, but then it’s easy to forget that increasingly immigration levels was a policy objective of a number of influential people in Blair’s administration for both economic and political reasons. Some wanted to use it to boost the economy and ‘open’ Britain up to new industries and technologies. Others were interested in delivering something for a part of New Labour’s voting coalition (e.g. ending primary purpose) and others were interested in changing the demographics and values of the British political landscape through deliberately diversifying it.
And there was overlap between all three.
We didn’t see this just in migration. We saw it in the lopsided devolution settlement as well where Labour attempted to create an electoral system that would keep them in power in Scotland and Wales more or less permanently, and shore up their long-term dominance of UK wide governance. The idea that Blair wasn’t radical in his first term is a myth: he was; he just simply didn’t turn on the spending taps.
And here’s the thing: it kind of worked. Blair’s administration *did* succeed in rapidly diversifying the UK and liberalising its values, and making many areas more globalist and internationalist. But, he also created a backlash too - particularly in England - as a direct result of his European and immigration policy and constitutional reforms, which were felt to be tone deaf and unfair. This put us on a ever growing path to a values and political schism, which is expressed today in separatism and Brexit.
Blair is the godfather of Brexit and the nationalist zeitgeist.
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.
I think he`ll surprise you , he`s more of a Heseltine than a Thatcher.
Boris is Heseltine crossed with Berlusconi
Yes - nice - I can see that. Moderate Tory with a dash of populism.
I don’t buy this Heseltine comparison.
Heseltine seems to have been a politician with some principles and honour. And he had the honesty and courage to take on Mrs T in public when most of his colleagues were simply muttering in private and waiting for someone else to make a move.
He argued for investment in the north, not because it might have been politically expedient for him and his party, but because he believed it would have been the right thing to do.
I don’t see any of this reflected in our current PM.
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 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.
I disagree. Any such absolute right into one nation (with a pool of tens of millions) with large wealth disparities between the two was foolhardy.
Yes, it might have been nice and emotionally feelgood for all sorts of reasons, but rational states don’t make decisions on emotion alone: they consider the practical consequences as well.
Blair failed to do so, in a not entirely dissimilar way to Merkel over 10 years later in a similarly emotionally charged situation (remember that poor dead toddler on the beach?) and we all know what happened next.
We pay and vote for our leaders on the basis they will exercise intelligent statecraft, and that’s as true now as it always will be.
An endless flow of cheap labour, living far away from the people earning out of them, and a ready made accusation of racism for any of the poor from the host country who are in competition with, & so objected to the quantity of the new arrivals... seems too good to be true for any arch capitalist, and eventually, when put to a vote, it was.
I disagree. Any such absolute right into one nation (with a pool of tens of millions) with large wealth disparities between the two was foolhardy.
Yes, it might have been nice and emotionally feelgood for all sorts of reasons, but rational states don’t make decisions on emotion alone: they consider the practical consequences as well.
Blair failed to do so, in a not entirely dissimilar way to Merkel over 10 years later in a similarly emotionally charged situation (remember that poor dead toddler on the beach?) and we all know what happened next.
We pay and vote for our leaders on the basis they will exercise intelligent statecraft, and that’s as true now as it always will be.
No, the problem was the Single Market (a fine Thatcherite device) which basically allowed the people to go to where the money was as they have done throughout history.
People left the fields for the factories - they left the north of England and Scotland for London and the South East - why, because that's where the money was, the jobs were and the opportunities existed.
The Single Market empowered thousands to leave their impoverished communities and make their way to the wealth of the western European cities such as London and the Rhineland to take jobs for money the locals would not accept but was a king's ransom to the incoming migrant workers.
The total imbalance between the post-Communist economies and the prosperous western European capitalist economies made such a move of labour inevitable and that supply of labour has choked off inflation and kept interest rates low.
It has also choked off productivity and caused social tensions in many areas. Economically, it's a very good thing but on other levels less so.
Is there a link to the HS2 story? That's the wrong call on that I think. Sends a terrible message on return on investment and responsible use of public finances. Ah well. I wish the project well, and hope it fulfills the lofty aspirations.
Building a project that will last for centuries and the poorer areas business communities are crying our for is a bad use of public money?
A scheme that will deliver more benefit than it will cost in the first 50 years then will continue to deliver more and more benefit for many more decades to come?
Maybe that is what has got us into the state we are with huge swathes of the country left behind, only investing in the south east to continually make London richer whilst never investing in the lower benefit areas further to the north.
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.
I think he`ll surprise you , he`s more of a Heseltine than a Thatcher.
If that is the case, he's a Hezza riding an unpredictable dragon.
I disagree. Any such absolute right into one nation (with a pool of tens of millions) with large wealth disparities between the two was foolhardy.
Yes, it might have been nice and emotionally feelgood for all sorts of reasons, but rational states don’t make decisions on emotion alone: they consider the practical consequences as well.
Blair failed to do so, in a not entirely dissimilar way to Merkel over 10 years later in a similarly emotionally charged situation (remember that poor dead toddler on the beach?) and we all know what happened next.
We pay and vote for our leaders on the basis they will exercise intelligent statecraft, and that’s as true now as it always will be.
No, the problem was the Single Market (a fine Thatcherite device) which basically allowed the people to go to where the money was as they have done throughout history.
People left the fields for the factories - they left the north of England and Scotland for London and the South East - why, because that's where the money was, the jobs were and the opportunities existed.
The Single Market empowered thousands to leave their impoverished communities and make their way to the wealth of the western European cities such as London and the Rhineland to take jobs for money the locals would not accept but was a king's ransom to the incoming migrant workers.
The total imbalance between the post-Communist economies and the prosperous western European capitalist economies made such a move of labour inevitable and that supply of labour has choked off inflation and kept interest rates low.
It has also choked off productivity and caused social tensions in many areas. Economically, it's a very good thing but on other levels less so.
I’m not sure you’re disagreeing with me (or I with you).
Boris Points sounds like a rating system for women.
I once worked (briefly I stress) for a City consulting firm that had a "looks" policy for female recruitment. Very tacky laddy place it was, whilst coining it as anybody could back then (and probably now for that matter) if you were in the game.
Suspect our immigration policy would be similar if left in the sole charge of the Great Man.
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.
I disagree. Any such absolute right into one nation (with a pool of tens of millions) with large wealth disparities between the two was foolhardy.
Yes, it might have been nice and emotionally feelgood for all sorts of reasons, but rational states don’t make decisions on emotion alone: they consider the practical consequences as well.
Blair failed to do so, in a not entirely dissimilar way to Merkel over 10 years later in a similarly emotionally charged situation (remember that poor dead toddler on the beach?) and we all know what happened next.
We pay and vote for our leaders on the basis they will exercise intelligent statecraft, and that’s as true now as it always will be.
I think that embracing the Eastern European states into our free liberal democratic system is - or was - intelligent statecraft.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
Is there a link to the HS2 story? That's the wrong call on that I think. Sends a terrible message on return on investment and responsible use of public finances. Ah well. I wish the project well, and hope it fulfills the lofty aspirations.
Building a project that will last for centuries and the poorer areas business communities are crying our for is a bad use of public money?
A scheme that will deliver more benefit than it will cost in the first 50 years then will continue to deliver more and more benefit for many more decades to come?
Maybe that is what has got us into the state we are with huge swathes of the country left behind, only investing in the south east to continually make London richer whilst never investing in the lower benefit areas further to the north.
It spreads the wealth and power of london and will do the same for Leeds Sheffield and Manchester.
I don’t pretend to understand all the techie aspects but I have long felt that China - in its present incarnation anyway - is not to be trusted at all, to be feared and to be supped with, with a very long spoon indeed.
We are far far too sanguine about the growth of a nasty authoritarian power with the willingness to crush the human spirit, as China is doing with its more or less permanent spying of its citizens. How can privacy exist in such a society? And if no privacy, how can freedom exist?
And if that becomes the dominant power then what are the chances of our privacy and freedoms remaining as valued as they are now (though not as much as I would like)?
We forget how rare freedom and liberalism is, historically. I think a lot of us also tend to act as though history is constant journey from barbarism to enlightenment, and that other places must get enlightened as we see ourselves at some point, and we cannot possibly backslide, when of course they might not and we could.
So while seeing the immediate or at least inevitable downfall of western civilization in this sort of news would no doubt be an overreaction, it doesn't mean those general fears might not be borne out.
Is there a link to the HS2 story? That's the wrong call on that I think. Sends a terrible message on return on investment and responsible use of public finances. Ah well. I wish the project well, and hope it fulfills the lofty aspirations.
Building a project that will last for centuries and the poorer areas business communities are crying our for is a bad use of public money?
A scheme that will deliver more benefit than it will cost in the first 50 years then will continue to deliver more and more benefit for many more decades to come?
Maybe that is what has got us into the state we are with huge swathes of the country left behind, only investing in the south east to continually make London richer whilst never investing in the lower benefit areas further to the north.
I disagree. Any such absolute right into one nation (with a pool of tens of millions) with large wealth disparities between the two was foolhardy.
Yes, it might have been nice and emotionally feelgood for all sorts of reasons, but rational states don’t make decisions on emotion alone: they consider the practical consequences as well.
Blair failed to do so, in a not entirely dissimilar way to Merkel over 10 years later in a similarly emotionally charged situation (remember that poor dead toddler on the beach?) and we all know what happened next.
We pay and vote for our leaders on the basis they will exercise intelligent statecraft, and that’s as true now as it always will be.
No, the problem was the Single Market (a fine Thatcherite device) which basically allowed the people to go to where the money was as they have done throughout history.
People left the fields for the factories - they left the north of England and Scotland for London and the South East - why, because that's where the money was, the jobs were and the opportunities existed.
The Single Market empowered thousands to leave their impoverished communities and make their way to the wealth of the western European cities such as London and the Rhineland to take jobs for money the locals would not accept but was a king's ransom to the incoming migrant workers.
The total imbalance between the post-Communist economies and the prosperous western European capitalist economies made such a move of labour inevitable and that supply of labour has choked off inflation and kept interest rates low.
It has also choked off productivity and caused social tensions in many areas. Economically, it's a very good thing but on other levels less so.
I’m not sure you’re disagreeing with me (or I with you).
You are both right!
I thought asymmetric devolution would lead to pressure for an English Parliament ( not any ridiculous “regional” nonsense artificially carving England up), but I think the pressure found its way to the surface as part of Brexit. Non metropolitan England was taken for granted whilst others were told they were special. Non metropolitan England decided to have its say after all.
(The denial of a Lisbon vote was, as an individual act, monumentally idiotic though).
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.
I disagree. Any such absolute right into one nation (with a pool of tens of millions) with large wealth disparities between the two was foolhardy.
Yes, it might have been nice and emotionally feelgood for all sorts of reasons, but rational states don’t make decisions on emotion alone: they consider the practical consequences as well.
Blair failed to do so, in a not entirely dissimilar way to Merkel over 10 years later in a similarly emotionally charged situation (remember that poor dead toddler on the beach?) and we all know what happened next.
We pay and vote for our leaders on the basis they will exercise intelligent statecraft, and that’s as true now as it always will be.
I think that embracing the Eastern European states into our free liberal democratic system is - or was - intelligent statecraft.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I hear a lot about “the tools the UK had as an EU member to control immigration, but didn’t choose to use” now. I don’t recall hearing a bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
Is there a link to the HS2 story? That's the wrong call on that I think. Sends a terrible message on return on investment and responsible use of public finances. Ah well. I wish the project well, and hope it fulfills the lofty aspirations.
Building a project that will last for centuries and the poorer areas business communities are crying our for is a bad use of public money?
A scheme that will deliver more benefit than it will cost in the first 50 years then will continue to deliver more and more benefit for many more decades to come?
Maybe that is what has got us into the state we are with huge swathes of the country left behind, only investing in the south east to continually make London richer whilst never investing in the lower benefit areas further to the north.
Thanks. I don't agree.
Indeed
And unfortunately historically in this country those who disagree with the will of the business community and politicians of the north have had far too much power and influence over decisions that affect those in the north.
Hopefully this is a sign that is all about to change and those based in the south who oppose any sort of investment in the north start to lose that influence and the re-balancing can take affect, as was promised during the election.
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.
I disagree. Any such absolute right into one nation (with a pool of tens of millions) with large wealth disparities between the two was foolhardy.
Yes, it might have been nice and emotionally feelgood for all sorts of reasons, but rational states don’t make decisions on emotion alone: they consider the practical consequences as well.
Blair failed to do so, in a not entirely dissimilar way to Merkel over 10 years later in a similarly emotionally charged situation (remember that poor dead toddler on the beach?) and we all know what happened next.
We pay and vote for our leaders on the basis they will exercise intelligent statecraft, and that’s as true now as it always will be.
I think that embracing the Eastern European states into our free liberal democratic system is - or was - intelligent statecraft.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I hear a lot about “the tools the UK had as an EU member to control immigration, but didn’t choose to use” now. I don’t recall hearing a bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
Non universal benefits, so child benefit was not paid for children living in Poland.
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.
I disagree. Any such absolute right into one nation (with a pool of tens of millions) with large wealth disparities between the two was foolhardy.
Yes, it might have been nice and emotionally feelgood for all sorts of reasons, but rational states don’t make decisions on emotion alone: they consider the practical consequences as well.
Blair failed to do so, in a not entirely dissimilar way to Merkel over 10 years later in a similarly emotionally charged situation (remember that poor dead toddler on the beach?) and we all know what happened next.
We pay and vote for our leaders on the basis they will exercise intelligent statecraft, and that’s as true now as it always will be.
I think that embracing the Eastern European states into our free liberal democratic system is - or was - intelligent statecraft.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I hear a lot about “the tools the UK had as an EU member to control immigration, but didn’t choose to use” now. I don’t recall hearing a bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
I’d need to look them up. So later.
I don’t think the Blair government had any intention of keeping to a 100k immigration target. Do you mean the Cameron government?
Is there a link to the HS2 story? That's the wrong call on that I think. Sends a terrible message on return on investment and responsible use of public finances. Ah well. I wish the project well, and hope it fulfills the lofty aspirations.
Building a project that will last for centuries and the poorer areas business communities are crying our for is a bad use of public money?
A scheme that will deliver more benefit than it will cost in the first 50 years then will continue to deliver more and more benefit for many more decades to come?
Maybe that is what has got us into the state we are with huge swathes of the country left behind, only investing in the south east to continually make London richer whilst never investing in the lower benefit areas further to the north.
It spreads the wealth and power of london and will do the same for Leeds Sheffield and Manchester.
Which is why the scheme is so broadly supported in the north and opposed in the south.
Is there a link to the HS2 story? That's the wrong call on that I think. Sends a terrible message on return on investment and responsible use of public finances. Ah well. I wish the project well, and hope it fulfills the lofty aspirations.
Building a project that will last for centuries and the poorer areas business communities are crying our for is a bad use of public money?
A scheme that will deliver more benefit than it will cost in the first 50 years then will continue to deliver more and more benefit for many more decades to come?
Maybe that is what has got us into the state we are with huge swathes of the country left behind, only investing in the south east to continually make London richer whilst never investing in the lower benefit areas further to the north.
It spreads the wealth and power of london and will do the same for Leeds Sheffield and Manchester.
Which is why the scheme is so broadly supported in the north and opposed in the south.
Are you sure it doesn't just suck it all in to London? Remember the basis upon which infrastructure spending has so far rested. Surely those billions have more likely been invested to keep the flow of humanity southwards?
It probably doesn’t need saying but Brexit is now basically 100% inevitable following that EU Parliament vote.
I suppose in theory Boris could choose to unilaterally revoke all the way to 10:59:59 on Friday night, assuming A50 doesn’t legally complete in full tomorrow, but that’s a million to one shot and would depend on his mind and body being possessed by an outside entity.
I’m not sure you’re disagreeing with me (or I with you).
You are, I think, blaming Blair - I think the root cause was much further back with the response to the events of 1989 and as I see it the recognition among the richer western European nations there was a pool of cheap labour now on their eastern border.
Bringing that labour into the west not only enriched the west but it also tied the former Communist states into the western capitalist structure. Had we shut the door to the East European workers we might have seen political instability continue to our east.
Is there a link to the HS2 story? That's the wrong call on that I think. Sends a terrible message on return on investment and responsible use of public finances. Ah well. I wish the project well, and hope it fulfills the lofty aspirations.
Building a project that will last for centuries and the poorer areas business communities are crying our for is a bad use of public money?
A scheme that will deliver more benefit than it will cost in the first 50 years then will continue to deliver more and more benefit for many more decades to come?
Maybe that is what has got us into the state we are with huge swathes of the country left behind, only investing in the south east to continually make London richer whilst never investing in the lower benefit areas further to the north.
It spreads the wealth and power of london and will do the same for Leeds Sheffield and Manchester.
Which is why the scheme is so broadly supported in the north and opposed in the south.
Are you sure it doesn't just suck it all in to London? Remember the basis upon which infrastructure spending has so far rested upon. Surely those billions have more likely been invested to keep the flow of humanity southwards?
Well those businesses based in the north don't think so.
Presumably you think you know better ?
All those large employers in the north who signed this letter must be wrong...
It probably doesn’t need saying but Brexit is now basically 100% inevitable following that EU Parliament vote.
I suppose in theory Boris could choose to unilaterally revoke all the way to 10:59:59 on Friday night, assuming A50 doesn’t legally complete in full tomorrow, but that’s a million to one shot and would depend on his mind and body being possessed by an outside entity.
Even now, A C Grayling is invoking the devil to achieve just that.
I’m not sure you’re disagreeing with me (or I with you).
You are, I think, blaming Blair - I think the root cause was much further back with the response to the events of 1989 and as I see it the recognition among the richer western European nations there was a pool of cheap labour now on their eastern border.
Bringing that labour into the west not only enriched the west but it also tied the former Communist states into the western capitalist structure. Had we shut the door to the East European workers we might have seen political instability continue to our east.
Root cause in principle, perhaps, but it worked politically and pragmatically because there was never enough free movement between the Western European states and the UK for it to become a decisive political issue.
That changed with the admission of the Eastern European states, and Blair’s decision (with Eire) to be the only 2 x EU members to grant them full rights on day one.
That was a policy decision of his.
I think this is an occasion where Germany got it right, with a seven year transition, and we got it wrong. Had we done that I doubt that the migration would have been anything like on the same scale, and might have been accepted.
I’m not sure you’re disagreeing with me (or I with you).
You are, I think, blaming Blair - I think the root cause was much further back with the response to the events of 1989 and as I see it the recognition among the richer western European nations there was a pool of cheap labour now on their eastern border.
Bringing that labour into the west not only enriched the west but it also tied the former Communist states into the western capitalist structure. Had we shut the door to the East European workers we might have seen political instability continue to our east.
Mrs T and others on the right supported EU membership for Eastern Europe in large part because they thought it would hinder and delay deepening the integration of the core EU nations and because they saw potential allies among the candidate members for their primarily economic view of how the Union should evolve.
With some clever phrasing of the Euro the EU essentially called the UK’s bluff, incorporating the eastern bloc whilst simultaneously pressing ahead with ever closer union.
It probably doesn’t need saying but Brexit is now basically 100% inevitable following that EU Parliament vote.
I suppose in theory Boris could choose to unilaterally revoke all the way to 10:59:59 on Friday night, assuming A50 doesn’t legally complete in full tomorrow, but that’s a million to one shot and would depend on his mind and body being possessed by an outside entity.
According to Lord Adonis it is only half time in the Battle of Brexit.
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.
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 did float the other day the notion that we are not Remainers and Leavers but rather it's an internal tension between the 2 sides of each and every one of us. Thus Leavers are also Remainy to varying degrees and even the archest Remainer has a "bit of Leave" in there.
But the chap pictured is causing a rethink.
Can't see much Remain there. He looks ALL Leave. Looks pure. 100%.
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.
I disagree. Any such absolute right into one nation (with a pool of tens of millions) with large wealth disparities between the two was foolhardy.
Yes, it might have been nice and emotionally feelgood for all sorts of reasons, but rational states don’t make decisions on emotion alone: they consider the practical consequences as well.
Blair failed to do so, in a not entirely dissimilar way to Merkel over 10 years later in a similarly emotionally charged situation (remember that poor dead toddler on the beach?) and we all know what happened next.
We pay and vote for our leaders on the basis they will exercise intelligent statecraft, and that’s as true now as it always will be.
I think that embracing the Eastern European states into our free liberal democratic system is - or was - intelligent statecraft.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I hear a lot about “the tools the UK had as an EU member to control immigration, but didn’t choose to use” now. I don’t recall hearing a bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
I’d need to look them up. So later.
I don’t think the Blair government had any intention of keeping to a 100k immigration target. Do you mean the Cameron government?
Yup, the Cameron Government.
I’m really referring to the 2012-2016 period when the dog really was barking at the door, it was government policy (unlike under Blair) and Cameron was explaining he heard the message and saying he’d do/get what Britain needs.
Blair failed to do so, in a not entirely dissimilar way to Merkel over 10 years later in a similarly emotionally charged situation (remember that poor dead toddler on the beach?) and we all know what happened next.
We pay and vote for our leaders on the basis they will exercise intelligent statecraft, and that’s as true now as it always will be.
I think that embracing the Eastern European states into our free liberal democratic system is - or was - intelligent statecraft.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I hear a lot about “the tools the UK had as an EU member to control immigration, but didn’t choose to use” now. I don’t recall hearing a bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
These are the policy levers available under EU law:-
1. For stays of over three months: EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. Was this ever enforced?
2. The right of permanent residence is lost in the event of more than two successive years’ absence from the host Member State. Again, how did we keep track of this?
3. Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence: Union citizens or members of their family may be expelled from the host Member State on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.
4. Member States were entitled to take the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any EU right conferred in the event of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience.
I’m not aware of any government taking any sort of effective steps to implement these measures. Whether they would have made enough of a difference, who can say?
I did float the other day the notion that we are not Remainers and Leavers but rather it's an internal tension between the 2 sides of each and every one of us. Thus Leavers are also Remainy to varying degrees and even the archest Remainer has a "bit of Leave" in there.
But the chap pictured is causing a rethink.
Can't see much Remain there. He looks ALL Leave. Looks pure. 100%.
He's 1% Remain - he just realized that his scalp wax is Italian and may be subject to import tariffs in the future...
= Joke, = innuendo, ... = just consider that for one minute
Fucking hell. You were actually serious.
Doesn’t matter what the result is. Labour is officially dead.
Rayner will marmalise him.
Developing the affiliate nominations comment further, if I'm not mistaken they are now at a practical conclusion. The big 4 unions that alone can carry a candidate to 5% affiliate base have all nominated and their nominees have all made it to the ballot.
Allin-Khan, Murray, Butler and Thornberry can only make the ballot papers via CLPs. To be fair the 5% threshold gives them all a chance, nobody has fallen badly below that mark yet, Allin-Khan and Thornberry lag on 4/98.
I think that embracing the Eastern European states into our free liberal democratic system is - or was - intelligent statecraft.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I hear a lot about “the tools the UK had as an EU member to control immigration, but didn’t choose to use” now. I don’t recall hearing a bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
Non universal benefits, so child benefit was not paid for children living in Poland.
If that’s the answer, it’s a pretty weak one.
It was our strong currency and high wages, plus the English language, and company habits of recruiting directly in places like Poland, that drove the fundamentals of mass immigration.
What real deterrent would it have been in reducing immigration numbers to shave off £30 off a pay packet per week, before it was converted and repatriated back to Poland? And many of these migrants workers were young and single, and had no partners let alone children.
It might have made some difference at the margins (economic incentives always do) but we’d be talking something like knocking 20-30k net migrants off a figure of 300-350k (gross).
We still wouldn’t have had an emergency break, transitional or sectoral controls, or caps by visa, salary or qualification.
So, please forgive me if I’m a little sceptical of the ‘we had the tools, but chose not to use them’ argument.
It probably doesn’t need saying but Brexit is now basically 100% inevitable following that EU Parliament vote.
I suppose in theory Boris could choose to unilaterally revoke all the way to 10:59:59 on Friday night, assuming A50 doesn’t legally complete in full tomorrow, but that’s a million to one shot and would depend on his mind and body being possessed by an outside entity.
It probably doesn’t need saying but Brexit is now basically 100% inevitable following that EU Parliament vote.
I suppose in theory Boris could choose to unilaterally revoke all the way to 10:59:59 on Friday night, assuming A50 doesn’t legally complete in full tomorrow, but that’s a million to one shot and would depend on his mind and body being possessed by an outside entity.
Even now, A C Grayling is invoking the devil to achieve just that.
I notice the ultra Remainers have some stupid "Brexit not in my name" petition thing. It is getting really pathetic how people now appear to start this nonsense over every democratic decision they don't like.
Yet again more sensationalist reporting and lazy exaggeration by the BBC hacks, quoting the set budget figure in 2015 prices and comparing it to a worst-case scenario in 2019 prices.
The P95 figure adjusted to 2019 prices is £62bn.
Oakervee's very worst case scenario is £106bn in 2019 prices - a 71% increase on the budget used since 2013. Nothing like a doubling (which would be £124bn).
Turning to the BCR, the full phase 1 & 2 of HS2 as a whole was expected to return £142.6bn in benefits over 60 years (ratio 2.3 to 1 based on a £62bn cost). If the final cost does rise to £106bn then the BCR might fall as far down as 1.35 to 1. Based on Allan Cook's worst case scenario of £88bn (2019 prices) the BCR is 1.66 to 1.
Yet as has been shown in the past, the standard BCR formula is a very imperfect tool. It cannot capture the full range of positive benefits to the UK economy that a well chosen infrastructure investment can kick start. This paragraph from the National Infrastructure Commission's 2016 report discussing Crossrail 2 also applies very well to HS2.
"As currently assessed, the BCR for Crossrail 2 is not high. One reason for this is that the standard (Transport Appraisal Guidance) forecasting and appraisal approach explicitly does not allow for any consideration of one of Crossrail 2’s key design objectives, which is to open up land (in the Upper Lea Valley in particular) for large scale housing development. The BCR is based on with and without scheme case in which land use is assumed to be unchanged. This is the same short-coming that led to ex-ante assessments of the Jubilee Line Extension having a weak BCR, a situation which materially changed when it came to ex-post assessments.
A Transport Appraisal Guidance compliant approach to the case development also places a cap on demand growth which is likely to underestimate the benefits of interventions and may lead to the under-provision of rail services. In the absence of any empirical evidence regarding the likely trajectory of long term demand and benefits, a range of alternative methods for considering long term demand and benefits growth should be considered. Ignoring projected demographic growth after an arbitrary cut-off date would seem unwise. "
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.
I disagree. Any such absolute right into one nation (with a pool of tens of millions) with large wealth disparities between the two was foolhardy.
Yes, it might have been nice and emotionally feelgood for all sorts of reasons, but rational states don’t make decisions on emotion alone: they consider the practical consequences as well.
Blair failed to do so, in a not entirely dissimilar way to Merkel over 10 years later in a similarly emotionally charged situation (remember that poor dead toddler on the beach?) and we all know what happened next.
We pay and vote for our leaders on the basis they will exercise intelligent statecraft, and that’s as true now as it always will be.
I think that embracing the Eastern European states into our free liberal democratic system is - or was - intelligent statecraft.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I hear a lot about “the tools the UK had as an EU member to control immigration, but didn’t choose to use” now. I don’t recall hearing a bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
I think that embracing the Eastern European states into our free liberal democratic system is - or was - intelligent statecraft.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I hear a lot about “the tools the UK had as an EU member to control immigration, but didn’t choose to use” now. I don’t recall hearing a bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
I’d need to look them up. So later.
I don’t think the Blair government had any intention of keeping to a 100k immigration target. Do you mean the Cameron government?
Yup, the Cameron Government.
I’m really referring to the 2012-2016 period when the dog really was barking at the door, it was government policy (unlike under Blair) and Cameron was explaining he heard the message and saying he’d do/get what Britain needs.
See my answer up thread.
My view is that by 2012 it was pretty much too late. Look at the increase in immigration from 1997 to 2012. Only some of that is attributable to Eastern European states.
Given that FoM was a given since Maastricht, any government serious about controlling migration should have focused on non-EU migration. But governments were not serious about this or, as you have described, actively encouraged such migration.
So the only lever left to voters was to stop FoM ..... and here we are.
I think that embracing the Eastern European states into our free liberal democratic system is - or was - intelligent statecraft.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I hear a lot about “the tools the UK had as an EU member to control immigration, but didn’t choose to use” now. I don’t recall hearing a bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
Non universal benefits, so child benefit was not paid for children living in Poland.
If that’s the answer, it’s a pretty weak one.
It was our strong currency and high wages, plus the English language, and company habits of recruiting directly in places like Poland, that drove the fundamentals of mass immigration.
What real deterrent would it have been in reducing immigration numbers to shave off £30 off a pay packet per week, before it was converted and repatriated back to Poland? And many of these migrants workers were young and single, and had no partners let alone children.
It might have made some difference at the margins (economic incentives always do) but we’d be talking something like knocking 20-30k net migrants off a figure of 300-350k (gross).
We still wouldn’t have had an emergency break, transitional or sectoral controls, or caps by visa, salary or qualification.
So, please forgive me if I’m a little sceptical of the ‘we had the tools, but chose not to use them’ argument.
There is a confusion about what Cameron tried to get in his renegotiation and about what was always legally permissible under EU law. See my earlier answer.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I ?
These are the policy levers available under EU law:-
1. For stays of over three months: EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. Was this ever enforced?
2. The right of permanent residence is lost in the event of more than two successive years’ absence from the host Member State. Again, how did we keep track of this?
3. Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence: Union citizens or members of their family may be expelled from the host Member State on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.
4. Member States were entitled to take the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any EU right conferred in the event of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience.
I’m not aware of any government taking any sort of effective steps to implement these measures. Whether they would have made enough of a difference, who can say?
Thanks, that’s a better answer.
However, the only one that really impresses me there (in terms of having a prospect of making a meaningful impact on the underlining political challenge) is (1).
(2) was and is enforced by the UK through application for permanent residence - I know because my wife went through it, and her friend lost out for precisely that reason; she’s now in Germany having reset the clock. (3) Yes, but there’s a fairly high test for that and it’d be definition be highly selective and restricted to a few individuals, who’d have appeal rights under Union law and (4) is normal criminal abuse of laws that exist under any domestic system or international treaty.
So that really does leave us with (1), and our non-contributory benefits and healthcare system. Maybe we could have phoned and checked around more with closer entry checks, but I doubt there were many who’d be a burden and they might have been able to argue they weren’t because their dependents were back home.
It’s also worth noting that what restrictions Cameron did achieve on repatriating child welfare claims had to be carefully negotiated with the EU27 in his Deal, so it was far from a unilateral right.
I think that embracing the Eastern European states into our free liberal democratic system is - or was - intelligent statecraft.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I hear a lot about “the tools the UK had as an EU member to control immigration, but didn’t choose to use” now. I don’t recall hearing a bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
I’d need to look them up. So later.
I don’t think the Blair government had any intention of keeping to a 100k immigration target. Do you mean the Cameron government?
Yup, the Cameron Government.
I’m really referring to the 2012-2016 period when the dog really was barking at the door, it was government policy (unlike under Blair) and Cameron was explaining he heard the message and saying he’d do/get what Britain needs.
See my answer up thread.
My view is that by 2012 it was pretty much too late. Look at the increase in immigration from 1997 to 2012. Only some of that is attributable to Eastern European states.
Given that FoM was a given since Maastricht, any government serious about controlling migration should have focused on non-EU migration. But governments were not serious about this or, as you have described, actively encouraged such migration.
So the only lever left to voters was to stop FoM ..... and here we are.
Free movement of labour, not freedom of movement.. There were mechanisms we could have brought in. But are largely incompatible with the kind of society we are. Papiere, Bitte was not us, but weve eventually moved that way to cope with the criminality that have followed this mass movement.
I’m not sure you’re disagreeing with me (or I with you).
You are, I think, blaming Blair - I think the root cause was much further back with the response to the events of 1989 and as I see it the recognition among the richer western European nations there was a pool of cheap labour now on their eastern border.
Bringing that labour into the west not only enriched the west but it also tied the former Communist states into the western capitalist structure. Had we shut the door to the East European workers we might have seen political instability continue to our east.
Root cause in principle, perhaps, but it worked politically and pragmatically because there was never enough free movement between the Western European states and the UK for it to become a decisive political issue.
That changed with the admission of the Eastern European states, and Blair’s decision (with Eire) to be the only 2 x EU members to grant them full rights on day one.
That was a policy decision of his.
I think this is an occasion where Germany got it right, with a seven year transition, and we got it wrong. Had we done that I doubt that the migration would have been anything like on the same scale, and might have been accepted.
German unemployment rate 2004 10% and increasing, UK 5% and falling.
Blair failed to do so, in a not entirely dissimilar way to Merkel over 10 years later in a similarly emotionally charged situation (remember that poor dead toddler on the beach?) and we all know what happened next.
We pay and vote for our leaders on the basis they will exercise intelligent statecraft, and that’s as true now as it always will be.
I think that embracing the Eastern European states into our free liberal democratic system is - or was - intelligent statecraft.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I hear a lot about “the tools the UK had as an EU member to control immigration, but didn’t choose to use” now. I don’t recall hearing a bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
These are the policy levers available under EU law:-
1. For stays of over three months: EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. Was this ever enforced?
2. The right of permanent residence is lost in the event of more than two successive years’ absence from the host Member State. Again, how did we keep track of this?
3. Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence: Union citizens or members of their family may be expelled from the host Member State on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.
4. Member States were entitled to take the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any EU right conferred in the event of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience.
I’m not aware of any government taking any sort of effective steps to implement these measures. Whether they would have made enough of a difference, who can say?
We just didnt enforce. We didnt have the infrastructure or will to do so.
= Joke, = innuendo, ... = just consider that for one minute
Fucking hell. You were actually serious.
Doesn’t matter what the result is. Labour is officially dead.
Rayner will marmalise him.
Indeed, the utter humiliation of Burgon in the members ballot is something to look forward to.
Moreover, the fact that many of the hard left ultras are still nominating the hopeless Burgon with Long-Bailey will I think have the welcome practical effect of pushing Rayner away from them politically. What was billed as an alliance between Long-Bailey and Rayner has been shown to be nothing of the sort.
If that manifests itself in Starmer and Rayner forming a fairly united leadership team, able to unite the bulk of the party against the factionalists, it will matter a lot, not least in the battles to come within the NEC.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I hear a lot about “the tools the UK had as an EU member to control immigration, but didn’t choose to use” now. I don’t recall hearing a bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
Non universal benefits, so child benefit was not paid for children living in Poland.
If that’s the answer, it’s a pretty weak one.
It was our strong currency and high wages, plus the English language, and company habits of recruiting directly in places like Poland, that drove the fundamentals of mass immigration.
What real deterrent would it have been in reducing immigration numbers to shave off £30 off a pay packet per week, before it was converted and repatriated back to Poland? And many of these migrants workers were young and single, and had no partners let alone children.
It might have made some difference at the margins (economic incentives always do) but we’d be talking something like knocking 20-30k net migrants off a figure of 300-350k (gross).
We still wouldn’t have had an emergency break, transitional or sectoral controls, or caps by visa, salary or qualification.
So, please forgive me if I’m a little sceptical of the ‘we had the tools, but chose not to use them’ argument.
There is a confusion about what Cameron tried to get in his renegotiation and about what was always legally permissible under EU law. See my earlier answer.
Thanks, I’ve seen your answer.
I’m afraid I’m not seeing how it makes the point I presume you’re arguing it does?
It probably doesn’t need saying but Brexit is now basically 100% inevitable following that EU Parliament vote.
I suppose in theory Boris could choose to unilaterally revoke all the way to 10:59:59 on Friday night, assuming A50 doesn’t legally complete in full tomorrow, but that’s a million to one shot and would depend on his mind and body being possessed by an outside entity.
Even now, A C Grayling is invoking the devil to achieve just that.
It probably doesn’t need saying but Brexit is now basically 100% inevitable following that EU Parliament vote.
I suppose in theory Boris could choose to unilaterally revoke all the way to 10:59:59 on Friday night, assuming A50 doesn’t legally complete in full tomorrow, but that’s a million to one shot and would depend on his mind and body being possessed by an outside entity.
Even now, A C Grayling is invoking the devil to achieve just that.
I think he’s known as Jolyon Maugham QC.
I notice Jolyon hasn't posted on the tw@tter since the curious incident of the dog fox in the night.
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.
I think he`ll surprise you , he`s more of a Heseltine than a Thatcher.
Boris is Heseltine crossed with Berlusconi
Yes - nice - I can see that. Moderate Tory with a dash of populism.
I don’t buy this Heseltine comparison.
Heseltine seems to have been a politician with some principles and honour. And he had the honesty and courage to take on Mrs T in public when most of his colleagues were simply muttering in private and waiting for someone else to make a move.
He argued for investment in the north, not because it might have been politically expedient for him and his party, but because he believed it would have been the right thing to do.
I don’t see any of this reflected in our current PM.
Blair failed to do so, in a not entirely dissimilar way to Merkel over 10 years later in a similarly emotionally charged situation (remember that poor dead toddler on the beach?) and we all know what happened next.
We pay and vote for our leaders on the basis they will exercise intelligent statecraft, and that’s as true now as it always will be.
I think that embracing the Eastern European states into our free liberal democratic system is - or was - intelligent statecraft.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I hear a lot about “the tools the UK had as an EU member to control immigration, but didn’t choose to use” now. I don’t recall hearing a bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
2. The right of permanent residence is lost in the event of more than two successive years’ absence from the host Member State. Again, how did we keep track of this?
3. Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence: Union citizens or members of their family may be expelled from the host Member State on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.
4. Member States were entitled to take the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any EU right conferred in the event of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience.
I’m not aware of any government taking any sort of effective steps to implement these measures. Whether they would have made enough of a difference, who can say?
We just didnt enforce. We didnt have the infrastructure or will to do so.
And, it wouldn’t have made much difference, still less *the* difference. Which is precisely my point.
I’ve gone on record on here, many times in the past, and even before the vote, that the one thing that probably would have done it would have been a 7-year or permanent emergency break on the full right, negotiated with the EU.
= Joke, = innuendo, ... = just consider that for one minute
Fucking hell. You were actually serious.
Doesn’t matter what the result is. Labour is officially dead.
Rayner will marmalise him.
Indeed, the utter humiliation of Burgon in the members ballot is something to look forward to.
Moreover, the fact that many of the hard left ultras are still nominating the hopeless Burgon with Long-Bailey will I think have the welcome practical effect of pushing Rayner away from them politically. What was billed as an alliance between Long-Bailey and Rayner has been shown to be nothing of the sort.
If that manifests itself in Starmer and Rayner forming a fairly united leadership team, able to unite the bulk of the party against the factionalists, it will matter a lot, not least in the battles to come within the NEC.
One of the great pleasures of PB is seeing different aspects of posters opinion and re-appraising other posters. I've enjoyed your Labour party commentary these last few weeks, having had you down as a cartoon hard Brexiteer previously.
I remember a similar waryness of Big G as a dry-as-a-bone Tory a few years back and then walking to his Brexit line which has been a similar respect but not charge blanche wobbly line to mine.
I hear a lot about “the tools the UK had as an EU member to control immigration, but didn’t choose to use” now. I don’t recall hearing a bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
2. The right of permanent residence is lost in the event of more than two successive years’ absence from the host Member State. Again, how did we keep track of this?
3. Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence: Union citizens or members of their family may be expelled from the host Member State on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.
4. Member States were entitled to take the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any EU right conferred in the event of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience.
I’m not aware of any government taking any sort of effective steps to implement these measures. Whether they would have made enough of a difference, who can say?
We just didnt enforce. We didnt have the infrastructure or will to do so.
And, it wouldn’t have made much difference, still less *the* difference. Which is precisely my point.
I’ve gone on record on here, many times in the past, and even before the vote, that the one thing that probably would have done it would have been a 7-year or permanent emergency break on the full right, negotiated with the EU.
But, no tango tango; so Brexit.
Your question was what the levers were and I’ve told you. All in the past now as to what difference it might have made.
I doubt that those hugely concerned by immigration will find their concerns seriously addressed even after Brexit. But let’s see.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I hear a lot about “the tools the UK had as an EU member to control immigration, but didn’t choose to use” now. I don’t recall hearing a bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
Non universal benefits, so child benefit was not paid for children living in Poland.
If that’s the answer, it’s a pretty weak one.
It was our strong currency and high wages, plus the English language, and company habits of recruiting directly in places like Poland, that drove the fundamentals of mass immigration.
What real deterrent would it have been in reducing immigration numbers to shave off £30 off a pay packet per week, before it was converted and repatriated back to Poland? And many of these migrants workers were young and single, and had no partners let alone children.
It might have made some difference at the margins (economic incentives always do) but we’d be talking something like knocking 20-30k net migrants off a figure of 300-350k (gross).
We still wouldn’t have had an emergency break, transitional or sectoral controls, or caps by visa, salary or qualification.
So, please forgive me if I’m a little sceptical of the ‘we had the tools, but chose not to use them’ argument.
There is a confusion about what Cameron tried to get in his renegotiation and about what was always legally permissible under EU law. See my earlier answer.
Thanks, I’ve seen your answer.
I’m afraid I’m not seeing how it makes the point I presume you’re arguing it does?
I answered your factual question about what levers EU states had to control FoM.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
I hear a lot about “the tools the UK had as an EU member to control immigration, but didn’t choose to use” now. I don’t recall hearing a bean about them at time, which is odd given the Government of the day had a 100k net migration target and was firmly clamping down with caps on non EU migration.
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
Non universal benefits, so child benefit was not paid for children living in Poland.
If that’s the answer
We still wouldn’t have had an emergency break, transitional or sectoral controls, or caps by visa, salary or qualification.
So, please forgive me if I’m a little sceptical of the ‘we had the tools, but chose not to use them’ argument.
There is a confusion about what Cameron tried to get in his renegotiation and about what was always legally permissible under EU law. See my earlier answer.
Thanks, I’ve seen your answer.
I’m afraid I’m not seeing how it makes the point I presume you’re arguing it does?
I answered your factual question about what levers EU states had to control FoM.
Fair enough but my point was it didn't and doesn’t represent real meaningful control. At best it’s peripheral tweaking. That’s my contention as there wasn’t some magic power we chose not to use: it was a fundamental part of EU membership they weren’t willing to compromise on, even with the prospect of a Brexit at the door.
I’ll have to leave it there too as I need to put my daughter to bed.
I did float the other day the notion that we are not Remainers and Leavers but rather it's an internal tension between the 2 sides of each and every one of us. Thus Leavers are also Remainy to varying degrees and even the archest Remainer has a "bit of Leave" in there.
But the chap pictured is causing a rethink.
Can't see much Remain there. He looks ALL Leave. Looks pure. 100%.
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.
I think he`ll surprise you , he`s more of a Heseltine than a Thatcher.
Boris is Heseltine crossed with Berlusconi
Yes - nice - I can see that. Moderate Tory with a dash of populism.
I don’t buy this Heseltine comparison.
Heseltine seems to have been a politician with some principles and honour. And he had the honesty and courage to take on Mrs T in public when most of his colleagues were simply muttering in private and waiting for someone else to make a move.
He argued for investment in the north, not because it might have been politically expedient for him and his party, but because he believed it would have been the right thing to do.
I don’t see any of this reflected in our current PM.
Resignation at Chequers? Polishing a turd?
Didn’t he wait for a while, until it became clear if he stayed in office his credibility would be fatally damaged and David Davis would become the new leader of the Brexiteers?
It probably doesn’t need saying but Brexit is now basically 100% inevitable following that EU Parliament vote.
I suppose in theory Boris could choose to unilaterally revoke all the way to 10:59:59 on Friday night, assuming A50 doesn’t legally complete in full tomorrow, but that’s a million to one shot and would depend on his mind and body being possessed by an outside entity.
Even now, A C Grayling is invoking the devil to achieve just that.
I think he’s known as Jolyon Maugham QC.
I notice Jolyon hasn't posted on the tw@tter since the curious incident of the dog fox in the night.
Comments
The only other choice was to have a genuine multi-speed type of EU or some form of associate membership. But it was never conceived or constructed in that way and when something approximating to that was offered it was rejected.
https://twitter.com/mattgarrahan/status/1222567420310761472?s=21
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/10770793/stormzy-blasts-william-shakespeare-bad-influence-kids/
Someone was reminiscing about their German oral exam and they were asked what book they last read. And they could only think of one book in German...
Not much history in the Labour Party. And she lied about that.
No history of activism outside it.
A career which does not suggest any great concern for Labour issues - and she lied about that too.
No bills sponsored or causes championed.
Nothing memorable said. When she opens her mouth or writes articles all that comes out is vacuous drivel.
She didn’t even manage to issue the repeated ritual and agonised denunciations of anti-semitism on Twitter that her rivals managed.
Other than clamp her tongue firmly to Corbyn and McDonnell’s arses, what is the evidence for any leadership skills?
I always say, ‘I am as positive as Shakespeare, I’m as negative as Shakespeare’....
RBL is in.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/04/leave-voters-back-migration-of-skilled-eu-workers-poll
https://twitter.com/mnrrntt/status/1221390115098021888?s=20
Bis bald.
Yes, it might have been nice and emotionally feelgood for all sorts of reasons, but rational states don’t make decisions on emotion alone: they consider the practical consequences as well.
Blair failed to do so, in a not entirely dissimilar way to Merkel over 10 years later in a similarly emotionally charged situation (remember that poor dead toddler on the beach?) and we all know what happened next.
We pay and vote for our leaders on the basis they will exercise intelligent statecraft, and that’s as true now as it always will be.
We are far far too sanguine about the growth of a nasty authoritarian power with the willingness to crush the human spirit, as China is doing with its more or less permanent spying of its citizens. How can privacy exist in such a society? And if no privacy, how can freedom exist?
And if that becomes the dominant power then what are the chances of our privacy and freedoms remaining as valued as they are now (though not as much as I would like)?
And there was overlap between all three.
We didn’t see this just in migration. We saw it in the lopsided devolution settlement as well where Labour attempted to create an electoral system that would keep them in power in Scotland and Wales more or less permanently, and shore up their long-term dominance of UK wide governance. The idea that Blair wasn’t radical in his first term is a myth: he was; he just simply didn’t turn on the spending taps.
And here’s the thing: it kind of worked. Blair’s administration *did* succeed in rapidly diversifying the UK and liberalising its values, and making many areas more globalist and internationalist. But, he also created a backlash too - particularly in England - as a direct result of his European and immigration policy and constitutional reforms, which were felt to be tone deaf and unfair. This put us on a ever growing path to a values and political schism, which is expressed today in separatism and Brexit.
Blair is the godfather of Brexit and the nationalist zeitgeist.
Heseltine seems to have been a politician with some principles and honour. And he had the honesty and courage to take on Mrs T in public when most of his colleagues were simply muttering in private and waiting for someone else to make a move.
He argued for investment in the north, not because it might have been politically expedient for him and his party, but because he believed it would have been the right thing to do.
I don’t see any of this reflected in our current PM.
People left the fields for the factories - they left the north of England and Scotland for London and the South East - why, because that's where the money was, the jobs were and the opportunities existed.
The Single Market empowered thousands to leave their impoverished communities and make their way to the wealth of the western European cities such as London and the Rhineland to take jobs for money the locals would not accept but was a king's ransom to the incoming migrant workers.
The total imbalance between the post-Communist economies and the prosperous western European capitalist economies made such a move of labour inevitable and that supply of labour has choked off inflation and kept interest rates low.
It has also choked off productivity and caused social tensions in many areas. Economically, it's a very good thing but on other levels less so.
Building a project that will last for centuries and the poorer areas business communities are crying our for is a bad use of public money?
A scheme that will deliver more benefit than it will cost in the first 50 years then will continue to deliver more and more benefit for many more decades to come?
Maybe that is what has got us into the state we are with huge swathes of the country left behind, only investing in the south east to continually make London richer whilst never investing in the lower benefit areas further to the north.
Suspect our immigration policy would be similar if left in the sole charge of the Great Man.
Agree on the practicalities - so we should have used the tools we had and been much more honest about what Maastricht meant and shared the fruits of the value brought much more fairly etc etc.
So many missed opportunities. So much poor leadership - on both sides of the Channel. A great shame.
So while seeing the immediate or at least inevitable downfall of western civilization in this sort of news would no doubt be an overreaction, it doesn't mean those general fears might not be borne out.
I thought asymmetric devolution would lead to pressure for an English Parliament ( not any ridiculous “regional” nonsense artificially carving England up), but I think the pressure found its way to the surface as part of Brexit. Non metropolitan England was taken for granted whilst others were told they were special. Non metropolitan England decided to have its say after all.
(The denial of a Lisbon vote was, as an individual act, monumentally idiotic though).
Can you please explain to me exactly what these policy levers were that were available at the time, and how they could have been exercised?
And unfortunately historically in this country those who disagree with the will of the business community and politicians of the north have had far too much power and influence over decisions that affect those in the north.
Hopefully this is a sign that is all about to change and those based in the south who oppose any sort of investment in the north start to lose that influence and the re-balancing can take affect, as was promised during the election.
I don’t think the Blair government had any intention of keeping to a 100k immigration target. Do you mean the Cameron government?
I suppose in theory Boris could choose to unilaterally revoke all the way to 10:59:59 on Friday night, assuming A50 doesn’t legally complete in full tomorrow, but that’s a million to one shot and would depend on his mind and body being possessed by an outside entity.
Bringing that labour into the west not only enriched the west but it also tied the former Communist states into the western capitalist structure. Had we shut the door to the East European workers we might have seen political instability continue to our east.
Presumably you think you know better ?
All those large employers in the north who signed this letter must be wrong...
http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Robot-News/120-nph-leaders-call-for-hs2-to-be-delivered-in-full
You've been listening to the southern media, those southerm based interests and ignoring what those in the north have been asking for.
Odd that the country is so divided isn't it when those who don't live in the south can so easily be ignored.
Doesn’t matter what the result is. Labour is officially dead.
That changed with the admission of the Eastern European states, and Blair’s decision (with Eire) to be the only 2 x EU members to grant them full rights on day one.
That was a policy decision of his.
I think this is an occasion where Germany got it right, with a seven year transition, and we got it wrong. Had we done that I doubt that the migration would have been anything like on the same scale, and might have been accepted.
With some clever phrasing of the Euro the EU essentially called the UK’s bluff, incorporating the eastern bloc whilst simultaneously pressing ahead with ever closer union.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jan/29/jofra-archer-ruled-out-t20-series-south-africa-elbow-injury
... Which is ironic when you think about it...
But the chap pictured is causing a rethink.
Can't see much Remain there. He looks ALL Leave. Looks pure. 100%.
I’m really referring to the 2012-2016 period when the dog really was barking at the door, it was government policy (unlike under Blair) and Cameron was explaining he heard the message and saying he’d do/get what Britain needs.
Likewise, from memory, also supported by the Scottish transport bodies further north.
Those who live further north from Manchester benefit from the extra capacity on the WCML created by what HS2 provides.
1. For stays of over three months: EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. Was this ever enforced?
2. The right of permanent residence is lost in the event of more than two successive years’ absence from the host Member State. Again, how did we keep track of this?
3. Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence: Union citizens or members of their family may be expelled from the host Member State on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.
4. Member States were entitled to take the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any EU right conferred in the event of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience.
I’m not aware of any government taking any sort of effective steps to implement these measures. Whether they would have made enough of a difference, who can say?
Developing the affiliate nominations comment further, if I'm not mistaken they are now at a practical conclusion. The big 4 unions that alone can carry a candidate to 5% affiliate base have all nominated and their nominees have all made it to the ballot.
Allin-Khan, Murray, Butler and Thornberry can only make the ballot papers via CLPs. To be fair the 5% threshold gives them all a chance, nobody has fallen badly below that mark yet, Allin-Khan and Thornberry lag on 4/98.
It was our strong currency and high wages, plus the English language, and company habits of recruiting directly in places like Poland, that drove the fundamentals of mass immigration.
What real deterrent would it have been in reducing immigration numbers to shave off £30 off a pay packet per week, before it was converted and repatriated back to Poland? And many of these migrants workers were young and single, and had no partners let alone children.
It might have made some difference at the margins (economic incentives always do) but we’d be talking something like knocking 20-30k net migrants off a figure of 300-350k (gross).
We still wouldn’t have had an emergency break, transitional or sectoral controls, or caps by visa, salary or qualification.
So, please forgive me if I’m a little sceptical of the ‘we had the tools, but chose not to use them’ argument.
Wins a landslide on a promise to Get Brext Done.
Revokes Article 50 at 10:59:59 on Friday night.
Wins Troll of the Millennium Award.
Classic Dom.
Yet again more sensationalist reporting and lazy exaggeration by the BBC hacks, quoting the set budget figure in 2015 prices and comparing it to a worst-case scenario in 2019 prices.
The P95 figure adjusted to 2019 prices is £62bn.
Oakervee's very worst case scenario is £106bn in 2019 prices - a 71% increase on the budget used since 2013. Nothing like a doubling (which would be £124bn).
Turning to the BCR, the full phase 1 & 2 of HS2 as a whole was expected to return £142.6bn in benefits over 60 years (ratio 2.3 to 1 based on a £62bn cost). If the final cost does rise to £106bn then the BCR might fall as far down as 1.35 to 1. Based on Allan Cook's worst case scenario of £88bn (2019 prices) the BCR is 1.66 to 1.
Yet as has been shown in the past, the standard BCR formula is a very imperfect tool. It cannot capture the full range of positive benefits to the UK economy that a well chosen infrastructure investment can kick start. This paragraph from the National Infrastructure Commission's 2016 report discussing Crossrail 2 also applies very well to HS2.
"As currently assessed, the BCR for Crossrail 2 is not high. One reason for this is that the standard (Transport Appraisal Guidance) forecasting and appraisal approach explicitly does not allow for any consideration of one of Crossrail 2’s key design objectives, which is to open up land (in the Upper Lea Valley in particular) for large scale housing development. The BCR is based on with and without scheme case in which land use is assumed to be unchanged. This is the same short-coming that led to ex-ante assessments of the Jubilee Line Extension having a weak BCR, a situation which materially changed when it came to ex-post assessments.
A Transport Appraisal Guidance compliant approach to the case development also places a cap on demand growth which is likely to underestimate the benefits of interventions and may lead to the under-provision of rail services. In the absence of any empirical evidence regarding the likely trajectory of long term demand and benefits, a range of alternative methods for considering long term demand and benefits growth should be considered. Ignoring projected demographic growth after an arbitrary cut-off date would seem unwise. "
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42354864
My view is that by 2012 it was pretty much too late. Look at the increase in immigration from 1997 to 2012. Only some of that is attributable to Eastern European states.
Given that FoM was a given since Maastricht, any government serious about controlling migration should have focused on non-EU migration. But governments were not serious about this or, as you have described, actively encouraged such migration.
So the only lever left to voters was to stop FoM ..... and here we are.
However, the only one that really impresses me there (in terms of having a prospect of making a meaningful impact on the underlining political challenge) is (1).
(2) was and is enforced by the UK through application for permanent residence - I know because my wife went through it, and her friend lost out for precisely that reason; she’s now in Germany having reset the clock. (3) Yes, but there’s a fairly high test for that and it’d be definition be highly selective and restricted to a few individuals, who’d have appeal rights under Union law and (4) is normal criminal abuse of laws that exist under any domestic system or international treaty.
So that really does leave us with (1), and our non-contributory benefits and healthcare system. Maybe we could have phoned and checked around more with closer entry checks, but I doubt there were many who’d be a burden and they might have been able to argue they weren’t because their dependents were back home.
It’s also worth noting that what restrictions Cameron did achieve on repatriating child welfare claims had to be carefully negotiated with the EU27 in his Deal, so it was far from a unilateral right.
Moreover, the fact that many of the hard left ultras are still nominating the hopeless Burgon with Long-Bailey will I think have the welcome practical effect of pushing Rayner away from them politically. What was billed as an alliance between Long-Bailey and Rayner has been shown to be nothing of the sort.
If that manifests itself in Starmer and Rayner forming a fairly united leadership team, able to unite the bulk of the party against the factionalists, it will matter a lot, not least in the battles to come within the NEC.
I’m afraid I’m not seeing how it makes the point I presume you’re arguing it does?
dogfox in the night.I’ve gone on record on here, many times in the past, and even before the vote, that the one thing that probably would have done it would have been a 7-year or permanent emergency break on the full right, negotiated with the EU.
But, no tango tango; so Brexit.
I remember a similar waryness of Big G as a dry-as-a-bone Tory a few years back and then walking to his Brexit line which has been a similar respect but not charge blanche wobbly line to mine.
I doubt that those hugely concerned by immigration will find their concerns seriously addressed even after Brexit. But let’s see.
Thanks for the chat.
I’ll have to leave it there too as I need to put my daughter to bed.
Get well soon.
There must be 20 railway projects that would be better ideas that could be secured with this money.