politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The numbers game. Alastair Meeks on the forthcoming Parliament
Comments
-
So what you are saying is that Labour under Corbyn is now the creature of big business, globalisation and the vested interests of the multinationals against the interests of the workers?anothernick said:
Corbyn has shown an ability to compromise with reality, even when it clashes with his long-held personal views, most recently with Labour's move to a clear "soft Brexit" line. The government's positions, on the other hand, become more and more unreal.
Corbyn's Labour Party is now much more closely aligned with the view of business and industry than May's Tories - such is the topsy-turvy world that Cameron's referendum has created!
Is that what you mean? It is certainly an interesting suggestion.0 -
But, they support the government.williamglenn said:
How? The DUP aren't part of the government.Sean_F said:
It has, just about.williamglenn said:0 -
Supply and confidence?williamglenn said:
How? The DUP aren't part of the government.Sean_F said:
It has, just about.williamglenn said:0 -
Nor are tory backbenchers, so that isn't much of an argument.williamglenn said:
How? The DUP aren't part of the government.Sean_F said:
It has, just about.williamglenn said:0 -
F*** me, Guardian staffers have now taken over Daily Politics after taking over Newsnight. Anushka Asthana is its new presenter!0
-
Not at all - I'm saying that business and industry, above all else, wants certainty and a realistic approach to Brexit negotiations. The new Labour position - which effectively says that there will be no change in the UK's economic relationship with the EU for the forseeable future - is just what most businesses want.Richard_Tyndall said:
So what you are saying is that Labour under Corbyn is now the creature of big business, globalisation and the vested interests of the multinationals against the interests of the workers?anothernick said:
Corbyn has shown an ability to compromise with reality, even when it clashes with his long-held personal views, most recently with Labour's move to a clear "soft Brexit" line. The government's positions, on the other hand, become more and more unreal.
Corbyn's Labour Party is now much more closely aligned with the view of business and industry than May's Tories - such is the topsy-turvy world that Cameron's referendum has created!
Is that what you mean? It is certainly an interesting suggestion.0 -
This Anushka Asthana is an awful presenter on BBC DP. Almost car crash tv.0
-
Only covering some areas:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Supply and confidence?williamglenn said:
How? The DUP aren't part of the government.Sean_F said:
It has, just about.williamglenn said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/621794/Confidence_and_Supply_Agreement_between_the_Conservative_Party_and_the_DUP.pdf0 -
They take the Tory whip.Ishmael_Z said:
Nor are tory backbenchers, so that isn't much of an argument.williamglenn said:
How? The DUP aren't part of the government.Sean_F said:
It has, just about.williamglenn said:0 -
For most businesses, the EU isn't a big deal. They will certainly view the Conservatives as being more business-friendly than Labour under Corbyn.anothernick said:
Not at all - I'm saying that business and industry, above all else, wants certainty and a realistic approach to Brexit negotiations. The new Labour position - which effectively says that there will be no change in the UK's economic relationship with the EU for the forseeable future - is just what most businesses want.Richard_Tyndall said:
So what you are saying is that Labour under Corbyn is now the creature of big business, globalisation and the vested interests of the multinationals against the interests of the workers?anothernick said:
Corbyn has shown an ability to compromise with reality, even when it clashes with his long-held personal views, most recently with Labour's move to a clear "soft Brexit" line. The government's positions, on the other hand, become more and more unreal.
Corbyn's Labour Party is now much more closely aligned with the view of business and industry than May's Tories - such is the topsy-turvy world that Cameron's referendum has created!
Is that what you mean? It is certainly an interesting suggestion.0 -
Wired have an article on BBC Pidgin:
Wetin dey happen? The BBC's Pidgin news site is a huge deal
How do you go about writing down a language that is almost entirely oral? For the staff of the BBC World Service's new Pidgin news site, it all started with listening. Lots of listening.
Despite being spoken by an estimated 75 million people in Nigeria alone – and as a first language for five million people – Pidgin has, until this week, been marginalised online. "In terms of its text life it lives pretty much on social media," says Miriam Quansah, BBC's digital lead for Africa.
To begin the process of converting a primarily oral language into an agreed written form, the World Service interacted with people across Africa who spoke it.
The team who built the service (some of whom can translate Shakespeare into Pidgin) travelled to west Africa to speak to young people, visit universities and consult professors and experts in the area to observe how they communicate.
Quansah, who leads the digital aspect of the project, says standardisation is an evolving thing, reliant on audience feedback. "It’s a very interactive language and that was our approach; we know that everyone will have an opinion on the Pidgin we produce so we will ask speakers to tell us whether we are using certain words and phrases in the right way."
The service will bring language diversity to the news and current affairs that west and central African audiences receive, where Pidgin is one of the most widely-spoken languages.
Adverts, radio stations, films and music are already produced in Pidgin, but news organisations have traditionally shunned it.
So it sounds like a real linguistic landmark.0 -
But apparently not what the British public want. Of course the additional problem is that the Starmer's position is incoherent. He wants us to remain in the Customs Union but be able to make our own trade deals - which is impossible. He wants us to be in the Single Market but be able to control migration - also impossible. Basically he wants us to have the same relationship with the EU we have now but to be able to sell it as something different. It is an utterly dishonest position.anothernick said:
Not at all - I'm saying that business and industry, above all else, wants certainty and a realistic approach to Brexit negotiations. The new Labour position - which effectively says that there will be no change in the UK's economic relationship with the EU for the forseeable future - is just what most businesses want.Richard_Tyndall said:
So what you are saying is that Labour under Corbyn is now the creature of big business, globalisation and the vested interests of the multinationals against the interests of the workers?anothernick said:
Corbyn has shown an ability to compromise with reality, even when it clashes with his long-held personal views, most recently with Labour's move to a clear "soft Brexit" line. The government's positions, on the other hand, become more and more unreal.
Corbyn's Labour Party is now much more closely aligned with the view of business and industry than May's Tories - such is the topsy-turvy world that Cameron's referendum has created!
Is that what you mean? It is certainly an interesting suggestion.0 -
Alastair's record on the SNP and Scotland is akin to that of a soothsayer.TheScreamingEagles said:
Alastair has a brilliant record on Scotland and the SNP.scotslass said:Alastair Meeks/
Alistair - The prejudice in your piece against the SNP is almost comic. Apparantly the SNP, despite a consistent 30 year record of being pro-European, really don't care about Brexit because of the "other priorities" to cause "maximum disruption".
In reality looking at Europe in its widest sense, European Union, Council of Europe, EFTA etc the SNP is now probably the best connected of all of the Westminster parties - certainly the one with the most European allies - the Labour leadership isn't trusted, the Tories have none and the Liberals don't count.
Best to leave your bias on the cutting room floor when you are writing an opinion piece. This silly nonsense will certainly inform how I regard other contributions from you which touch on Scotland.
He predicted the SNP Tsunami back in 2014, he also predicted the SNP would lose their majority last year at 8/1 when PB Nats were lobbing abuse at him for making such a forecast.
He also predicted Salmond and Robertson would lose their seats this year, when you said they wouldn't.
His analysis and insight has been simply terrific, and he's helped make a lot of people a lot of money.
I'd take his insights over those of a cybernit any day of the week. His only crime is that he might not always agree the SNP are the greatest political force since Ancient Greece.0 -
Landmark, maybe. But what is the point?MyBurningEars said:Wired have an article on BBC Pidgin:
Wetin dey happen? The BBC's Pidgin news site is a huge deal
How do you go about writing down a language that is almost entirely oral? For the staff of the BBC World Service's new Pidgin news site, it all started with listening. Lots of listening.
Despite being spoken by an estimated 75 million people in Nigeria alone – and as a first language for five million people – Pidgin has, until this week, been marginalised online. "In terms of its text life it lives pretty much on social media," says Miriam Quansah, BBC's digital lead for Africa.
To begin the process of converting a primarily oral language into an agreed written form, the World Service interacted with people across Africa who spoke it.
The team who built the service (some of whom can translate Shakespeare into Pidgin) travelled to west Africa to speak to young people, visit universities and consult professors and experts in the area to observe how they communicate.
Quansah, who leads the digital aspect of the project, says standardisation is an evolving thing, reliant on audience feedback. "It’s a very interactive language and that was our approach; we know that everyone will have an opinion on the Pidgin we produce so we will ask speakers to tell us whether we are using certain words and phrases in the right way."
The service will bring language diversity to the news and current affairs that west and central African audiences receive, where Pidgin is one of the most widely-spoken languages.
Adverts, radio stations, films and music are already produced in Pidgin, but news organisations have traditionally shunned it.
So it sounds like a real linguistic landmark.
How much has this cost us in tax money and/or license fee money? For what purpose?0 -
For most businesses Brexit is the biggest deal going. It's right at the top of the risk register for all the ones I know of - even if they don't trade outside the UK it affects ability to hire EU staff, the investment climate, economic outlook etc etc.Sean_F said:
For most businesses, the EU isn't a big deal. They will certainly view the Conservatives as being more business-friendly than Labour under Corbyn.0 -
Eh? Hungary defnitely shouldn't be ruled by the British prime minister no.williamglenn said:
No longer subjected to decisions of the British Prime Minister? If the point of Brexit is to take away executive power, this is a funny way to go about doing it.CopperSulphate said:
"we" is the British people obviously.williamglenn said:
Who is 'we'? The most concrete border question thrown up by Brexit doesn't appear to be one the UK government has much control over.CopperSulphate said:
Yes it's going to be a pain. But we regain sovereignty to make our own decisions, particularly of our borders and we're not going to be gradually subsumed into a European superstate.williamglenn said:
Legally out, but still chained to the negotiating table trying to hammer out a long term deal.Philip_Thompson said:
Actual exit yes. There will be a transition probably but come March 2019 we're out.williamglenn said:
You think it will all be done and dusted by March 2019?TGOHF said:The next election could be 3 years after Brexit.
And that's the best case scenario.
And we'll no longer be subjected to this sort of thing which is clearly against the wishes of the population:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41172638
You skirted around the question of Northern Ireland. What 'control' do 'we' gain?
I have no idea what the solution on Northern Ireland is going to be. But that's one border rather than all of them.0 -
What other land borders does the UK have?CopperSulphate said:
Eh? Hungary defnitely shouldn't be ruled by the British prime minister no.williamglenn said:
No longer subjected to decisions of the British Prime Minister? If the point of Brexit is to take away executive power, this is a funny way to go about doing it.CopperSulphate said:
"we" is the British people obviously.williamglenn said:
Who is 'we'? The most concrete border question thrown up by Brexit doesn't appear to be one the UK government has much control over.CopperSulphate said:
Yes it's going to be a pain. But we regain sovereignty to make our own decisions, particularly of our borders and we're not going to be gradually subsumed into a European superstate.williamglenn said:
Legally out, but still chained to the negotiating table trying to hammer out a long term deal.Philip_Thompson said:
Actual exit yes. There will be a transition probably but come March 2019 we're out.williamglenn said:
You think it will all be done and dusted by March 2019?TGOHF said:The next election could be 3 years after Brexit.
And that's the best case scenario.
And we'll no longer be subjected to this sort of thing which is clearly against the wishes of the population:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41172638
You skirted around the question of Northern Ireland. What 'control' do 'we' gain?
I have no idea what the solution on Northern Ireland is going to be. But that's one border rather than all of them.0 -
I think the collateral damage from Brexit will be largely political rather than economic.Sean_F said:
For most businesses, the EU isn't a big deal. They will certainly view the Conservatives as being more business-friendly than Labour under Corbyn.anothernick said:
Not at all - I'm saying that business and industry, above all else, wants certainty and a realistic approach to Brexit negotiations. The new Labour position - which effectively says that there will be no change in the UK's economic relationship with the EU for the forseeable future - is just what most businesses want.Richard_Tyndall said:
So what you are saying is that Labour under Corbyn is now the creature of big business, globalisation and the vested interests of the multinationals against the interests of the workers?anothernick said:
Corbyn has shown an ability to compromise with reality, even when it clashes with his long-held personal views, most recently with Labour's move to a clear "soft Brexit" line. The government's positions, on the other hand, become more and more unreal.
Corbyn's Labour Party is now much more closely aligned with the view of business and industry than May's Tories - such is the topsy-turvy world that Cameron's referendum has created!
Is that what you mean? It is certainly an interesting suggestion.0 -
Not being one, I will never truly be able to say this with total confidence, but based on my colleagues, friendships, personal experiences and observations I'd rather be an ethnic minority here than anywhere else in Europe.Sean_F said:
Having skim-read the Lammy Report, it seems pretty nuanced to me.david_herdson said:
Culture and socioeconomic background is far more important than crude binary ethnic divisions but too politically unfashionable.CopperSulphate said:
Oh yeah you're right. I thought BAME stood for Black and Middle Eastern, but I checked and it is Black and Minority Ethnic.Philip_Thompson said:
Not true, especially with the Minority element. There are many minority ethnicities that are less likely to be involved in crime across the world - in the UK for instance the Chinese minority is less likely to be involved in crime than whites.CopperSulphate said:
BAME kids are more likely to be involved in crime than white kids anywhere they live in the world. Maybe it isn't all down to racism.CD13 said:The David Lammy report is interesting but seems to lack coherence. But that might be the BBC report of it.
BAME kids are more likely to be in the prison system and they're more likely to come from one-parent families. Not sure that the Authorities can force couples to stay together.
They tend to get longer sentences because they're less likely to take the advice of their solicitors. Not sure that's the fault of the solicitors.
The report seems to blame racism for everything. That may be a factor, but association doesn't prove causation. Still this is 'social' science not real science, so what do I know?
So yes Chinese kids often do well and better than white kids no question. Black kids though very rarely if ever do.
Despite what some headlines imply, it doesn't blame everything on racism. For example, it concludes that CPS decisions to prosecute are "broadly proportionate", that juries don't discriminate on the basis of race, and that in the main, sentencing decisions don't very markedly across ethnic groups on a like for like basis (except in drugs cases). It points out that a major reason for ethnic minority defendants getting longer sentences is due to their failure to plead guilty at an early stage.
It does point, correctly, to a lack of trust between some ethnic minority groups, and the Criminal Justice System. I'm not at all sure that simply getting more judges and magistrates from ethnic minority backgrounds would erode that distrust, though. I don't think black and Asian professional people are likely to be more trusted than white professional people who administer justice.0 -
Sure, but that doesn't mean that they think that Labour has anything useful to contribute to the debate. As Richard Tyndall points out, the Labour position makes no sense. Or, more accurately, none of the shifting and mutually contradictory positions from Labour make any sense. Keir Starmer in particular seems to suffer more than most from the delusion that the UK can unilaterally decide what Brexit should look like.anothernick said:
For most businesses Brexit is the biggest deal going. It's right at the top of the risk register for all the ones I know of - even if they don't trade outside the UK it affects ability to hire EU staff, the investment climate, economic outlook etc etc.Sean_F said:
For most businesses, the EU isn't a big deal. They will certainly view the Conservatives as being more business-friendly than Labour under Corbyn.0 -
Sure, but you need to ask why the black population is always over-represented in lower social groups.david_herdson said:
Firstly, one reason for the high BAME figure in prison is that the BAME is disproportionately skewed to lower social groups (and, notably, those ethnic minorities which have larger middle class elements have similarly smaller representation in prison): this is more a class question than it is a race one, though there is an element of race to it (see below).CopperSulphate said:
Can you expand on this? I'm not really sure what you mean here.david_herdson said:
Culture and socioeconomic background is far more important than crude binary ethnic divisions but too politically unfashionable.CopperSulphate said:
Oh yeah you're right. I thought BAME stood for Black and Middle Eastern, but I checked and it is Black and Minority Ethnic.Philip_Thompson said:
Not true, especially with the Minority element. There are many minority ethnicities that are less likely to be involved in crime across the world - in the UK for instance the Chinese minority is less likely to be involved in crime than whites.CopperSulphate said:
BAME kids are more likely to be involved in crime than white kids anywhere they live in the world. Maybe it isn't all down to racism.
So yes Chinese kids often do well and better than white kids no question. Black kids though very rarely if ever do.
And secondly, and relatedly, it's about attitude and social culture of the groups that the individuals who end up in prison belong to: attitude to the law, to authority, to education, to family and so on. There was an article on R4 about it this morning and one example it gave was that black teenagers hold notably less trust in the police and the judicial system than white teenagers of a similar background, leading them to tend not to engage with the system, not plead guilty and chalk up more procedural factors that increase their sentence. Where does that *greater* lack of trust come from. Experience may be a part of it - the police are not necessarily fully colour-blind yet - but my guess, and it is only a guess, is that it's more down to cultural attitudes which are reinforced within communities and which have a habit of producing feedback effects.
Also it's not just about social group. In the US the wealthiest black areas still have a higher crime rate than the poorest white areas.
Culture is a product of people rather than the other way around in my opinion.0 -
Starmer wants us to remain in the EU.Richard_Tyndall said:
But apparently not what the British public want. Of course the additional problem is that the Starmer's position is incoherent. He wants us to remain in the Customs Union but be able to make our own trade deals - which is impossible. He wants us to be in the Single Market but be able to control migration - also impossible. Basically he wants us to have the same relationship with the EU we have now but to be able to sell it as something different. It is an utterly dishonest position.anothernick said:
Not at all - I'm saying that business and industry, above all else, wants certainty and a realistic approach to Brexit negotiations. The new Labour position - which effectively says that there will be no change in the UK's economic relationship with the EU for the forseeable future - is just what most businesses want.Richard_Tyndall said:
So what you are saying is that Labour under Corbyn is now the creature of big business, globalisation and the vested interests of the multinationals against the interests of the workers?anothernick said:
Corbyn has shown an ability to compromise with reality, even when it clashes with his long-held personal views, most recently with Labour's move to a clear "soft Brexit" line. The government's positions, on the other hand, become more and more unreal.
Corbyn's Labour Party is now much more closely aligned with the view of business and industry than May's Tories - such is the topsy-turvy world that Cameron's referendum has created!
Is that what you mean? It is certainly an interesting suggestion.0 -
Con+DUP 327 seatswilliamglenn said:
Only covering some areas:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Supply and confidence?williamglenn said:
How? The DUP aren't part of the government.Sean_F said:
It has, just about.williamglenn said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/621794/Confidence_and_Supply_Agreement_between_the_Conservative_Party_and_the_DUP.pdf
Also-rans 323 seats0 -
None. And the relevance of this is?williamglenn said:
What other land borders does the UK have?CopperSulphate said:
Eh? Hungary defnitely shouldn't be ruled by the British prime minister no.williamglenn said:
No longer subjected to decisions of the British Prime Minister? If the point of Brexit is to take away executive power, this is a funny way to go about doing it.CopperSulphate said:
"we" is the British people obviously.williamglenn said:
Who is 'we'? The most concrete border question thrown up by Brexit doesn't appear to be one the UK government has much control over.CopperSulphate said:
Yes it's going to be a pain. But we regain sovereignty to make our own decisions, particularly of our borders and we're not going to be gradually subsumed into a European superstate.williamglenn said:
Legally out, but still chained to the negotiating table trying to hammer out a long term deal.Philip_Thompson said:
Actual exit yes. There will be a transition probably but come March 2019 we're out.williamglenn said:
You think it will all be done and dusted by March 2019?TGOHF said:The next election could be 3 years after Brexit.
And that's the best case scenario.
And we'll no longer be subjected to this sort of thing which is clearly against the wishes of the population:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41172638
You skirted around the question of Northern Ireland. What 'control' do 'we' gain?
I have no idea what the solution on Northern Ireland is going to be. But that's one border rather than all of them.
Edit: As pointed out by someone smarter than me there are two others.0 -
This is another one of those 'everyone I know is voting Remain' moments.anothernick said:
For most businesses Brexit is the biggest deal going. It's right at the top of the risk register for all the ones I know of - even if they don't trade outside the UK it affects ability to hire EU staff, the investment climate, economic outlook etc etc.Sean_F said:
For most businesses, the EU isn't a big deal. They will certainly view the Conservatives as being more business-friendly than Labour under Corbyn.
Your own limited personal experience (and that is not intended as an insult, we all have fairly limited personal experiences of most things) leads you to one particular view. But if I were to say that I know of almost no businesses I deal with which have any concerns about Brexit at the moment you would rightly say it is not necessarily representative of the country as a whole.
I do a lot of work for one of the main international sectors of industry and their attitude to Brexit is genuinely one of 'so what'. Since they are used to using people from all over the world and trading across almost every border in existence the amount of concern being generated by Brexit is as close to zero as you can possibly get.
At the other end of the scale the vast majority of shops and businesses in the local town do not employ large numbers of EU workers - although of course some sectors are heavily invested in EU workforce. So again for most people the Brexit discussion hardly impinges on their consciousness.0 -
With France via the Chunnel (you can drive or take the train by land from England to France).williamglenn said:
What other land borders does the UK have?CopperSulphate said:
Eh? Hungary defnitely shouldn't be ruled by the British prime minister no.williamglenn said:
No longer subjected to decisions of the British Prime Minister? If the point of Brexit is to take away executive power, this is a funny way to go about doing it.CopperSulphate said:
"we" is the British people obviously.williamglenn said:
Who is 'we'? The most concrete border question thrown up by Brexit doesn't appear to be one the UK government has much control over.CopperSulphate said:
Yes it's going to be a pain. But we regain sovereignty to make our own decisions, particularly of our borders and we're not going to be gradually subsumed into a European superstate.williamglenn said:
Legally out, but still chained to the negotiating table trying to hammer out a long term deal.Philip_Thompson said:
Actual exit yes. There will be a transition probably but come March 2019 we're out.williamglenn said:
You think it will all be done and dusted by March 2019?TGOHF said:The next election could be 3 years after Brexit.
And that's the best case scenario.
And we'll no longer be subjected to this sort of thing which is clearly against the wishes of the population:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41172638
You skirted around the question of Northern Ireland. What 'control' do 'we' gain?
I have no idea what the solution on Northern Ireland is going to be. But that's one border rather than all of them.
With Spain via Gibraltar since they are covered by the UK's arrangements.0 -
He probably does, but he voted to take us out.Casino_Royale said:Starmer wants us to remain in the EU.
0 -
And an effective majority of 10, given the 7 x Shinners don't take their seats. Plus a few Labour leaver abstentions on the key bills.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Con+DUP 327 seatswilliamglenn said:
Only covering some areas:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Supply and confidence?williamglenn said:
How? The DUP aren't part of the government.Sean_F said:
It has, just about.williamglenn said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/621794/Confidence_and_Supply_Agreement_between_the_Conservative_Party_and_the_DUP.pdf
Also-rans 323 seats
There will be several votes by a whisker, but HMG should pass its primary legislation on around 320 votes for to about 305-310 votes against, most of the time.0 -
Personally perhaps. But his party position as he has articulated it is the one I set out and is completely incoherent.Casino_Royale said:
Starmer wants us to remain in the EU.Richard_Tyndall said:
But apparently not what the British public want. Of course the additional problem is that the Starmer's position is incoherent. He wants us to remain in the Customs Union but be able to make our own trade deals - which is impossible. He wants us to be in the Single Market but be able to control migration - also impossible. Basically he wants us to have the same relationship with the EU we have now but to be able to sell it as something different. It is an utterly dishonest position.anothernick said:
Not at all - I'm saying that business and industry, above all else, wants certainty and a realistic approach to Brexit negotiations. The new Labour position - which effectively says that there will be no change in the UK's economic relationship with the EU for the forseeable future - is just what most businesses want.Richard_Tyndall said:
So what you are saying is that Labour under Corbyn is now the creature of big business, globalisation and the vested interests of the multinationals against the interests of the workers?anothernick said:
Corbyn has shown an ability to compromise with reality, even when it clashes with his long-held personal views, most recently with Labour's move to a clear "soft Brexit" line. The government's positions, on the other hand, become more and more unreal.
Corbyn's Labour Party is now much more closely aligned with the view of business and industry than May's Tories - such is the topsy-turvy world that Cameron's referendum has created!
Is that what you mean? It is certainly an interesting suggestion.0 -
He wants to lead public opinion back to Remain, and then lead the Labour Party.Richard_Nabavi said:
He probably does, but he voted to take us out.Casino_Royale said:Starmer wants us to remain in the EU.
0 -
I can't be alone amongst Brexiteers in hoping that at least some of the measures in the bill are amended though?Casino_Royale said:
And an effective majority of 10, given the 7 x Shinners don't take their seats. Plus a few Labour leaver abstentions on the key bills.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Con+DUP 327 seatswilliamglenn said:
Only covering some areas:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Supply and confidence?williamglenn said:
How? The DUP aren't part of the government.Sean_F said:
It has, just about.williamglenn said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/621794/Confidence_and_Supply_Agreement_between_the_Conservative_Party_and_the_DUP.pdf
Also-rans 323 seats
There will be several votes by a whisker, but HMG should pass its primary legislation on around 320 votes for to about 305-310 votes against, most of the time.0 -
No it isn't. I live in a strongly Leave WWC constituency whose MP was so strongly pro-EU that voted against invokig Article 50. Labour's vote in June then rose sharply. Labour voters have views on Brexit like almost everyone else, but it doesn't generally determine their party preference (this is also why the Libdem attempt to grab Labour votes on a super-Remain platform largely failed).stevef said:Labour and Labour MPs in Leave areas have to be very careful indeed how they vote if they want to keep their seats. In the end this is the crucial factor.
0 -
The most recent poll I saw backs the Labour position of wanting to remain in the single market and customs union while a final Brexit deal is finalised.Richard_Tyndall said:
But apparently not what the British public want. Of course the additional problem is that the Starmer's position is incoherent. He wants us to remain in the Customs Union but be able to make our own trade deals - which is impossible. He wants us to be in the Single Market but be able to control migration - also impossible. Basically he wants us to have the same relationship with the EU we have now but to be able to sell it as something different. It is an utterly dishonest position.anothernick said:
Not at all - I'm saying that business and industry, above all else, wants certainty and a realistic approach to Brexit negotiations. The new Labour position - which effectively says that there will be no change in the UK's economic relationship with the EU for the forseeable future - is just what most businesses want.Richard_Tyndall said:
So what you are saying is that Labour under Corbyn is now the creature of big business, globalisation and the vested interests of the multinationals against the interests of the workers?anothernick said:
Corbyn has shown an ability to compromise with reality, even when it clashes with his long-held personal views, most recently with Labour's move to a clear "soft Brexit" line. The government's positions, on the other hand, become more and more unreal.
Corbyn's Labour Party is now much more closely aligned with the view of business and industry than May's Tories - such is the topsy-turvy world that Cameron's referendum has created!
Is that what you mean? It is certainly an interesting suggestion.
0 -
But accepts that we have voted to Leave.Casino_Royale said:
Starmer wants us to remain in the EU.Richard_Tyndall said:
But apparently not what the British public want. Of course the additional problem is that the Starmer's position is incoherent. He wants us to remain in the Customs Union but be able to make our own trade deals - which is impossible. He wants us to be in the Single Market but be able to control migration - also impossible. Basically he wants us to have the same relationship with the EU we have now but to be able to sell it as something different. It is an utterly dishonest position.anothernick said:
Not at all - I'm saying that business and industry, above all else, wants certainty and a realistic approach to Brexit negotiations. The new Labour position - which effectively says that there will be no change in the UK's economic relationship with the EU for the forseeable future - is just what most businesses want.Richard_Tyndall said:
So what you are saying is that Labour under Corbyn is now the creature of big business, globalisation and the vested interests of the multinationals against the interests of the workers?anothernick said:
Corbyn has shown an ability to compromise with reality, even when it clashes with his long-held personal views, most recently with Labour's move to a clear "soft Brexit" line. The government's positions, on the other hand, become more and more unreal.
Corbyn's Labour Party is now much more closely aligned with the view of business and industry than May's Tories - such is the topsy-turvy world that Cameron's referendum has created!
Is that what you mean? It is certainly an interesting suggestion.
0 -
That's because everyone expects Brexit to happen so they don't care. If these idiots manage to block it then it will be a very different story indeed.NickPalmer said:
No it isn't. I live in a strongly Leave WWC constituency whose MP was so strongly pro-EU that voted against invokig Article 50. Labour's vote in June then rose sharply. Labour voters have views on Brexit like almost everyone else, but it doesn't generally determine their party preference (this is also why the Libdem attempt to grab Labour votes on a super-Remain platform largely failed).stevef said:Labour and Labour MPs in Leave areas have to be very careful indeed how they vote if they want to keep their seats. In the end this is the crucial factor.
0 -
In terms of soft power in a fast-growing corner of the world, I'm not sure I would want hundreds of millions of people turning to Russia Today's pidgin service, or China Central Television. Local reporters / translators on West African salaries are going to be fairly cheap, I'd have thought.Philip_Thompson said:
Landmark, maybe. But what is the point?MyBurningEars said:Wired have an article on BBC Pidgin:
Wetin dey happen? The BBC's Pidgin news site is a huge deal
How do you go about writing down a language that is almost entirely oral? For the staff of the BBC World Service's new Pidgin news site, it all started with listening. Lots of listening.
Despite being spoken by an estimated 75 million people in Nigeria alone – and as a first language for five million people – Pidgin has, until this week, been marginalised online. "In terms of its text life it lives pretty much on social media," says Miriam Quansah, BBC's digital lead for Africa.
To begin the process of converting a primarily oral language into an agreed written form, the World Service interacted with people across Africa who spoke it.
The team who built the service (some of whom can translate Shakespeare into Pidgin) travelled to west Africa to speak to young people, visit universities and consult professors and experts in the area to observe how they communicate.
Quansah, who leads the digital aspect of the project, says standardisation is an evolving thing, reliant on audience feedback. "It’s a very interactive language and that was our approach; we know that everyone will have an opinion on the Pidgin we produce so we will ask speakers to tell us whether we are using certain words and phrases in the right way."
The service will bring language diversity to the news and current affairs that west and central African audiences receive, where Pidgin is one of the most widely-spoken languages.
Adverts, radio stations, films and music are already produced in Pidgin, but news organisations have traditionally shunned it.
So it sounds like a real linguistic landmark.
How much has this cost us in tax money and/or license fee money? For what purpose?0 -
Isn't the more accurate story that while the Conservative and Lib Dems focussed on Europe in the election, the reasons why people voted x rather than y was due to things other than Europe....NickPalmer said:
No it isn't. I live in a strongly Leave WWC constituency whose MP was so strongly pro-EU that voted against invokig Article 50. Labour's vote in June then rose sharply. Labour voters have views on Brexit like almost everyone else, but it doesn't generally determine their party preference (this is also why the Libdem attempt to grab Labour votes on a super-Remain platform largely failed).stevef said:Labour and Labour MPs in Leave areas have to be very careful indeed how they vote if they want to keep their seats. In the end this is the crucial factor.
0 -
Yep - like most Remain supporting MPs he has accepted the result. What he does not accept - quite rightly - is that this does not give the government carte blanche on Brexit.Richard_Nabavi said:
He probably does, but he voted to take us out.Casino_Royale said:Starmer wants us to remain in the EU.
0 -
On a motion of (no) confidence do we think Lady Sylvia Hermon will back the government, topple the government, or abstain?0
-
Take Enfield, where I work. For most local businesses, Brexit hardly registers, except at the margins.anothernick said:
For most businesses Brexit is the biggest deal going. It's right at the top of the risk register for all the ones I know of - even if they don't trade outside the UK it affects ability to hire EU staff, the investment climate, economic outlook etc etc.Sean_F said:
For most businesses, the EU isn't a big deal. They will certainly view the Conservatives as being more business-friendly than Labour under Corbyn.0 -
But that is not Starmer's position. HE wants us to stay in the Customs Union and SIngle Market permanently but at the same time have control over migration and make our own trade deals. The positions are mutually exclusive.SouthamObserver said:
The most recent poll I saw backs the Labour position of wanting to remain in the single market and customs union while a final Brexit deal is finalised.Richard_Tyndall said:
But apparently not what the British public want. Of course the additional problem is that the Starmer's position is incoherent. He wants us to remain in the Customs Union but be able to make our own trade deals - which is impossible. He wants us to be in the Single Market but be able to control migration - also impossible. Basically he wants us to have the same relationship with the EU we have now but to be able to sell it as something different. It is an utterly dishonest position.anothernick said:
Not at all - I'm saying that business and industry, above all else, wants certainty and a realistic approach to Brexit negotiations. The new Labour position - which effectively says that there will be no change in the UK's economic relationship with the EU for the forseeable future - is just what most businesses want.Richard_Tyndall said:
So what you are saying is that Labour under Corbyn is now the creature of big business, globalisation and the vested interests of the multinationals against the interests of the workers?anothernick said:
Corbyn has shown an ability to compromise with reality, even when it clashes with his long-held personal views, most recently with Labour's move to a clear "soft Brexit" line. The government's positions, on the other hand, become more and more unreal.
Corbyn's Labour Party is now much more closely aligned with the view of business and industry than May's Tories - such is the topsy-turvy world that Cameron's referendum has created!
Is that what you mean? It is certainly an interesting suggestion.0 -
The calm before the storm.Sean_F said:
Take Enfield, where I work. For most local businesses, Brexit hardly registers, except at the margins.anothernick said:
For most businesses Brexit is the biggest deal going. It's right at the top of the risk register for all the ones I know of - even if they don't trade outside the UK it affects ability to hire EU staff, the investment climate, economic outlook etc etc.Sean_F said:
For most businesses, the EU isn't a big deal. They will certainly view the Conservatives as being more business-friendly than Labour under Corbyn.0 -
The tiny little problemette with that position is that the EU are not offering that option.SouthamObserver said:
The most recent poll I saw backs the Labour position of wanting to remain in the single market and customs union while a final Brexit deal is finalised.0 -
Ishmael_Z said:
"Car crash" does not begin to do justice to the last minute of that.Theuniondivvie said:Has this been done? I'm guessing any rising star predictions attached to Ms Fernandes will have swiftly crawled off to die.
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/905879953933262848
ERG = a group of MPs for carrying-on an undertaking of great advantage but nobody to know who they are.
0 -
Because the British government has ruled it out.Richard_Nabavi said:
The tiny little problemette with that position is that the EU are not offering that option.SouthamObserver said:
The most recent poll I saw backs the Labour position of wanting to remain in the single market and customs union while a final Brexit deal is finalised.
0 -
https://twitter.com/simon_nixon/status/905762060298055681Richard_Nabavi said:The tiny little problemette with that position is that the EU are not offering that option.
0 -
Kim Jong may on test match special this lunchtime.0
-
"Despite being spoken by an estimated 75 million people in Nigeria alone – and as a first language for five million people – Pidgin has, until this week, been marginalised online"MyBurningEars said:
In terms of soft power in a fast-growing corner of the world, I'm not sure I would want hundreds of millions of people turning to Russia Today's pidgin service, or China Central Television. Local reporters / translators on West African salaries are going to be fairly cheap, I'd have thought.Philip_Thompson said:
Landmark, maybe. But what is the point?MyBurningEars said:Wired have an article on BBC Pidgin:
Wetin dey happen? The BBC's Pidgin news site is a huge deal
How do you go about writing down a language that is almost entirely oral? For the staff of the BBC World Service's new Pidgin news site, it all started with listening. Lots of listening.
Despite being spoken by an estimated 75 million people in Nigeria alone – and as a first language for five million people – Pidgin has, until this week, been marginalised online. "In terms of its text life it lives pretty much on social media," says Miriam Quansah, BBC's digital lead for Africa.
To begin the process of converting a primarily oral language into an agreed written form, the World Service interacted with people across Africa who spoke it.
The team who built the service (some of whom can translate Shakespeare into Pidgin) travelled to west Africa to speak to young people, visit universities and consult professors and experts in the area to observe how they communicate.
Quansah, who leads the digital aspect of the project, says standardisation is an evolving thing, reliant on audience feedback. "It’s a very interactive language and that was our approach; we know that everyone will have an opinion on the Pidgin we produce so we will ask speakers to tell us whether we are using certain words and phrases in the right way."
The service will bring language diversity to the news and current affairs that west and central African audiences receive, where Pidgin is one of the most widely-spoken languages.
Adverts, radio stations, films and music are already produced in Pidgin, but news organisations have traditionally shunned it.
So it sounds like a real linguistic landmark.
How much has this cost us in tax money and/or license fee money? For what purpose?
And as a monoglot langage by absolutely nobody, at a guess. Knock out the people who know English or French (both already offered by the World Service), and you could probably fit what's left into a Theresa May General election campaign rally.0 -
Simon Nixon has a good piece explaining why the red line on trade deals is self defeating.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/free-trade-deals-britains-true-brexit-red-line-1504461045
To strike trade deals, a country needs to have something to trade: tariffs or regulation or ideally both. Yet the only way to maintain frictionless trade between the U.K. and the EU is for the U.K. to remain in both a customs union and a regulatory union with the EU, mirroring exactly the EU’s external tariffs and regulations, leaving no scope to sign its own independent trade deals. The U.K. government has spent more than a year trying to devise ways around this conundrum but the reality is that it can’t be done.0 -
Yes. I don't like the fact that wide legislative powers would be handed to ministers, without Parliamentary supervision.Richard_Tyndall said:
I can't be alone amongst Brexiteers in hoping that at least some of the measures in the bill are amended though?Casino_Royale said:
And an effective majority of 10, given the 7 x Shinners don't take their seats. Plus a few Labour leaver abstentions on the key bills.Sunil_Prasannan said:
Con+DUP 327 seatswilliamglenn said:
Only covering some areas:Sunil_Prasannan said:
Supply and confidence?williamglenn said:
How? The DUP aren't part of the government.Sean_F said:
It has, just about.williamglenn said:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/621794/Confidence_and_Supply_Agreement_between_the_Conservative_Party_and_the_DUP.pdf
Also-rans 323 seats
There will be several votes by a whisker, but HMG should pass its primary legislation on around 320 votes for to about 305-310 votes against, most of the time.
I'd oppose any attempt to enshrine the Charter of Rights in British Law, as it would transfer power away from Parliament.0 -
I may have misunderstood, but I do not believe that is the Labour position.Richard_Tyndall said:
But that is not Starmer's position. HE wants us to stay in the Customs Union and SIngle Market permanently but at the same time have control over migration and make our own trade deals. The positions are mutually exclusive.SouthamObserver said:
The most recent poll I saw backs the Labour position of wanting to remain in the single market and customs union while a final Brexit deal is finalised.Richard_Tyndall said:
But apparently not what the British public want. Of course the additional problem is that the Starmer's position is incoherent. He wants us to remain in the Customs Union but be able to make our own trade deals - which is impossible. He wants us to be in the Single Market but be able to control migration - also impossible. Basically he wants us to have the same relationship with the EU we have now but to be able to sell it as something different. It is an utterly dishonest position.anothernick said:
Not at all - I'm saying that business and industry, above all else, wants certainty and a realistic approach to Brexit negotiations. The new Labour position - which effectively says that there will be no change in the UK's economic relationship with the EU for the forseeable future - is just what most businesses want.Richard_Tyndall said:
So what you are saying is that Labour under Corbyn is now the creature of big business, globalisation and the vested interests of the multinationals against the interests of the workers?anothernick said:
Corbyn has shown an ability to compromise with reality, even when it clashes with his long-held personal views, most recently with Labour's move to a clear "soft Brexit" line. The government's positions, on the other hand, become more and more unreal.
Corbyn's Labour Party is now much more closely aligned with the view of business and industry than May's Tories - such is the topsy-turvy world that Cameron's referendum has created!
Is that what you mean? It is certainly an interesting suggestion.0 -
I thought the second paragraph did that (rather crudely)? Attitude to law, to authority, to education, to family and so on? I could have added other similar drivers.CopperSulphate said:
Sure, but you need to ask why the black population is always over-represented in lower social groups.david_herdson said:
Firstly, one reason for the high BAME figure in prison is that the BAME is disproportionately skewed to lower social groups (and, notably, those ethnic minorities which have larger middle class elements have similarly smaller representation in prison): this is more a class question than it is a race one, though there is an element of race to it (see below).CopperSulphate said:
Can you expand on this? I'm not really sure what you mean here.david_herdson said:
Culture and socioeconomic background is far more important than crude binary ethnic divisions but too politically unfashionable.CopperSulphate said:
Oh yeah you're right. I thought BAME stood for Black and Middle Eastern, but I checked and it is Black and Minority Ethnic.Philip_Thompson said:
Not true, especially with the Minority element. There are many minority ethnicities that are less likely to be involved in crime across the world - in the UK for instance the Chinese minority is less likely to be involved in crime than whites.CopperSulphate said:
BAME kids are more likely to be involved in crime than white kids anywhere they live in the world. Maybe it isn't all down to racism.
So yes Chinese kids often do well and better than white kids no question. Black kids though very rarely if ever do.
And secondly, and relatedly, it's about attitude and social culture of the groups that the individuals who end up in prison belong to: attitude to the law, to authority, to education, to family and so on. There was an article on R4 about it this morning and one example it gave was that black teenagers hold notably less trust in the police and the judicial system than white teenagers of a similar background, leading them to tend not to engage with the system, not plead guilty and chalk up more procedural factors that increase their sentence. Where does that *greater* lack of trust come from. Experience may be a part of it - the police are not necessarily fully colour-blind yet - but my guess, and it is only a guess, is that it's more down to cultural attitudes which are reinforced within communities and which have a habit of producing feedback effects.0 -
More to the point it's an oral dialect, so anyone with literacy skills would already be reading and writing in English or French, and able to access an infinite amount of content rather than just a subsection of the BBC.Ishmael_Z said:"Despite being spoken by an estimated 75 million people in Nigeria alone – and as a first language for five million people – Pidgin has, until this week, been marginalised online"
And as a monoglot langage by absolutely nobody, at a guess. Knock out the people who know English or French (both already offered by the World Service), and you could probably fit what's left into a Theresa May General election campaign rally.0 -
No, the EU has never suggested that option is available - quite the opposite. Indeed they are still trying to pretend we can't even start discussing the matter,SouthamObserver said:
Because the British government has ruled it out.Richard_Nabavi said:
The tiny little problemette with that position is that the EU are not offering that option.SouthamObserver said:
The most recent poll I saw backs the Labour position of wanting to remain in the single market and customs union while a final Brexit deal is finalised.0 -
The UK government ruled it out long ago, so why would the EU suggest it?Richard_Nabavi said:
No, the EU has never suggested that option is available - quite the opposite. Indeed they are still trying to pretend we can't even start discussing the matter,SouthamObserver said:
Because the British government has ruled it out.Richard_Nabavi said:
The tiny little problemette with that position is that the EU are not offering that option.SouthamObserver said:
The most recent poll I saw backs the Labour position of wanting to remain in the single market and customs union while a final Brexit deal is finalised.
0 -
Yes you did really. What I was getting at is what exactly causes these different attitudes?david_herdson said:
I thought the second paragraph did that (rather crudely)? Attitude to law, to authority, to education, to family and so on? I could have added other similar drivers.CopperSulphate said:
Sure, but you need to ask why the black population is always over-represented in lower social groups.david_herdson said:
Firstly, one reason for the high BAME figure in prison is that the BAME is disproportionately skewed to lower social groups (and, notably, those ethnic minorities which have larger middle class elements have similarly smaller representation in prison): this is more a class question than it is a race one, though there is an element of race to it (see below).CopperSulphate said:
Can you expand on this? I'm not really sure what you mean here.david_herdson said:
Culture and socioeconomic background is far more important than crude binary ethnic divisions but too politically unfashionable.CopperSulphate said:
Oh yeah you're right. I thought BAME stood for Black and Middle Eastern, but I checked and it is Black and Minority Ethnic.Philip_Thompson said:
Not true, especially with the Minority element. There are many minority ethnicities that are less likely to be involved in crime across the world - in the UK for instance the Chinese minority is less likely to be involved in crime than whites.CopperSulphate said:
BAME kids are more likely to be involved in crime than white kids anywhere they live in the world. Maybe it isn't all down to racism.
So yes Chinese kids often do well and better than white kids no question. Black kids though very rarely if ever do.
And secondly, and relatedly, it's about attitude and social culture of the groups that the individuals who end up in prison belong to: attitude to the law, to authority, to education, to family and so on. There was an article on R4 about it this morning and one example it gave was that black teenagers hold notably less trust in the police and the judicial system than white teenagers of a similar background, leading them to tend not to engage with the system, not plead guilty and chalk up more procedural factors that increase their sentence. Where does that *greater* lack of trust come from. Experience may be a part of it - the police are not necessarily fully colour-blind yet - but my guess, and it is only a guess, is that it's more down to cultural attitudes which are reinforced within communities and which have a habit of producing feedback effects.
Is it genetic? In which case is there anything we can do? Or something else?0 -
Being in a similar constituency, I can confirm that (although one consequence of the super-centralised and inept CCHQ campaign was that we weren't able to make the most of Mary Creagh's A50 vote and attract the Lab-UKIP vote, or at least, prevent it from going home).NickPalmer said:
No it isn't. I live in a strongly Leave WWC constituency whose MP was so strongly pro-EU that voted against invokig Article 50. Labour's vote in June then rose sharply. Labour voters have views on Brexit like almost everyone else, but it doesn't generally determine their party preference (this is also why the Libdem attempt to grab Labour votes on a super-Remain platform largely failed).stevef said:Labour and Labour MPs in Leave areas have to be very careful indeed how they vote if they want to keep their seats. In the end this is the crucial factor.
0 -
If you wish to influence people, talking to them in their own language is generally a good thing...Philip_Thompson said:
Landmark, maybe. But what is the point?MyBurningEars said:Wired have an article on BBC Pidgin:
Wetin dey happen? The BBC's Pidgin news site is a huge deal
How do you go about writing down a language that is almost entirely oral? For the staff of the BBC World Service's new Pidgin news site, it all started with listening. Lots of listening.
Despite being spoken by an estimated 75 million people in Nigeria alone – and as a first language for five million people – Pidgin has, until this week, been marginalised online. "In terms of its text life it lives pretty much on social media," says Miriam Quansah, BBC's digital lead for Africa.
To begin the process of converting a primarily oral language into an agreed written form, the World Service interacted with people across Africa who spoke it.
The team who built the service (some of whom can translate Shakespeare into Pidgin) travelled to west Africa to speak to young people, visit universities and consult professors and experts in the area to observe how they communicate.
Quansah, who leads the digital aspect of the project, says standardisation is an evolving thing, reliant on audience feedback. "It’s a very interactive language and that was our approach; we know that everyone will have an opinion on the Pidgin we produce so we will ask speakers to tell us whether we are using certain words and phrases in the right way."
The service will bring language diversity to the news and current affairs that west and central African audiences receive, where Pidgin is one of the most widely-spoken languages.
Adverts, radio stations, films and music are already produced in Pidgin, but news organisations have traditionally shunned it.
So it sounds like a real linguistic landmark.
How much has this cost us in tax money and/or license fee money? For what purpose?
Which in the brave new post Brexit world might not be the worst idea ?0 -
Hilarious.NickPalmer said:Ishmael_Z said:
"Car crash" does not begin to do justice to the last minute of that.Theuniondivvie said:Has this been done? I'm guessing any rising star predictions attached to Ms Fernandes will have swiftly crawled off to die.
https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/905879953933262848
ERG = a group of MPs for carrying-on an undertaking of great advantage but nobody to know who they are.
The implication is that she is the only member of the ERG.0 -
The EU has suggested all sorts of things which the UK government has ruled out, most notably paying them zillions of euros for nothing in return, and giving the ECJ jurisdiction in the UK after Brexit.SouthamObserver said:The UK government ruled it out long ago, so why would the EU suggest it?
0 -
'We're confident you'll supply us with the dosh'Sunil_Prasannan said:
Supply and confidence?williamglenn said:
How? The DUP aren't part of the government.Sean_F said:
It has, just about.williamglenn said:0 -
I noticed that most of the stations I passed through on my very recent foray into Scotland had Gaelic names in smaller font on the platform name-boards, but there weren't any Scots names.williamglenn said:
More to the point it's an oral dialect, so anyone with literacy skills would already be reading and writing in English or French, and able to access an infinite amount of content rather than just a subsection of the BBC.Ishmael_Z said:"Despite being spoken by an estimated 75 million people in Nigeria alone – and as a first language for five million people – Pidgin has, until this week, been marginalised online"
And as a monoglot langage by absolutely nobody, at a guess. Knock out the people who know English or French (both already offered by the World Service), and you could probably fit what's left into a Theresa May General election campaign rally.0 -
Exactly - so why would the EU suggest that the UK stay inside the single market and the customs union during a transition period when the UK government has made very clear over a sustained period of time that it does not want to do so?Richard_Nabavi said:
The EU has suggested all sorts of things which the UK government has ruled out, most notably paying them zillions of euros for nothing in return, and giving the ECJ jurisdiction in the UK after Brexit.SouthamObserver said:The UK government ruled it out long ago, so why would the EU suggest it?
0 -
And how many people are we trying to influence via the BBC leading with a story about "How poo-poo trap woman for window" that read and write in that native language but not English or any other language?Nigelb said:
If you wish to influence people, talking to them in their own language is generally a good thing...Philip_Thompson said:
Landmark, maybe. But what is the point?MyBurningEars said:Wired have an article on BBC Pidgin:
Wetin dey happen? The BBC's Pidgin news site is a huge deal
How do you go about writing down a language that is almost entirely oral? For the staff of the BBC World Service's new Pidgin news site, it all started with listening. Lots of listening.
Despite being spoken by an estimated 75 million people in Nigeria alone – and as a first language for five million people – Pidgin has, until this week, been marginalised online. "In terms of its text life it lives pretty much on social media," says Miriam Quansah, BBC's digital lead for Africa.
To begin the process of converting a primarily oral language into an agreed written form, the World Service interacted with people across Africa who spoke it.
The team who built the service (some of whom can translate Shakespeare into Pidgin) travelled to west Africa to speak to young people, visit universities and consult professors and experts in the area to observe how they communicate.
Quansah, who leads the digital aspect of the project, says standardisation is an evolving thing, reliant on audience feedback. "It’s a very interactive language and that was our approach; we know that everyone will have an opinion on the Pidgin we produce so we will ask speakers to tell us whether we are using certain words and phrases in the right way."
The service will bring language diversity to the news and current affairs that west and central African audiences receive, where Pidgin is one of the most widely-spoken languages.
Adverts, radio stations, films and music are already produced in Pidgin, but news organisations have traditionally shunned it.
So it sounds like a real linguistic landmark.
How much has this cost us in tax money and/or license fee money? For what purpose?
Which in the brave new post Brexit world might not be the worst idea ?0 -
Yes but Corbyn backed leaving the single market and ending free movement in JuneNickPalmer said:
No it isn't. I live in a strongly Leave WWC constituency whose MP was so strongly pro-EU that voted against invokig Article 50. Labour's vote in June then rose sharply. Labour voters have views on Brexit like almost everyone else, but it doesn't generally determine their party preference (this is also why the Libdem attempt to grab Labour votes on a super-Remain platform largely failed).stevef said:Labour and Labour MPs in Leave areas have to be very careful indeed how they vote if they want to keep their seats. In the end this is the crucial factor.
0 -
Labour leave voters are generally not obsessive about the EU in the way in which many Tories are. They voted to leave to give "the establishment" a kick in the hind quarters but they are not interested in the nuances of hard/soft Brexit - they just feel hard done by and want someone to do something to improve their lot economically and socially. Which Brexit will not do.david_herdson said:
Being in a similar constituency, I can confirm that (although one consequence of the super-centralised and inept CCHQ campaign was that we weren't able to make the most of Mary Creagh's A50 vote and attract the Lab-UKIP vote, or at least, prevent it from going home).NickPalmer said:
No it isn't. I live in a strongly Leave WWC constituency whose MP was so strongly pro-EU that voted against invokig Article 50. Labour's vote in June then rose sharply. Labour voters have views on Brexit like almost everyone else, but it doesn't generally determine their party preference (this is also why the Libdem attempt to grab Labour votes on a super-Remain platform largely failed).stevef said:Labour and Labour MPs in Leave areas have to be very careful indeed how they vote if they want to keep their seats. In the end this is the crucial factor.
0 -
No, like I say, it's cultural, not racial or genetic. But that's not to underestimate the potency of cultural inertia, or some factors that reinforce them, as the report itself notes (possibly indirectly - I've only heard summaries). Distrust of police / judicial system - failure to engage on and after arrest - opt for trials by jury, reject deals with the system - heavier sentence on conviction than white criminals for same crime, due to procedural choices - reinforcement of distrust of judicial system and police.CopperSulphate said:
Yes you did really. What I was getting at is what exactly causes these different attitudes?david_herdson said:
I thought the second paragraph did that (rather crudely)? Attitude to law, to authority, to education, to family and so on? I could have added other similar drivers.CopperSulphate said:
Sure, but you need to ask why the black population is always over-represented in lower social groups.david_herdson said:
Firstly, one reason for the high BAME figure in prison is that the BAME is disproportionately skewed to lower social groups (and, notably, those ethnic minorities which have larger middle class elements have similarly smaller representation in prison): this is more a class question than it is a race one, though there is an element of race to it (see below).CopperSulphate said:
Can you expand on this? I'm not really sure what you mean here.david_herdson said:
Culture and socioeconomic background is far more important than crude binary ethnic divisions but too politically unfashionable.
And secondly, and relatedly, it's about attitude and social culture of the groups that the individuals who end up in prison belong to: attitude to the law, to authority, to education, to family and so on. There was an article on R4 about it this morning and one example it gave was that black teenagers hold notably less trust in the police and the judicial system than white teenagers of a similar background, leading them to tend not to engage with the system, not plead guilty and chalk up more procedural factors that increase their sentence. Where does that *greater* lack of trust come from. Experience may be a part of it - the police are not necessarily fully colour-blind yet - but my guess, and it is only a guess, is that it's more down to cultural attitudes which are reinforced within communities and which have a habit of producing feedback effects.
Is it genetic? In which case is there anything we can do? Or something else?
Similarly, but greater propensity to family breakdown is has a cultural aspect and has a relationship to involvement in crime.
http://metro.co.uk/2007/04/10/race-divide-on-single-parents-251523/0 -
Indeed - the EU say they are happy to consider us changing our mind and Remaining, so they would surely be open to a soft Brexit option. The UK government has repeatedly said they're not interested, primarily due to immigration.SouthamObserver said:
The UK government ruled it out long ago, so why would the EU suggest it?Richard_Nabavi said:
No, the EU has never suggested that option is available - quite the opposite. Indeed they are still trying to pretend we can't even start discussing the matter,SouthamObserver said:
Because the British government has ruled it out.Richard_Nabavi said:
The tiny little problemette with that position is that the EU are not offering that option.SouthamObserver said:
The most recent poll I saw backs the Labour position of wanting to remain in the single market and customs union while a final Brexit deal is finalised.0 -
I don't think that the government has been quite so clear cut on the transition, but, more to the point, the EU has been clear that we can't have our cake and eat it, which is exactly what Starmer is saying we should do, and apparently without bothering to enquire what the EU thinks about it. Would you care to cite any evidence whatsoever that such an option might be available? It would fly in the face of everything the EU has said.SouthamObserver said:Exactly - so why would the EU suggest that the UK stay inside the single market and the customs union during a transition period when the UK government has made very clear over a sustained period of time that it does not want to do so?
0 -
Greene King hit as customers pull in from spending thanks to Brexit induced squeeze on consumer spending.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/ftse-falls-as-consumer-stocks-falter-greene-king-drowns-sorrows-idUKKCN1BJ11K?il=00 -
I'm would like to see some evidence that it is cultural rather than racial. And also that culture is not influenced by race too.david_herdson said:
No, like I say, it's cultural, not racial or genetic. But that's not to underestimate the potency of cultural inertia, or some factors that reinforce them, as the report itself notes (possibly indirectly - I've only heard summaries). Distrust of police / judicial system - failure to engage on and after arrest - opt for trials by jury, reject deals with the system - heavier sentence on conviction than white criminals for same crime, due to procedural choices - reinforcement of distrust of judicial system and police.CopperSulphate said:
Yes you did really. What I was getting at is what exactly causes these different attitudes?david_herdson said:
I thought the second paragraph did that (rather crudely)? Attitude to law, to authority, to education, to family and so on? I could have added other similar drivers.CopperSulphate said:
Sure, but you need to ask why the black population is always over-represented in lower social groups.david_herdson said:
.CopperSulphate said:
Can you expand on this? I'm not really sure what you mean here.david_herdson said:
Culture and socioeconomic background is far more important than crude binary ethnic divisions but too politically unfashionable.
Is it genetic? In which case is there anything we can do? Or something else?
Similarly, but greater propensity to family breakdown is has a cultural aspect and has a relationship to involvement in crime.
http://metro.co.uk/2007/04/10/race-divide-on-single-parents-251523/
Black children adopted by white families still under perform in education as if they were raised in a black house hold.
The same under performance happens in Brazil which is the most racially mixed country in the world.0 -
They do want some new immigration controls though, if Labour proposes none at all for years and the Tories to end free movement a year or so after 2019 that may influence some Labour Leaversanothernick said:
Labour leave voters are generally not obsessive about the EU in the way in which many Tories are. They voted to leave to give "the establishment" a kick in the hind quarters but they are not interested in the nuances of hard/soft Brexit - they just feel hard done by and want someone to do something to improve their lot economically and socially. Which Brexit will not do.david_herdson said:
Being in a similar constituency, I can confirm that (although one consequence of the super-centralised and inept CCHQ campaign was that we weren't able to make the most of Mary Creagh's A50 vote and attract the Lab-UKIP vote, or at least, prevent it from going home).NickPalmer said:
No it isn't. I live in a strongly Leave WWC constituency whose MP was so strongly pro-EU that voted against invokig Article 50. Labour's vote in June then rose sharply. Labour voters have views on Brexit like almost everyone else, but it doesn't generally determine their party preference (this is also why the Libdem attempt to grab Labour votes on a super-Remain platform largely failed).stevef said:Labour and Labour MPs in Leave areas have to be very careful indeed how they vote if they want to keep their seats. In the end this is the crucial factor.
0 -
Labour's position (which I'd admit has evolved from conflicting positions and is something of a compromise) is that:SouthamObserver said:
I may have misunderstood, but I do not believe that is the Labour position.Richard_Tyndall said:
But that is not Starmer's position. HE wants us to stay in the Customs Union and SIngle Market permanently but at the same time have control over migration and make our own trade deals. The positions are mutually exclusive.
(1) The first priority is to avoid serious disruption on day 1 of Brexit, so we should negotiate to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market until the Government and Parliament are satisfied that we're ready to move out.
(2) Since we don't know how long that will take, we're against setting a fixed date for it.
(3) If good trade arrangements are negotiated which can take effect once we leave the CU and SM, we should proceed.
(4) If it takes a long time, so be it. If it's never possible, then we wouldn't leave the CU/SM at all.
Leavers may suspect that this constitutes a disguised plan to stay in regardless, but that's only the case if it proves impossible to negotiate better deals. If such deals would in fact be worse for Britain, then presumably Leavers wouldn't want them either.
Migration is a separate issue, surely?0 -
Migration is not a separate issue, because our EU friends are 100% adamant that the 'four freedoms' are indivisible:NickPalmer said:
Labour's position (which I'd admit has evolved from conflicting positions and is something of a compromise) is that:SouthamObserver said:
I may have misunderstood, but I do not believe that is the Labour position.Richard_Tyndall said:
But that is not Starmer's position. HE wants us to stay in the Customs Union and SIngle Market permanently but at the same time have control over migration and make our own trade deals. The positions are mutually exclusive.
(1) The first priority is to avoid serious disruption on day 1 of Brexit, so we should negotiate to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market until the Government and Parliament are satisfied that we're ready to move out.
(2) Since we don't know how long that will take, we're against setting a fixed date for it.
(3) If good trade arrangements are negotiated which can take effect once we leave the CU and SM, we should proceed.
(4) If it takes a long time, so be it. If it's never possible, then we wouldn't leave the CU/SM at all.
Leavers may suspect that this constitutes a disguised plan to stay in regardless, but that's only the case if it proves impossible to negotiate better deals. If such deals would in fact be worse for Britain, then presumably Leavers wouldn't want them either.
Migration is a separate issue, surely?
0 -
The government is assuming - with no shred of evidence - that a transition deal is available. The argument between Labour and Tory is about the form of the transition that both believe is absolutely vital to ensure certainty for business and a smooth Brexit. The Tories want to negotiate a bespoke one and then negotiate a final deal, Labour says there is no time to do that so we should stay in the single market and customs union post-Brexit while a final deal is negotiated.Richard_Nabavi said:
I don't think that the government has been quite so clear cut on the transition, but, more to the point, the EU has been clear that we can't have our cake and eat it, which is exactly what Starmer is saying we should do, and apparently without bothering to enquire what the EU thinks about it. Would you care to cite any evidence whatsoever that such an option might be available? It would fly in the face of everything the EU has said.SouthamObserver said:Exactly - so why would the EU suggest that the UK stay inside the single market and the customs union during a transition period when the UK government has made very clear over a sustained period of time that it does not want to do so?
0 -
Possibly but those who are motivated by anti-immigrant feelings usually want to kick out various categories of immigrants who they perceive to be "scroungers", "taking our jobs", "filling up our schools" etc etc. The vague prospect of a tougher system for EU immigrants at some unspecified future time is not likely to shift many votes.HYUFD said:
They do want some new immigration controls though, if Labour proposes none at all for years and the Tories to end free movement a year or so after 2019 that may influence some Labour Leaversanothernick said:
Labour leave voters are generally not obsessive about the EU in the way in which many Tories are. They voted to leave to give "the establishment" a kick in the hind quarters but they are not interested in the nuances of hard/soft Brexit - they just feel hard done by and want someone to do something to improve their lot economically and socially. Which Brexit will not do.david_herdson said:
Being in a similar constituency, I can confirm that (although one consequence of the super-centralised and inept CCHQ campaign was that we weren't able to make the most of Mary Creagh's A50 vote and attract the Lab-UKIP vote, or at least, prevent it from going home).NickPalmer said:
No it isn't. I live in a strongly Leave WWC constituency whose MP was so strongly pro-EU that voted against invokig Article 50. Labour's vote in June then rose sharply. Labour voters have views on Brexit like almost everyone else, but it doesn't generally determine their party preference (this is also why the Libdem attempt to grab Labour votes on a super-Remain platform largely failed).stevef said:Labour and Labour MPs in Leave areas have to be very careful indeed how they vote if they want to keep their seats. In the end this is the crucial factor.
0 -
Er, have I missed something, or is it the case that the UK will not be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries whilst in the customs union?NickPalmer said:
Labour's position (which I'd admit has evolved from conflicting positions and is something of a compromise) is that:SouthamObserver said:
I may have misunderstood, but I do not believe that is the Labour position.Richard_Tyndall said:
But that is not Starmer's position. HE wants us to stay in the Customs Union and SIngle Market permanently but at the same time have control over migration and make our own trade deals. The positions are mutually exclusive.
(1) The first priority is to avoid serious disruption on day 1 of Brexit, so we should negotiate to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market until the Government and Parliament are satisfied that we're ready to move out.
(2) Since we don't know how long that will take, we're against setting a fixed date for it.
(3) If good trade arrangements are negotiated which can take effect once we leave the CU and SM, we should proceed.
(4) If it takes a long time, so be it. If it's never possible, then we wouldn't leave the CU/SM at all.
Leavers may suspect that this constitutes a disguised plan to stay in regardless, but that's only the case if it proves impossible to negotiate better deals. If such deals would in fact be worse for Britain, then presumably Leavers wouldn't want them either.
Migration is a separate issue, surely?0 -
Exactly - an option which has explicitly been ruled out by the EU27:SouthamObserver said:Labour says there is no time to do that so we should stay in the single market and customs union post-Brexit while a final deal is negotiated.
In a direct riposte to UK ministers and business leaders pushing for early guarantees about a transition, Mr Barnier stressed such transitional measures would be left to the final stages of discussions in 2018, once the framework for a future relationship was agreed.
https://www.ft.com/content/8404d08a-6221-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895
Actually, on this particular point they are being sensible. We need to agree where we're going, and then work out transition arrangements to get there. They are certainly not going to agree to some open-ended 'cake and eat it' transition deal.0 -
Depends on the deal keeping us in the Customs Union I guess!rottenborough said:
Er, have I missed something, or is it the case that the UK will not be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries whilst in the customs union?NickPalmer said:
Labour's position (which I'd admit has evolved from conflicting positions and is something of a compromise) is that:SouthamObserver said:
I may have misunderstood, but I do not believe that is the Labour position.Richard_Tyndall said:
But that is not Starmer's position. HE wants us to stay in the Customs Union and SIngle Market permanently but at the same time have control over migration and make our own trade deals. The positions are mutually exclusive.
(1) The first priority is to avoid serious disruption on day 1 of Brexit, so we should negotiate to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market until the Government and Parliament are satisfied that we're ready to move out.
(2) Since we don't know how long that will take, we're against setting a fixed date for it.
(3) If good trade arrangements are negotiated which can take effect once we leave the CU and SM, we should proceed.
(4) If it takes a long time, so be it. If it's never possible, then we wouldn't leave the CU/SM at all.
Leavers may suspect that this constitutes a disguised plan to stay in regardless, but that's only the case if it proves impossible to negotiate better deals. If such deals would in fact be worse for Britain, then presumably Leavers wouldn't want them either.
Migration is a separate issue, surely?0 -
They want to reduce low skilled immigration certainly, given the Tories only need 10 seats for a majority next time it only takes a handful of Labour 2017 voters in a few northern and midlands marginals to vote Tory next time to make a difference especially if a general election in 2020 coincides with the UK leaving the single market and ending free movementanothernick said:
Possibly but those who are motivated by anti-immigrant feelings usually want to kick out various categories of immigrants who they perceive to be "scroungers", "taking our jobs", "filling up our schools" etc etc. The vague prospect of a tougher system for EU immigrants at some unspecified future time is not likely to shift many votes.HYUFD said:
They do want some new immigration controls though, if Labour proposes none at all for years and the Tories to end free movement a year or so after 2019 that may influence some Labour Leaversanothernick said:
Labour leave voters are generally not obsessive about the EU in the way in which many Tories are. They voted to leave to give "the establishment" a kick in the hind quarters but they are not interested in the nuances of hard/soft Brexit - they just feel hard done by and want someone to do something to improve their lot economically and socially. Which Brexit will not do.david_herdson said:
Being in a similar constituency, I can confirm that (although one consequence of the super-centralised and inept CCHQ campaign was that we weren't able to make the most of Mary Creagh's A50 vote and attract the Lab-UKIP vote, or at least, prevent it from going home).NickPalmer said:
No it isn't. I live in a strongly Leave WWC constituency whose MP was so strongly pro-EU that voted against invokig Article 50. Labour's vote in June then rose sharply. Labour voters have views on Brexit like almost everyone else, but it doesn't generally determine their party preference (this is also why the Libdem attempt to grab Labour votes on a super-Remain platform largely failed).stevef said:Labour and Labour MPs in Leave areas have to be very careful indeed how they vote if they want to keep their seats. In the end this is the crucial factor.
0 -
Labour's position ( given the time which has ALREADY been wasted by May's Government) seems the most sensible one to me.SouthamObserver said:
The government is assuming - with no shred of evidence - that a transition deal is available. The argument between Labour and Tory is about the form of the transition that both believe is absolutely vital to ensure certainty for business and a smooth Brexit. The Tories want to negotiate a bespoke one and then negotiate a final deal, Labour says there is no time to do that so we should stay in the single market and customs union post-Brexit while a final deal is negotiated.Richard_Nabavi said:
I don't think that the government has been quite so clear cut on the transition, but, more to the point, the EU has been clear that we can't have our cake and eat it, which is exactly what Starmer is saying we should do, and apparently without bothering to enquire what the EU thinks about it. Would you care to cite any evidence whatsoever that such an option might be available? It would fly in the face of everything the EU has said.SouthamObserver said:Exactly - so why would the EU suggest that the UK stay inside the single market and the customs union during a transition period when the UK government has made very clear over a sustained period of time that it does not want to do so?
0 -
That is correct. In reality, of course, no-one will want to start formally negotiating a trade deal with the UK until our relationship with the EU is finalised.rottenborough said:
Er, have I missed something, or is it the case that the UK will not be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries whilst in the customs union?NickPalmer said:
Labour's position (which I'd admit has evolved from conflicting positions and is something of a compromise) is that:SouthamObserver said:
I may have misunderstood, but I do not believe that is the Labour position.Richard_Tyndall said:
But that is not Starmer's position. HE wants us to stay in the Customs Union and SIngle Market permanently but at the same time have control over migration and make our own trade deals. The positions are mutually exclusive.
(1) The first priority is to avoid serious disruption on day 1 of Brexit, so we should negotiate to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market until the Government and Parliament are satisfied that we're ready to move out.
(2) Since we don't know how long that will take, we're against setting a fixed date for it.
(3) If good trade arrangements are negotiated which can take effect once we leave the CU and SM, we should proceed.
(4) If it takes a long time, so be it. If it's never possible, then we wouldn't leave the CU/SM at all.
Leavers may suspect that this constitutes a disguised plan to stay in regardless, but that's only the case if it proves impossible to negotiate better deals. If such deals would in fact be worse for Britain, then presumably Leavers wouldn't want them either.
Migration is a separate issue, surely?
0 -
Yep - and me.619 said:
Labour's position ( given the time which has ALREADY been wasted by May's Government) seems the most sensible one to me.SouthamObserver said:
The government is assuming - with no shred of evidence - that a transition deal is available. The argument between Labour and Tory is about the form of the transition that both believe is absolutely vital to ensure certainty for business and a smooth Brexit. The Tories want to negotiate a bespoke one and then negotiate a final deal, Labour says there is no time to do that so we should stay in the single market and customs union post-Brexit while a final deal is negotiated.Richard_Nabavi said:
I don't think that the government has been quite so clear cut on the transition, but, more to the point, the EU has been clear that we can't have our cake and eat it, which is exactly what Starmer is saying we should do, and apparently without bothering to enquire what the EU thinks about it. Would you care to cite any evidence whatsoever that such an option might be available? It would fly in the face of everything the EU has said.SouthamObserver said:Exactly - so why would the EU suggest that the UK stay inside the single market and the customs union during a transition period when the UK government has made very clear over a sustained period of time that it does not want to do so?
0 -
"Further and even more importantly, continued membership of the EU customs union would prevent the UK from entering into its own trade agreements after Brexit, because we would be prohibited from offering the tariff reductions or zero tariffs which are an essential part of any trade deal."619 said:
Depends on the deal keeping us in the Customs Union I guess!rottenborough said:
Er, have I missed something, or is it the case that the UK will not be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries whilst in the customs union?NickPalmer said:
Labour's position (which I'd admit has evolved from conflicting positions and is something of a compromise) is that:SouthamObserver said:
I may have misunderstood, but I do not believe that is the Labour position.Richard_Tyndall said:
But that is not Starmer's position. HE wants us to stay in the Customs Union and SIngle Market permanently but at the same time have control over migration and make our own trade deals. The positions are mutually exclusive.
(1) The first priority is to avoid serious disruption on day 1 of Brexit, so we should negotiate to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market until the Government and Parliament are satisfied that we're ready to move out.
(2) Since we don't know how long that will take, we're against setting a fixed date for it.
(3) If good trade arrangements are negotiated which can take effect once we leave the CU and SM, we should proceed.
(4) If it takes a long time, so be it. If it's never possible, then we wouldn't leave the CU/SM at all.
Leavers may suspect that this constitutes a disguised plan to stay in regardless, but that's only the case if it proves impossible to negotiate better deals. If such deals would in fact be worse for Britain, then presumably Leavers wouldn't want them either.
Migration is a separate issue, surely?
http://brexitcentral.com/free-trade-agreement-single-market-customs-union-parties-say-means/0 -
Correct. Like Starmer, Nick is working under a false belief that we can negotiate trade deals whilst still in the Customs Union. We cannot. If you want to abide by the rules (and that has always been the position of the UK, that we should abide by the rules of whatever organisation we are a member) then we are expressly forbidden from any negotiations on trade deals until we have left the Customs Union.rottenborough said:
Er, have I missed something, or is it the case that the UK will not be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries whilst in the customs union?NickPalmer said:
Labour's position (which I'd admit has evolved from conflicting positions and is something of a compromise) is that:SouthamObserver said:
I may have misunderstood, but I do not believe that is the Labour position.Richard_Tyndall said:
But that is not Starmer's position. HE wants us to stay in the Customs Union and SIngle Market permanently but at the same time have control over migration and make our own trade deals. The positions are mutually exclusive.
(1) The first priority is to avoid serious disruption on day 1 of Brexit, so we should negotiate to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market until the Government and Parliament are satisfied that we're ready to move out.
(2) Since we don't know how long that will take, we're against setting a fixed date for it.
(3) If good trade arrangements are negotiated which can take effect once we leave the CU and SM, we should proceed.
(4) If it takes a long time, so be it. If it's never possible, then we wouldn't leave the CU/SM at all.
Leavers may suspect that this constitutes a disguised plan to stay in regardless, but that's only the case if it proves impossible to negotiate better deals. If such deals would in fact be worse for Britain, then presumably Leavers wouldn't want them either.
Migration is a separate issue, surely?0 -
Worth bearing in mind that BBC Pidgin isn't just the website, but broadcast too. But even so ...williamglenn said:
More to the point it's an oral dialect, so anyone with literacy skills would already be reading and writing in English or French, and able to access an infinite amount of content rather than just a subsection of the BBC.Ishmael_Z said:"Despite being spoken by an estimated 75 million people in Nigeria alone – and as a first language for five million people – Pidgin has, until this week, been marginalised online"
And as a monoglot langage by absolutely nobody, at a guess. Knock out the people who know English or French (both already offered by the World Service), and you could probably fit what's left into a Theresa May General election campaign rally.
Dunno. Pidgin and creole are not purely oral, and some forms have now developed quite a strong base of written literature and a codified grammar. People do read and write in pidgin/creole online as their preferred language. Obviously there is considerable penetration of English and French among the educated elites, but pidgin/creole may be far more widespread than either - not as monoglots, but few people in that region are monoglots. E.g. in Sierra Leone only 10% use krio as their home language, but pretty much the entire rest of the country speaks and uses krio as a supplement to their local tribal language. It is krio, not English, that is used as a lingua franca, and in much of the country English is not widely understood. Having said that, I'm not an expert, but the BBC Pidgin service looks too anglicised to be easily comprehensible to a krio-speaker who does not understand standard English anyway.
There is a question of preference, not just ability, though. A lot of people see English/French as essentially "foreign" languages. If people write their facebook posts and watch TV in their preferred language, it doesn't seem unreasonable that they might welcome news coverage in that language too (for example, sharing a story in their social media feed in the same language that the rest of their feed is written).0 -
Yes, Barnier has ruled out a bespoke transition deal. That's kind of the point.Richard_Nabavi said:
Exactly - an option which has explicitly been ruled out by the EU27:SouthamObserver said:Labour says there is no time to do that so we should stay in the single market and customs union post-Brexit while a final deal is negotiated.
In a direct riposte to UK ministers and business leaders pushing for early guarantees about a transition, Mr Barnier stressed such transitional measures would be left to the final stages of discussions in 2018, once the framework for a future relationship was agreed.
https://www.ft.com/content/8404d08a-6221-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895
Actually, on this particular point they are being sensible. We need to agree where we're going, and then work out transition arrangements to get there. They are certainly not going to agree to some open-ended 'cake and eat it' transition deal.0 -
Yeah the EU would have totally let us stay in the customs union and create our own trade deals - no problem ...619 said:
Labour's position ( given the time which has ALREADY been wasted by May's Government) seems the most sensible one to me.SouthamObserver said:
The government is assuming - with no shred of evidence - that a transition deal is available. The argument between Labour and Tory is about the form of the transition that both believe is absolutely vital to ensure certainty for business and a smooth Brexit. The Tories want to negotiate a bespoke one and then negotiate a final deal, Labour says there is no time to do that so we should stay in the single market and customs union post-Brexit while a final deal is negotiated.Richard_Nabavi said:
I don't think that the government has been quite so clear cut on the transition, but, more to the point, the EU has been clear that we can't have our cake and eat it, which is exactly what Starmer is saying we should do, and apparently without bothering to enquire what the EU thinks about it. Would you care to cite any evidence whatsoever that such an option might be available? It would fly in the face of everything the EU has said.SouthamObserver said:Exactly - so why would the EU suggest that the UK stay inside the single market and the customs union during a transition period when the UK government has made very clear over a sustained period of time that it does not want to do so?
0 -
Why?Richard_Tyndall said:
Correct. Like Starmer, Nick is working under a false belief that we can negotiate trade deals whilst still in the Customs Union. We cannot. If you want to abide by the rules (and that has always been the position of the UK, that we should abide by the rules of whatever organisation we are a member) then we are expressly forbidden from any negotiations on trade deals until we have left the Customs Union.rottenborough said:
Er, have I missed something, or is it the case that the UK will not be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries whilst in the customs union?NickPalmer said:
Labour's position (which I'd admit has evolved from conflicting positions and is something of a compromise) is that:SouthamObserver said:
I may have misunderstood, but I do not believe that is the Labour position.Richard_Tyndall said:
But that is not Starmer's position. HE wants us to stay in the Customs Union and SIngle Market permanently but at the same time have control over migration and make our own trade deals. The positions are mutually exclusive.
(1) The first priority is to avoid serious disruption on day 1 of Brexit, so we should negotiate to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market until the Government and Parliament are satisfied that we're ready to move out.
(2) Since we don't know how long that will take, we're against setting a fixed date for it.
(3) If good trade arrangements are negotiated which can take effect once we leave the CU and SM, we should proceed.
(4) If it takes a long time, so be it. If it's never possible, then we wouldn't leave the CU/SM at all.
Leavers may suspect that this constitutes a disguised plan to stay in regardless, but that's only the case if it proves impossible to negotiate better deals. If such deals would in fact be worse for Britain, then presumably Leavers wouldn't want them either.
Migration is a separate issue, surely?
I understand why we can't implement deals but why can't we talk and start working out deals?0 -
The gap in pidgin-language news service was inevitably going to get filled. From a British perspective there are good reasons wanting it filled by the BBC. As pidgin diverges from British English (and it really is a distinct language, or group of distinct languages - no point looking down our noses at it just because its historical relationship with English leaves it looking like "broken English") and as literacy continues to spread, perhaps the demand for it will continue to grow. Or perhaps wider education means more people in West Africa, not just the elites, will use English/French for media consumption. Both seem plausible to me.
Two aspects I actually find more problematic are that a British broadcaster is having such a transformative effect on a West African language group (clearly the BBC have been researching the way pidgin is currently written, often in informal contexts, but whatever standardisation they pick is likely to carry a lot of weight) and the fact that any such standardisation may be harmful for the diversity of pidgin/creole (it's not a single language, more a group - mind you, I'm the kind of chap who's very disappointed by the loss of English dialects within the UK and thinks that the French vergonha was awful).
Point of comparison: Norwegian was until fairly recently a purely spoken dialect, everyone there understood Danish, anyone literate could read Danish, what was wrong with the Norwegians just going along with the existing body of Danish literature? Even Ibsen wrote in Danish, not Norwegian. Today's Norwegians are still capable of reading Danish. But they don't buy Danish newspapers.0 -
No he hasn't. He's ruled out agreeing a deal at this stage, he hasn't ruled out anything except "breaking the integrity of the Single Market" for the final stages of negotiations.SouthamObserver said:
Yes, Barnier has ruled out a bespoke transition deal. That's kind of the point.Richard_Nabavi said:
Exactly - an option which has explicitly been ruled out by the EU27:SouthamObserver said:Labour says there is no time to do that so we should stay in the single market and customs union post-Brexit while a final deal is negotiated.
In a direct riposte to UK ministers and business leaders pushing for early guarantees about a transition, Mr Barnier stressed such transitional measures would be left to the final stages of discussions in 2018, once the framework for a future relationship was agreed.
https://www.ft.com/content/8404d08a-6221-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895
Actually, on this particular point they are being sensible. We need to agree where we're going, and then work out transition arrangements to get there. They are certainly not going to agree to some open-ended 'cake and eat it' transition deal.0 -
Thanks. I thought so.Richard_Tyndall said:
Correct. Like Starmer, Nick is working under a false belief that we can negotiate trade deals whilst still in the Customs Union. We cannot. If you want to abide by the rules (and that has always been the position of the UK, that we should abide by the rules of whatever organisation we are a member) then we are expressly forbidden from any negotiations on trade deals until we have left the Customs Union.rottenborough said:
Er, have I missed something, or is it the case that the UK will not be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries whilst in the customs union?NickPalmer said:
Labour's position (which I'd admit has evolved from conflicting positions and is something of a compromise) is that:SouthamObserver said:
I may have misunderstood, but I do not believe that is the Labour position.Richard_Tyndall said:
But that is not Starmer's position. HE wants us to stay in the Customs Union and SIngle Market permanently but at the same time have control over migration and make our own trade deals. The positions are mutually exclusive.
(1) The first priority is to avoid serious disruption on day 1 of Brexit, so we should negotiate to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market until the Government and Parliament are satisfied that we're ready to move out.
(2) Since we don't know how long that will take, we're against setting a fixed date for it.
(3) If good trade arrangements are negotiated which can take effect once we leave the CU and SM, we should proceed.
(4) If it takes a long time, so be it. If it's never possible, then we wouldn't leave the CU/SM at all.
Leavers may suspect that this constitutes a disguised plan to stay in regardless, but that's only the case if it proves impossible to negotiate better deals. If such deals would in fact be worse for Britain, then presumably Leavers wouldn't want them either.
Migration is a separate issue, surely?
I'm not sure what Starmer's thinking is, but certainly Nick seems to be saying we can be in the union while we sort out deals for when we are not in the union. We can't.
0 -
In real life, however, negotiations (call them "discussions" if you prefer) happen anyway, and are in progress right now. One cannot conclude trade agreements while still in the Customs Union, but a ban on discussion of what will potentially be agreed is not envisaged, not enforceable and not observed.Richard_Tyndall said:
Correct. Like Starmer, Nick is working under a false belief that we can negotiate trade deals whilst still in the Customs Union. We cannot. If you want to abide by the rules (and that has always been the position of the UK, that we should abide by the rules of whatever organisation we are a member) then we are expressly forbidden from any negotiations on trade deals until we have left the Customs Union.0 -
The Lab-UKIP switchers were, if not obsessed by Brexit, then certainly exercised by it. It was certainly a factor in play in determining where their vote was going, though not, as you say, the be all and end all. But in Wakefield (and Nick's constituency), we weren't talking about the nuances of hard and soft Brexit; we were talking about someone who refused to even implement the result of the referendum. That's a different order of question.anothernick said:
Labour leave voters are generally not obsessive about the EU in the way in which many Tories are. They voted to leave to give "the establishment" a kick in the hind quarters but they are not interested in the nuances of hard/soft Brexit - they just feel hard done by and want someone to do something to improve their lot economically and socially. Which Brexit will not do.david_herdson said:
Being in a similar constituency, I can confirm that (although one consequence of the super-centralised and inept CCHQ campaign was that we weren't able to make the most of Mary Creagh's A50 vote and attract the Lab-UKIP vote, or at least, prevent it from going home).NickPalmer said:
No it isn't. I live in a strongly Leave WWC constituency whose MP was so strongly pro-EU that voted against invokig Article 50. Labour's vote in June then rose sharply. Labour voters have views on Brexit like almost everyone else, but it doesn't generally determine their party preference (this is also why the Libdem attempt to grab Labour votes on a super-Remain platform largely failed).stevef said:Labour and Labour MPs in Leave areas have to be very careful indeed how they vote if they want to keep their seats. In the end this is the crucial factor.
0 -
WE can talk about deals. We can't formally negotiate them. As I say below, in reality we will need a final deal with the EU before anything can be done anyway. No serious country will start to negotiate with us until they know what our relationship with the EU is going to be. For example, a UK which has a level of integration with the single market and a bespoke customs agreement with the EU is a very different prospect to one that has neither.Philip_Thompson said:
Why?Richard_Tyndall said:
Correct. Like Starmer, Nick is working under a false belief that we can negotiate trade deals whilst still in the Customs Union. We cannot. If you want to abide by the rules (and that has always been the position of the UK, that we should abide by the rules of whatever organisation we are a member) then we are expressly forbidden from any negotiations on trade deals until we have left the Customs Union.rottenborough said:
Er, have I missed something, or is it the case that the UK will not be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries whilst in the customs union?NickPalmer said:
Labour's position (which I'd admit has evolved from conflicting positions and is something of a compromise) is that:SouthamObserver said:
I may have misunderstood, but I do not believe that is the Labour position.Richard_Tyndall said:
But that is not Starmer's position. HE wants us to stay in the Customs Union and SIngle Market permanently but at the same time have control over migration and make our own trade deals. The positions are mutually exclusive.
(1) The first priority is to avoid serious disruption on day 1 of Brexit, so we should negotiate to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market until the Government and Parliament are satisfied that we're ready to move out.
(2) Since we don't know how long that will take, we're against setting a fixed date for it.
(3) If good trade arrangements are negotiated which can take effect once we leave the CU and SM, we should proceed.
(4) If it takes a long time, so be it. If it's never possible, then we wouldn't leave the CU/SM at all.
Leavers may suspect that this constitutes a disguised plan to stay in regardless, but that's only the case if it proves impossible to negotiate better deals. If such deals would in fact be worse for Britain, then presumably Leavers wouldn't want them either.
Migration is a separate issue, surely?
I understand why we can't implement deals but why can't we talk and start working out deals?
0 -
No, he and other EU politicans have ruled out the possibility of a transition deal before we have agreed where we are transitioning to and the timetable. In other words, they have explicitly ruled out Labour's position - and that's without even looking at the nature of the cake eating-and-having which Starmer seems to think we can simply award ourselves.SouthamObserver said:
Yes, Barnier has ruled out a bespoke transition deal. That's kind of the point.Richard_Nabavi said:
Exactly - an option which has explicitly been ruled out by the EU27:SouthamObserver said:Labour says there is no time to do that so we should stay in the single market and customs union post-Brexit while a final deal is negotiated.
In a direct riposte to UK ministers and business leaders pushing for early guarantees about a transition, Mr Barnier stressed such transitional measures would be left to the final stages of discussions in 2018, once the framework for a future relationship was agreed.
https://www.ft.com/content/8404d08a-6221-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895
Actually, on this particular point they are being sensible. We need to agree where we're going, and then work out transition arrangements to get there. They are certainly not going to agree to some open-ended 'cake and eat it' transition deal.0 -
Nope. The rules of the Customs Union are agreed by treaty. Unless you are suggesting we reopen Treaty negotiations to change the rules - something I suspect the EU would view with horror - we know exactly what the rules are we have to abide by if we stay in.619 said:
Depends on the deal keeping us in the Customs Union I guess!rottenborough said:
Er, have I missed something, or is it the case that the UK will not be able to negotiate trade deals with other countries whilst in the customs union?NickPalmer said:
Labour's position (which I'd admit has evolved from conflicting positions and is something of a compromise) is that:SouthamObserver said:
I may have misunderstood, but I do not believe that is the Labour position.Richard_Tyndall said:
But that is not Starmer's position. HE wants us to stay in the Customs Union and SIngle Market permanently but at the same time have control over migration and make our own trade deals. The positions are mutually exclusive.
(1) The first priority is to avoid serious disruption on day 1 of Brexit, so we should negotiate to stay in the Customs Union and Single Market until the Government and Parliament are satisfied that we're ready to move out.
(2) Since we don't know how long that will take, we're against setting a fixed date for it.
(3) If good trade arrangements are negotiated which can take effect once we leave the CU and SM, we should proceed.
(4) If it takes a long time, so be it. If it's never possible, then we wouldn't leave the CU/SM at all.
Leavers may suspect that this constitutes a disguised plan to stay in regardless, but that's only the case if it proves impossible to negotiate better deals. If such deals would in fact be worse for Britain, then presumably Leavers wouldn't want them either.
Migration is a separate issue, surely?0 -
It's not my impression that voters closely follow every utterance by Corbyn, much though I might wish that to be the case. The whole issue was only mentioned once on the doorstep in my patch, as far as I can remember.HYUFD said:
Yes but Corbyn backed leaving the single market and ending free movement in JuneNickPalmer said:
No it isn't. I live in a strongly Leave WWC constituency whose MP was so strongly pro-EU that voted against invokig Article 50. Labour's vote in June then rose sharply. Labour voters have views on Brexit like almost everyone else, but it doesn't generally determine their party preference (this is also why the Libdem attempt to grab Labour votes on a super-Remain platform largely failed).stevef said:Labour and Labour MPs in Leave areas have to be very careful indeed how they vote if they want to keep their seats. In the end this is the crucial factor.
0 -
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/06/brussels-furious-toxic-home-office-paper-warn-bespoke-brexit/Philip_Thompson said:
No he hasn't. He's ruled out agreeing a deal at this stage, he hasn't ruled out anything except "breaking the integrity of the Single Market" for the final stages of negotiations.SouthamObserver said:
Yes, Barnier has ruled out a bespoke transition deal. That's kind of the point.Richard_Nabavi said:
Exactly - an option which has explicitly been ruled out by the EU27:SouthamObserver said:Labour says there is no time to do that so we should stay in the single market and customs union post-Brexit while a final deal is negotiated.
In a direct riposte to UK ministers and business leaders pushing for early guarantees about a transition, Mr Barnier stressed such transitional measures would be left to the final stages of discussions in 2018, once the framework for a future relationship was agreed.
https://www.ft.com/content/8404d08a-6221-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895
Actually, on this particular point they are being sensible. We need to agree where we're going, and then work out transition arrangements to get there. They are certainly not going to agree to some open-ended 'cake and eat it' transition deal.
0 -
Isn't that a bit like me picking up USA Today when in London. The news content isn't that relevant to me so I buy a local paper instead....MyBurningEars said:Today's Norwegians are still capable of reading Danish. But they don't buy Danish newspapers.
0
