politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » ICM finds Corbyn making ground against TMay across a range of
Comments
-
I thought it was 4%!TheScreamingEagles said:
No it isn't, the latest Survation poll was the one for the Mail on Sunday, whose fieldwork started and ended on the 22nd of September.HYUFD said:
The 20th September is hardly old and it is the latest Survation polljustin124 said:
Fieldwork already a little bit old.HYUFD said:Tories now just 1% behind Labour with gold standard Survation https://mobile.twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/912641639742570496
That gave Labour a 5% lead.0 -
On the contrary, controlling credit cards or bitcoins is much easier than controlling the export of cash was in the 1970s. You just introduce the appropriate regulations on banks and credit card companies. In the case of bitcoins, you just ban banks from transferring money to purchase them. Easy as pie.MarqueeMark said:
Plus controlling bitcoin is going to be fun....david_herdson said:
We're in a very different world from 1987 now though. I'm not sure how practical it would even be to impose exchange controls at short notice. How would if affect the use of debit and credit cards, for example - things which people take absolutely for granted now but which were all but unusable abroad (if you had them at all) thirty years ago?justin124 said:
The restoration of Exchange Controls was in Labour's 1987 Manifesto so it would hardly be new territory at all.In the 1960s the need to support the pound under the Bretton Woods system did lead to tight control on how much currency could be taken out of the UK , but most people felt able to live with that despite the associated inconveniences.david_herdson said:
Can I Godwin that one? Can I? Pleeease.MarqueeMark said:
Labour Govt., Day One: complete ban on transfer of capital out of the UK. Back to taking a tenner a day spending money on holiday.david_herdson said:
Having committed to buying back the PFI deals on the nation's credit card yesterday (on top of the earlier policies and the likely withdrawal of overseas investment in e.g. London property), that seems a fair expectation.
Day Two: the start of the biggest buyer's remorse in the history of democracy.
Of course, it's not so easy to control bitcoins once they have been obtained, but you don't need to.0 -
The email they sent me Saturday night said 5%, their tweet said 4%, and the FOAK says 5%.justin124 said:
I thought it was 4%!TheScreamingEagles said:
No it isn't, the latest Survation poll was the one for the Mail on Sunday, whose fieldwork started and ended on the 22nd of September.HYUFD said:
The 20th September is hardly old and it is the latest Survation polljustin124 said:
Fieldwork already a little bit old.HYUFD said:Tories now just 1% behind Labour with gold standard Survation https://mobile.twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/912641639742570496
That gave Labour a 5% lead.
But their tables say 4.3%0 -
Which also had Labour's lead down, Survation is clearly seeing the Labour lead fall in its latest 2 pollsTheScreamingEagles said:
No it isn't, the latest Survation poll was the one for the Mail on Sunday, whose fieldwork started and ended on the 22nd of September.HYUFD said:
The 20th September is hardly old and it is the latest Survation polljustin124 said:
Fieldwork already a little bit old.HYUFD said:Tories now just 1% behind Labour with gold standard Survation https://mobile.twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/912641639742570496
That gave Labour a 5% lead.
Though the Mail figure had UKIP on 4% up more than 2% on GE0 -
0
-
Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently)
Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays
Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess0 -
Unlike you, I'm a non-Tory who tolerates the views of some Tories (Grieve, Soubry, Clarke, Heseltine, Patten if he still is a Tory, Gummer) and disagrees with the views of others (Tebbit, Howard, Mogg, Bone, Cash, Redwood, IDS). When Clarke uses the word headbangers he seems to refer to the latter group!Big_G_NorthWales said:
I agree with but would include the conservatives and the DUP in both houses and also the prospect of countless appeals to the High Courts as per Gina Miller on rights over share values etcrural_voter said:
Unless they get the youth to vote early and vote often, which would be a Northern Ireland-scale scandal I don't think they'll get a majority of 50. Hung parliament but the reverse of the current Tory/Labour split?Big_G_NorthWales said:The one thing that has become apparent that over the summer Corbyn has become a cult figure that has revitalised the youth and with the help of momentum has seen him grow in confidence to follow his hard left agenda.
However, this is the first time I have witnessed anything like this and it is possible Corbyn, McDonnell et al have put too much faith in how much the voting public will endorse them.
If Labour is the largest party, it still has to get its programme past Lib.Dems, Greens, Plaid, SNP ... and the House of Lords. The Lords have a reasonable record of trying to block mad legislation.
The Lords also had a reasonable record in the 1980s of acting as the official opposition to Thatcher and her 'headbanger' policies. I think under FPTP it would be dangerous to abolish it as McD probably wants to do.0 -
Bit unfair to lump Ardern and Sanders in there. They are mainstream figures (of the Left), who could have been around any time in the past 100 years.HYUFD said:
Corbyn is the same beneficiary of anti austerity populism as Bernie Sanders, Tsipras, Melenchon, Jacinda Ardern, Die Linke and Podemos. Brexit was the same beneficiary of anti immigration populism as Trump, Le Pen, Pauline Hanson, the AdD and Wilders. Brexit did not cause Corbyn anti austerity didSouthamObserver said:
Brexit, with its sunny uplands and no downsides, paved the way for Cake And Eat It politics. The Labour party's leadership learned an important lesson from a campaign they played no part in: when people feel alienated and their living standards are slipping, if you tell them what they want to hear, they will vote for you; cry Project Fear and promise the world, and you have every chance of success.MarqueeMark said:
Wrong in 180 degrees. We still have a Conservative Prime Minister. We still have a Labour Leader of the Opposition. You were wronger than Wrongy McWrong of Wrongsville, on the wrongest day of the year.williamglenn said:
Wrong only in degree. In fact I wish I'd stuck to my guns because when the election was first called I got carried away with thinking it would be a Tory landslide.MarqueeMark said:
Er.. there was no Corbyn majority in the quick general election after winning the referendum. So you were wrong - as ever.williamglenn said:
People tried to warn conservatives like you where this was heading.Casino_Royale said:
Or several, if Corbyn gets in.DavidL said:
After 2007 nothing could save our AAA rating. The country is deep in the brown stuff and it will take a generation to recover from that man's incompetence.Jonathan said:Tories not as good on the economy as they think they are. I remember when only the Tories could save our AAA rating. Oh dear.
E.g. me on June 5th 2016:
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1083093/#Comment_1083093
The Brexit campaign, with its anti-politics demagoguery, is laying the ground for an unexpected Corbyn majority if they're hubristic enough to go for a quick general election after winning the referendum.
As with Brexit.
That said, I think you are right. The 2 groups are the 2 sides of the same coin, blaming different people.
To defeat them we need rising real wages for a sustained period, which is easier said than done. Conventional measures are not working.0 -
No but further anti establishment protestSouthamObserver said:
I know. Anti-immigration populism is also a consequence of stagnating and falling living standards. It is not a solution to them, of course.HYUFD said:
Corbyn is the same beneficiary of anti austerity populism as Bernie Sanders, Tsipras, Melenchon, Jacinda Ardern, Die Linke and Podemos. Brexit was the same beneficiary of anti immigration populism as Trump, Le Pen, Pauline Hanson, the AdD and Wilders. Brexit did not cause Corbyn anti austerity didSouthamObserver said:
Brexit, with its sunny uplands and no downsides, paved the way for Cake And Eat It politics. The Labour party's leadership learned an important lesson from a campaign they played no part in: when people feel alienated and their living standards are slipping, if you tell them what they want to hear, they will vote for you; cry Project Fear and promise the world, and you have every chance of success.MarqueeMark said:
Wrong in 180 degrees. We still have a Conservative Prime Minister. We still have a Labour Leader of the Opposition. You were wronger than Wrongy McWrong of Wrongsville, on the wrongest day of the year.williamglenn said:
Wrong only in degree. In fact I wish I'd stuck to my guns because when the election was first called I got carried away with thinking it would be a Tory landslide.MarqueeMark said:
Er.. there was no Corbyn majority in the quick general election after winning the referendum. So you were wrong - as ever.williamglenn said:
People tried to warn conservatives like you where this was heading.Casino_Royale said:
Or several, if Corbyn gets in.DavidL said:
After 2007 nothing could save our AAA rating. The country is deep in the brown stuff and it will take a generation to recover from that man's incompetence.Jonathan said:Tories not as good on the economy as they think they are. I remember when only the Tories could save our AAA rating. Oh dear.
E.g. me on June 5th 2016:
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1083093/#Comment_1083093
The Brexit campaign, with its anti-politics demagoguery, is laying the ground for an unexpected Corbyn majority if they're hubristic enough to go for a quick general election after winning the referendum.
As with Brexit.0 -
How many people use bitcoin though? That might be an issue by 2022 but I still doubt it: national currencies enjoy the usage they do for good reasons.MarqueeMark said:
Plus controlling bitcoin is going to be fun....david_herdson said:
We're in a very different world from 1987 now though. I'm not sure how practical it would even be to impose exchange controls at short notice. How would if affect the use of debit and credit cards, for example - things which people take absolutely for granted now but which were all but unusable abroad (if you had them at all) thirty years ago?justin124 said:
The restoration of Exchange Controls was in Labour's 1987 Manifesto so it would hardly be new territory at all.In the 1960s the need to support the pound under the Bretton Woods system did lead to tight control on how much currency could be taken out of the UK , but most people felt able to live with that despite the associated inconveniences.david_herdson said:
Can I Godwin that one? Can I? Pleeease.MarqueeMark said:
Labour Govt., Day One: complete ban on transfer of capital out of the UK. Back to taking a tenner a day spending money on holiday.david_herdson said:
Having committed to buying back the PFI deals on the nation's credit card yesterday (on top of the earlier policies and the likely withdrawal of overseas investment in e.g. London property), that seems a fair expectation.
Day Two: the start of the biggest buyer's remorse in the history of democracy.
But the basic point - about controlling the flow of 'money' - in the digital age is right: it's extremely difficult. The days of cash and travellers cheques are long gone.0 -
I do understand your point , but I don't actually believe that day to day life is so very different from 1987 really. Even items such as PCs and mobile phones remain optional extras for many people and a significant number choose to forgo them - and I am not only referring to pensioners! The changes that the reimposition of Exchange Controls would bring to the lives of most people would still be pretty minor when compared with the system of Rationing and Direct Controls during World War 2 which continued for almost a decade into the postwar period.david_herdson said:
We're in a very different world from 1987 now though. I'm not sure how practical it would even be to impose exchange controls at short notice. How would if affect the use of debit and credit cards, for example - things which people take absolutely for granted now but which were all but unusable abroad (if you had them at all) thirty years ago?justin124 said:
The restoration of Exchange Controls was in Labour's 1987 Manifesto so it would hardly be new territory at all.In the 1960s the need to support the pound under the Bretton Woods system did lead to tight control on how much currency could be taken out of the UK , but most people felt able to live with that despite the associated inconveniences.david_herdson said:
Can I Godwin that one? Can I? Pleeease.MarqueeMark said:
Labour Govt., Day One: complete ban on transfer of capital out of the UK. Back to taking a tenner a day spending money on holiday.david_herdson said:
Having committed to buying back the PFI deals on the nation's credit card yesterday (on top of the earlier policies and the likely withdrawal of overseas investment in e.g. London property), that seems a fair expectation.
Day Two: the start of the biggest buyer's remorse in the history of democracy.0 -
Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true. It's evident nonsense; inasmuch as it is doing anything other than Brexit, the government is continuing with a mainstream centrist programme:SouthamObserver said:The Tories have long since given up on the centre ground. Like Labour, they are moving to their extreme.
The main non-Brexit proposals of the [Queen's] speech include:
- A Civil Liability Bill, designed to address the "compensation culture" around motoring insurance claims
- A Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, establishing a Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner to stand up for victims and survivors and monitor the response of the authorities
- A Tenant's Fees Bill, banning landlords from charging "letting fees"
- A High-Speed Two Bill to authorise the second leg of the rail link from Birmingham to Crewe
- A Data Protection Bill to strengthen individuals' rights and introduce a "right to be forgotten".
- An Armed Forces Bill allowing people to serve on a part-time and flexible basis
Hardly extreme right wing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40345280
0 -
Sanders would be the most left-wing candidate ever nominated by the Democrats, he also endorsed Corbyn in Junedixiedean said:
Bit unfair to lump Ardern and Sanders in there. They are mainstream figures (of the Left), who could have been around any time in the past 100 years.HYUFD said:
Corbyn is the same beneficiary of anti austerity populism as Bernie Sanders, Tsipras, Melenchon, Jacinda Ardern, Die Linke and Podemos. Brexit was the same beneficiary of anti immigration populism as Trump, Le Pen, Pauline Hanson, the AdD and Wilders. Brexit did not cause Corbyn anti austerity didSouthamObserver said:
Brexit, with its sunny uplands and no downsides, paved the way he world, and you have every chance of success.MarqueeMark said:
Wrong in 180 degrees. We still have a Conservative Prime Minister. We still have a Labour Leader of the Opposition. You were wronger than Wrongy McWrong of Wrongsville, on the wrongest day of the year.williamglenn said:
Wrong only in degree. In fact I wish I'd stuck to my guns because when the election was first called I got carried away with thinking it would be a Tory landslide.MarqueeMark said:
Er.. there was no Corbyn majority in the quick general election after winning the referendum. So you were wrong - as ever.williamglenn said:
People tried to warn conservatives like you where this was heading.Casino_Royale said:
Or several, if Corbyn gets in.DavidL said:
After 2007 nothing could save our AAA rating. The country is deep in the brown stuff and it will take a generation to recover from that man's incompetence.Jonathan said:Tories not as good on the economy as they think they are. I remember when only the Tories could save our AAA rating. Oh dear.
E.g. me on June 5th 2016:
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1083093/#Comment_1083093
The Brexit campaign, with its anti-politics demagoguery, is laying the ground for an unexpected Corbyn majority if they're hubristic enough to go for a quick general election after winning the referendum.
As with Brexit.
That said, I think you are right. The 2 groups are the 2 sides of the same coin, blaming different people.
To defeat them we need rising real wages for a sustained period, which is easier said than done. Conventional measures are not working.0 -
Of course he does. He's war gaming what will stop him and I reckon there's a bloomin good chance HoL has come up repeatedly.rural_voter said:
Unlike you, I'm a non-Tory who tolerates the views of some Tories (Grieve, Soubry, Clarke, Heseltine, Patten if he still is a Tory, Gummer) and disagrees with the views of others (Tebbit, Howard, Mogg, Bone, Cash, Redwood, IDS). When Clarke uses the word headbangers he seems to refer to the latter group!Big_G_NorthWales said:
I agree with but would include the conservatives and the DUP in both houses and also the prospect of countless appeals to the High Courts as per Gina Miller on rights over share values etcrural_voter said:
Unless they get the youth to vote early and vote often, which would be a Northern Ireland-scale scandal I don't think they'll get a majority of 50. Hung parliament but the reverse of the current Tory/Labour split?Big_G_NorthWales said:The one thing that has become apparent that over the summer Corbyn has become a cult figure that has revitalised the youth and with the help of momentum has seen him grow in confidence to follow his hard left agenda.
However, this is the first time I have witnessed anything like this and it is possible Corbyn, McDonnell et al have put too much faith in how much the voting public will endorse them.
If Labour is the largest party, it still has to get its programme past Lib.Dems, Greens, Plaid, SNP ... and the House of Lords. The Lords have a reasonable record of trying to block mad legislation.
The Lords also had a reasonable record in the 1980s of acting as the official opposition to Thatcher and her 'headbanger' policies. I think under FPTP it would be dangerous to abolish it as McD probably wants to do.0 -
Poor old Paris, what a shame.TOPPING said:Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently)
Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays
Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess0 -
The issue isn't so much technical, it's political. The freedom to transfer money abroad is completely taken for granted, rather more so even than the right to use and Uber. Reimposing exchange controls in 1987 might have seemed a bit retro but was still something that would have been familiar to most adults who'd travelled abroad. That's not at all the case now.Richard_Nabavi said:
On the contrary, controlling credit cards or bitcoins is much easier than controlling the export of cash was in the 1970s. You just introduce the appropriate regulations on banks and credit card companies. In the case of bitcoins, you just ban banks from transferring money to purchase them. Easy as pie.MarqueeMark said:
Plus controlling bitcoin is going to be fun....david_herdson said:
We're in a very different world from 1987 now though. I'm not sure how practical it would even be to impose exchange controls at short notice. How would if affect the use of debit and credit cards, for example - things which people take absolutely for granted now but which were all but unusable abroad (if you had them at all) thirty years ago?justin124 said:
The restoration of Exchange Controls was in Labour's 1987 Manifesto so it would hardly be new territory at all.In the 1960s the need to support the pound under the Bretton Woods system did lead to tight control on how much currency could be taken out of the UK , but most people felt able to live with that despite the associated inconveniences.david_herdson said:
Can I Godwin that one? Can I? Pleeease.MarqueeMark said:
Labour Govt., Day One: complete ban on transfer of capital out of the UK. Back to taking a tenner a day spending money on holiday.david_herdson said:
Having committed to buying back the PFI deals on the nation's credit card yesterday (on top of the earlier policies and the likely withdrawal of overseas investment in e.g. London property), that seems a fair expectation.
Day Two: the start of the biggest buyer's remorse in the history of democracy.
Of course, it's not so easy to control bitcoins once they have been obtained, but you don't need to.0 -
Thanks for that - and fair enough!TheScreamingEagles said:
The email they sent me Saturday night said 5%, their tweet said 4%, and the FOAK says 5%.justin124 said:
I thought it was 4%!TheScreamingEagles said:
No it isn't, the latest Survation poll was the one for the Mail on Sunday, whose fieldwork started and ended on the 22nd of September.HYUFD said:
The 20th September is hardly old and it is the latest Survation polljustin124 said:
Fieldwork already a little bit old.HYUFD said:Tories now just 1% behind Labour with gold standard Survation https://mobile.twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/912641639742570496
That gave Labour a 5% lead.
But their tables say 4.3%0 -
BBC website leading on McD wargaming for run on £
Not the day McD had in mind no doubt. The cat is out of the bag and running around...0 -
Oh, absolutely. The youngsters voting for Corbyn won't know what's hit them, but by that time it will be too late.david_herdson said:The issue isn't so much technical, it's political. The freedom to transfer money abroad is completely taken for granted, rather more so even than the right to use and Uber. Reimposing exchange controls in 1987 might have seemed a bit retro but was still something that would have been familiar to most adults who'd travelled abroad. That's not at all the case now.
0 -
Yeah, we nixed our Paris move, the trouble with France is that it is full of French people.Richard_Nabavi said:
Poor old Paris, what a shame.TOPPING said:Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently)
Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays
Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English.0 -
Anti-capitalist rioters always take their selfies on the latest iPhone!!glw said:
That message sent using Facebook Messenger on their iPhone, whilst streaming Spotify, the holiday booked using Kayak, and they plan to user Uber at the airport when they arrive.rottenborough said:
I don't believe it Charlotte!! I'm suppose to be flying to Barcelona for the weekend for a city break with Oliver, and I can only get €100 out at the airport.glw said:
There seems to be a massive gulf between my interpretation of what the likes of Corbyn are saying and what "young people" think he is saying. I have no doubt that a Corbyn government would absolutely trash many of the things young people like most.rottenborough said:Good Energy have spent years building a 100% renewable electricity supply. Most of the shareholders are little guys and customers.
This could be gone within minutes of a Labour government.
Is this really what the Glastonbury crowd want? Buyers remorse awaits big time.
The very things young people love most are created by businesses that look for low regulation, low taxes, and an ease of raising capital. Things that make a country an attractive place to invest, and things that will cease to be if Corbyn become PM.
Steve Jobs may have been a fruit-eating buddist, but he was no anti-capitalist.0 -
I posted some questions a few weeks ago about exchange controls - many thought it was pie in the sky but some posters took the prospect seriously.
There were a number of helpful replies about, in particular, the practicalities of opening a bank account in various other countries.
A bit of chat on an internet forum is fine but if a Corbyn Government looks a serious imminent prospect then many people are surely going to need proper professional advice re the most sensible, practical steps to take.
Will eg solicitors be providing this for people who have significant savings but aren't in the multi millionaire bracket?0 -
Germans have better English than the Dutch?!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????TheScreamingEagles said:
Yeah, we nixed our Paris move, the trouble with France is that it is full of French people.Richard_Nabavi said:
Poor old Paris, what a shame.TOPPING said:Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently)
Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays
Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English.0 -
After heavy deliberation they were chosen by Crédit Agricole!Richard_Nabavi said:
Poor old Paris, what a shame.TOPPING said:Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently)
Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays
Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess0 -
I'm surprised on the last point - I used to do a lot of business both in Holland and in Germany, and I always found the Dutch spoke excellent English (and were easier to deal with than the Germans). Mind you, that was a few years ago and perhaps it's changed.TheScreamingEagles said:Yeah, we nixed our Paris move, the trouble with France is that it is full of French people.
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English.0 -
In totality and the support services.TOPPING said:
Germans have better English than the Dutch?!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????TheScreamingEagles said:
Yeah, we nixed our Paris move, the trouble with France is that it is full of French people.Richard_Nabavi said:
Poor old Paris, what a shame.TOPPING said:Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently)
Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays
Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English.
There's already a brouhaha over some bars in Berlin and Bonn that speak exclusively in English.0 -
No - more like the Major government, they are embracing their inner aimlessness, and just Pootering around.Richard_Nabavi said:
Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true. It's evident nonsense; inasmuch as it is doing anything other than Brexit, the government is continuing with a mainstream centrist programme:SouthamObserver said:The Tories have long since given up on the centre ground. Like Labour, they are moving to their extreme.
The main non-Brexit proposals of the [Queen's] speech include:
- A Civil Liability Bill, designed to address the "compensation culture" around motoring insurance claims
- A Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, establishing a Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner to stand up for victims and survivors and monitor the response of the authorities
- A Tenant's Fees Bill, banning landlords from charging "letting fees"
- A High-Speed Two Bill to authorise the second leg of the rail link from Birmingham to Crewe
- A Data Protection Bill to strengthen individuals' rights and introduce a "right to be forgotten".
- An Armed Forces Bill allowing people to serve on a part-time and flexible basis
Hardly extreme right wing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-403452800 -
Sorry you can rule out Berlin and Bonn. Too racy for you, young lad. You'll be stuck in Frankfurt.TheScreamingEagles said:
In totality and the support services.TOPPING said:
Germans have better English than the Dutch?!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????TheScreamingEagles said:
Yeah, we nixed our Paris move, the trouble with France is that it is full of French people.Richard_Nabavi said:
Poor old Paris, what a shame.TOPPING said:Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently)
Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays
Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English.
There's already a brouhaha over some bars in Berlin and Bonn that speak exclusively in English.0 -
If we Rejoin, our laws will be made (at least in part) by the FrenchTheScreamingEagles said:
Yeah, we nixed our Paris move, the trouble with France is that it is full of French people.Richard_Nabavi said:
Poor old Paris, what a shame.TOPPING said:Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently)
Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays
Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English. 0 -
0
-
The most interesting thing is that no one (as far as I am aware) is looking to move to Bruxelles.TOPPING said:
Sorry you can rule out Berlin and Bonn. Too racy for you, young lad. You'll be stuck in Frankfurt.TheScreamingEagles said:
In totality and the support services.TOPPING said:
Germans have better English than the Dutch?!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????TheScreamingEagles said:
Yeah, we nixed our Paris move, the trouble with France is that it is full of French people.Richard_Nabavi said:
Poor old Paris, what a shame.TOPPING said:Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently)
Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays
Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English.
There's already a brouhaha over some bars in Berlin and Bonn that speak exclusively in English.
They did make a pitch a while back.0 -
It's not really aimlessness. You can have whatever aims you like, but if you haven't got the numbers you haven't got the numbers. I think Theresa May did have some big ambitions, but she blew the chance to implement them.Nigelb said:No - more like the Major government, they are embracing their inner aimlessness, and just Pootering around.
0 -
You are being very naive. What they "are proposing" is not what they will "actually do". A Corbyn/Mcdonnell government would be way to the left of Callaghan, Wilson and even Foot.justin124 said:
I am sorry but I disagree. What Labour is proposing would still leave the public sector significantly smaller than was the case in 1974. Increasing the top rate of Income Tax to 50% is a very modest commitment - well below the 60% level considered acceptable by Thatcher until 1988. There are no proposals to take over the Top 100 companies such as Tony Benn mooted before the 1974 elections. In what way is Labour policy more left wing today than in the early to mid 1970s?Big_G_NorthWales said:
With the greatest of respect they are putting forward the most hard left marxist style programme for government I have ever seen, only equalled by Hatton when Kinnock won that battle.justin124 said:
I agree with that. Labour is not as far to the left today as it was back in 1974 - never mind 1983.anothernick said:
Exactly.tyson said:<
I am doubtful even the worst excesses of Corbyn and McDonnell could even begin to provoke the amount of damage on the country as the Tory wreckers have done with Brexit.
I am a long-standing Labour moderate, I have been in the party since the 1970s and remember well the battles against the left the last time round in the 80s and early 90s. I have grave doubts about Corbyn and McDonnell in policy terms and also about their competence.
0 -
Well our laws are passed in (Norman) French, so it would be a nice symmetry.Sunil_Prasannan said:
If we Rejoin, our laws will be made (at least in part) by the FrenchTheScreamingEagles said:
Yeah, we nixed our Paris move, the trouble with France is that it is full of French people.Richard_Nabavi said:
Poor old Paris, what a shame.TOPPING said:Brexit relocation of EU headquarters from the UK update.
To:
Frankfurt: Citigroup, Standard Chartered, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley, Nomura (UBS, Goldman to follow, apparently)
Dublin: Bank of America, Barclays
Amsterdam:Tradeweb, MarketAxess
Germany looks great, especially when compared to France.
I did like The Netherlands but that nixed on Germans having better English.
Le Roy le veult.0 -
Your PB quiz question of the day: Who said this, and about what?
The right hon. and learned Gentleman must realise that this is one more reckless, precipitate and doctrinaire action, which the Government will regret no sooner than those who lose their jobs or go bankrupt as a result.
(No Googling!)0 -
Next thing, they'll be discussing the new policy that you must declare the £5 in your wallet when you go abroad. It applied from the 1940s to the late 1970s but you only remember the experience if you're aged over about 55, i.e. Corbyn will but most of Momentum won't.rottenborough said:BBC website leading on McD wargaming for run on £
Not the day McD had in mind no doubt. The cat is out of the bag and running around...0 -
Am fairly sure it was exactly as he intended. Firstly, Labour is leading the news (no such thing as bad publicity).rottenborough said:BBC website leading on McD wargaming for run on £
Not the day McD had in mind no doubt. The cat is out of the bag and running around...
Secondly it shows to the troops that they are serious about power.
Thirdly, and possibly most importantly, it sets up the betrayal myth. If the economy goes tits up he can point to the warnings about evil bankers and markets.0 -
Great. I wish more politicians would be cured of the urge to "do things and be seen to be doing things". I'm convinced because they have no job spec or key result eras or whatever like normal folk they are gripped by an inner terror that they might be caught "doing nothing".Nigelb said:
No - more like the Major government, they are embracing their inner aimlessness, and just Pootering around.Richard_Nabavi said:
Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true. It's evident nonsense; inasmuch as it is doing anything other than Brexit, the government is continuing with a mainstream centrist programme:SouthamObserver said:The Tories have long since given up on the centre ground. Like Labour, they are moving to their extreme.
The main non-Brexit proposals of the [Queen's] speech include:
- A Civil Liability Bill, designed to address the "compensation culture" around motoring insurance claims
- A Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, establishing a Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner to stand up for victims and survivors and monitor the response of the authorities
- A Tenant's Fees Bill, banning landlords from charging "letting fees"
- A High-Speed Two Bill to authorise the second leg of the rail link from Birmingham to Crewe
- A Data Protection Bill to strengthen individuals' rights and introduce a "right to be forgotten".
- An Armed Forces Bill allowing people to serve on a part-time and flexible basis
Hardly extreme right wing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40345280
Take a leaf out of the Texas constitution and limit the number of days you sit, and remember a lot of us really wouldn't mind one jot if they did less and just left us all alone a lot more.
End of soapbox.0 -
The current Constitution of India (the longest in the world!) is not much different from the Government of India Act, 1935.david_herdson said:
On Ireland, a less extreme response to the Easter 1916 events could well have seen the IRA marginalised and split, leading to no Sinn Fein landslide, de facto independence or civil war. Home Rule would have been necessary though. Easy in hindsight; harder to do in the middle of a world war.Casino_Royale said:
There was a chance for India to become a fully self-governing dominion, like Australia, South Africa, Canada and NZ, as many Indians expected post WWI, and that chance ended in 1919.david_herdson said:Ireland is a different case but had those seeking independence kept to the rule of law, there's a good chance that Home Rule would have been delivered in the early 1920s. Whether that would then have drifted to independence is an open question and would have probably depended on the political skill of the respective leaders.
Similarly, India was already on the route to Responsible Government in the 1930s. Would that have happened had campaigning kept to petitions, letter-writing and lobbying? Who knows - but the fact that the protests were overwhelmingly peaceful gave them considerable power, so a peaceful, lawful campaign might have ended up somewhere similar, if not quite so quickly. Dominion status followed by full independence would probably have come, even without WWII and the winds of change.
As for the ANC, did their violence in the 1980s help or hinder their campaign? I suspect the latter. An international campaign based on the injustice of apartheid would probably have been more effective if the cynical, the worried and the closet racists didn't have the argument that it was a necessary evil because the ANC's antics proved that blacks couldn't be trusted with power - an argument that carried some weight both inside and outside the country. Internal and international pressure would almost certainly have brought apartheid to an end anyway.
You are right to imply India probably would have ditched the King-Emperor and Maharajas eventually, anyway, but probably not until the 1950s/1960s. The path would have been smoother and more peaceful, and we'd have had an even closer relationship with them today.
Ireland is very hard to call. But I think it might have been possible to prevent full Republicanism and a split in the island of Ireland, provided the right constitutional settlement had been devised, but the 1916 uprising, the British response, and the Irish War of 1920-1921 put an end to that for good.
I'm not convinced the window closed on India in 1919 - though that was clearly one opportunity. The India Act was putting the pieces in place for the move to Responsible Government in the mid-1930s but WWII overtook its implementation.0 -
Um, he's not going to make progress by REJECTING talks ,is he?williamglenn said: 0 -
William: you are a restless fanatic on the EU. You think attitudes to it are the cause of every problem, and itself is the solution, and, in attacking those that disagree, and rejecting any form of nuance, you are guilty of just the same level of fanaticism as the Corbynites and Redwoods you criticise.williamglenn said:
It's not the cause of his rise, but it's the reason why the Conservatives are fairly powerless to oppose it. When the Tories lose their minds over Europe, they leave the field clear for Labour. It was the same in the 90s. Only a united pro-European Tory party can deliver stable centre-right government.Casino_Royale said:
Correlation does not equal causation.SouthamObserver said:
Brexit, with its sunny uplands and no downsides, paved the way for Cake And Eat It politics. The Labour party's leadership learned an important lesson from a campaign they played no part in: when people feel alienated and their living standards are slipping, if you tell them what they want to hear, they will vote for you; cry Project Fear and promise the world, and you have every chance of success.MarqueeMark said:
As with Brexit.williamglenn said:
Wrong only in degree. In fact I wish I'd stuck to my guns because when the election was first called I got carried away with thinking it would be a Tory landslide.MarqueeMark said:
Er.. there was no Corbyn majority in the quick general election after winning the referendum. So you were wrong - as ever.williamglenn said:
People tried to warn conservatives like you where this was heading.Casino_Royale said:
Or several, if Corbyn gets in.DavidL said:
After 2007 nothing could save our AAA rating. The country is deep in the brown stuff and it will take a generation to recover from that man's incompetence.Jonathan said:Tories not as good on the economy as they think they are. I remember when only the Tories could save our AAA rating. Oh dear.
E.g. me on June 5th 2016:
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1083093/#Comment_1083093
The
Brexit has given a boost to Corbyn's vote, but it's not the cause of his rise.
Your only line of innovation is trying to find an angle on any poster who appears eurosceptic (who desires something else, politically) and then explaining why being pro-EU is the answer to that.
You have zero credibility with me, and I take your posts with that level of seriousness.0 -
The Uber furore gives a preview of that.Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, absolutely. The youngsters voting for Corbyn won't know what's hit them, but by that time it will be too late.david_herdson said:The issue isn't so much technical, it's political. The freedom to transfer money abroad is completely taken for granted, rather more so even than the right to use and Uber. Reimposing exchange controls in 1987 might have seemed a bit retro but was still something that would have been familiar to most adults who'd travelled abroad. That's not at all the case now.
The little cherubs still can't make the link. Bless.0 -
Anybody with any sense should allow for the fact that anytime after 8.00 day one of PM Corbyn where there are no exchange controls is bonus time.rottenborough said:BBC website leading on McD wargaming for run on £
Not the day McD had in mind no doubt. The cat is out of the bag and running around...
Anyone born after about 1970 probably only has a hazy idea of the concept if they've heard of it at all. To be fair to them why should they, it's 38 years since they went. However be prepared folks.0 -
I thought it was a fairly astute post, regardless of his views on the EU. When the Cons tear themselves apart over Europe (or do you think they never do?!) then it leaves the way open for Labour.Casino_Royale said:
William: you are a restless fanatic on the EU. You think attitudes to it are the cause of every problem, and itself is the solution, and, in attacking those that disagree, and rejecting any form of nuance, you are guilty of just the same level of fanaticism as the Corbynites and Redwoods you criticise.williamglenn said:
It's not the cause of his rise, but it's the reason why the Conservatives are fairly powerless to oppose it. When the Tories lose their minds over Europe, they leave the field clear for Labour. It was the same in the 90s. Only a united pro-European Tory party can deliver stable centre-right government.Casino_Royale said:
Correlation does not equal causation.SouthamObserver said:
Brexit, with its sunny uplands and if you tell them what they want to hear, they will vote for you; cry Project Fear and promise the world, and you have every chance of success.MarqueeMark said:
As with Brexit.williamglenn said:
Wrong only in degree. In fact I wislide.MarqueeMark said:
Er.. there was no Corbyn majority in the quick general election after winning the referendum. So you were wrong - as ever.williamglenn said:
People tried to warn conservatives like you where this was heading.Casino_Royale said:
Or several, if Corbyn gets in.DavidL said:
After 2007 nothing could save our AAA rating. The country is deep in the brown stuff and it will take a generation to recover from that man's incompetence.Jonathan said:Tories not as good on the economy as they think they are. I remember when only the Tories could save our AAA rating. Oh dear.
E.g. me on June 5th 2016:
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1083093/#Comment_1083093
The
Brexit has given a boost to Corbyn's vote, but it's not the cause of his rise.
Your only line of innovation is trying to find an angle on any poster who appears eurosceptic (who desires something else, politically) and then explaining why being pro-EU is the answer to that.
You have zero credibility with me, and I take your posts with that level of seriousness.
Surely even small children in Bruges see that.0 -
Rather more important that they recognise which tasks actually do matter, and get on with them.welshowl said:
Great. I wish more politicians would be cured of the urge to "do things and be seen to be doing things". I'm convinced because they have no job spec or key result eras or whatever like normal folk they are gripped by an inner terror that they might be caught "doing nothing".Nigelb said:
No - more like the Major government, they are embracing their inner aimlessness, and just Pootering around.Richard_Nabavi said:
Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true. It's evident nonsense; inasmuch as it is doing anything other than Brexit, the government is continuing with a mainstream centrist programme:SouthamObserver said:The Tories have long since given up on the centre ground. Like Labour, they are moving to their extreme.
The main non-Brexit proposals of the [Queen's] speech include:
- A Civil Liability Bill, designed to address the "compensation culture" around motoring insurance claims
- A Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, establishing a Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner to stand up for victims and survivors and monitor the response of the authorities
- A Tenant's Fees Bill, banning landlords from charging "letting fees"
- A High-Speed Two Bill to authorise the second leg of the rail link from Birmingham to Crewe
- A Data Protection Bill to strengthen individuals' rights and introduce a "right to be forgotten".
- An Armed Forces Bill allowing people to serve on a part-time and flexible basis
Hardly extreme right wing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40345280
Take a leaf out of the Texas constitution and limit the number of days you sit, and remember a lot of us really wouldn't mind one jot if they did less and just left us all alone a lot more.
End of soapbox.
May, notoriously, said she did not wish her administration to be defined by Brexit....0 -
Which banks? UK? Or will you stop transfer of funds to foreign, or dare I say it, I must, I must, an off shore bank account? You won't be popular with a couple of recent ex-PM's, a CoE or two, and many movers and shakers in the City of London. If there is a market, someone will find a way to serve it. And if the government of which ever point of view, makes a law which is ignored by the majority, then they become irrelevant, and certainly if it loses control of the currency, then the game becomes very interesting, to say the least.Richard_Nabavi said:
On the contrary, controlling credit cards or bitcoins is much easier than controlling the export of cash was in the 1970s. You just introduce the appropriate regulations on banks and credit card companies. In the case of bitcoins, you just ban banks from transferring money to purchase them. Easy as pie.MarqueeMark said:
Plus controlling bitcoin is going to be fun....david_herdson said:
We're in a very different world from 1987 now though. I'm not sure how practical it would even be to impose exchange controls at short notice. How would if affect the use of debit and credit cards, for example - things which people take absolutely for granted now but which were all but unusable abroad (if you had them at all) thirty years ago?justin124 said:
The restoration of Exchange Controls was in Labour's 1987 Manifesto so it would hardly be new territory at all.In the 1960s the need to support the pound under the Bretton Woods system did lead to tight control on how much currency could be taken out of the UK , but most people felt able to live with that despite the associated inconveniences.david_herdson said:
Can I Godwin that one? Can I? Pleeease.MarqueeMark said:
Labour Govt., Day One: complete ban on transfer of capital out of the UK. Back to taking a tenner a day spending money on holiday.david_herdson said:
Having committed to buying back the PFI deals on the nation's credit card yesterday (on top of the earlier policies and the likely withdrawal of overseas investment in e.g. London property), that seems a fair expectation.
Day Two: the start of the biggest buyer's remorse in the history of democracy.
Of course, it's not so easy to control bitcoins once they have been obtained, but you don't need to.0 -
The Lords should appoint a committee of Patten, Steel and respected people from othere parties and the cross benchers (obviously Patten, I think) to lead the opposition to abolition and the case for steady reform. The latter is opposed by a lot of vested interests which must be why duds continue to be appointed to the Lords.rottenborough said:
Of course he does. He's war gaming what will stop him and I reckon there's a bloomin good chance HoL has come up repeatedly.rural_voter said:
Unlike you, I'm a non-Tory who tolerates the views of some Tories (Grieve, Soubry, Clarke, Heseltine, Patten if he still is a Tory, Gummer) and disagrees with the views of others (Tebbit, Howard, Mogg, Bone, Cash, Redwood, IDS). When Clarke uses the word headbangers he seems to refer to the latter group!Big_G_NorthWales said:
I agree with but would include the conservatives and the DUP in both houses and also the prospect of countless appeals to the High Courts as per Gina Miller on rights over share values etcrural_voter said:
Unless they get the youth to vote early and vote often, which would be a Northern Ireland-scale scandal I don't think they'll get a majority of 50. Hung parliament but the reverse of the current Tory/Labour split?Big_G_NorthWales said:The one thing that has become apparent that over the summer Corbyn has become a cult figure that has revitalised the youth and with the help of momentum has seen him grow in confidence to follow his hard left agenda.
However, this is the first time I have witnessed anything like this and it is possible Corbyn, McDonnell et al have put too much faith in how much the voting public will endorse them.
If Labour is the largest party, it still has to get its programme past Lib.Dems, Greens, Plaid, SNP ... and the House of Lords. The Lords have a reasonable record of trying to block mad legislation.
The Lords also had a reasonable record in the 1980s of acting as the official opposition to Thatcher and her 'headbanger' policies. I think under FPTP it would be dangerous to abolish it as McD probably wants to do.
The obvious next stage in steady reform, it seems to me, is to abolish the elections for new hereditary peers when the old ones die off. So when for instance Lord Carrington who's nearly 100 finally leaves this world he wouldn't be replaced.0 -
True of course, but I always feel there's a default mode "to do" rather than "not to do".Nigelb said:
Rather more important that they recognise which tasks actually do matter, and get on with them.welshowl said:
Great. I wish more politicians would be cured of the urge to "do things and be seen to be doing things". I'm convinced because they have no job spec or key result eras or whatever like normal folk they are gripped by an inner terror that they might be caught "doing nothing".Nigelb said:
No - more like the Major government, they are embracing their inner aimlessness, and just Pootering around.Richard_Nabavi said:
Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true. It's evident nonsense; inasmuch as it is doing anything other than Brexit, the government is continuing with a mainstream centrist programme:SouthamObserver said:The Tories have long since given up on the centre ground. Like Labour, they are moving to their extreme.
The main non-Brexit proposals of the [Queen's] speech include:
- A Civil Liability Bill, designed to address the "compensation culture" around motoring insurance claims
- A Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, establishing a Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner to stand up for victims and survivors and monitor the response of the authorities
- A Tenant's Fees Bill, banning landlords from charging "letting fees"
- A High-Speed Two Bill to authorise the second leg of the rail link from Birmingham to Crewe
- A Data Protection Bill to strengthen individuals' rights and introduce a "right to be forgotten".
- An Armed Forces Bill allowing people to serve on a part-time and flexible basis
Hardly extreme right wing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40345280
Take a leaf out of the Texas constitution and limit the number of days you sit, and remember a lot of us really wouldn't mind one jot if they did less and just left us all alone a lot more.
End of soapbox.
May, notoriously, said she did not wish her administration to be defined by Brexit....
Not doing has a lot of virtues. Hammond for instance is doing a great job not being McDonnell. I struggle to see what he could achieve that's better than "not being" at present. That's perfectly fine.0 -
Err, you need to address those questions to John McDonnell, not to me.OchEye said:
Which banks? UK? Or will you stop transfer of funds to foreign, or dare I say it, I must, I must, an off shore bank account? You won't be popular with a couple of recent ex-PM's, a CoE or two, and many movers and shakers in the City of London. If there is a market, someone will find a way to serve it. And if the government of which ever point of view, makes a law which is ignored by the majority, then they become irrelevant, and certainly if it loses control of the currency, then the game becomes very interesting, to say the least.
However, I can answer the technical points on his behalf: Of course if he introduces exchange controls the restrictions will apply to any foreign bank operating here. They operate here under UK financial regulation, after all. If it's like the 1970s (which seems to be the model Corbyn and McDonnell want to follow), UK citizens won't be allowed to hold bank accounts offshore.0 -
Ignoring general shifts in society since then (e.g. on minority rights):Big_G_NorthWales said:I am sorry but I disagree. What Labour is proposing would still leave the public sector significantly smaller than was the case in 1974. Increasing the top rate of Income Tax to 50% is a very modest commitment - well below the 60% level considered acceptable by Thatcher until 1988. There are no proposals to take over the Top 100 companies such as Tony Benn mooted before the 1974 elections. In what way is Labour policy more left wing today than in the early to mid 1970s?
1. Direction and speed of travel
2. Relative position to the electorate
3. Foreign policy
4. Defence policy
5. N Ireland (not so much Labour as Corbyn / McDonnell personally)
6. Monetary policy
7. Willingness to consider confiscation / requisitioning
8. Freedom of speech, in practice
9. Attitude to the nation and its history.
10. Positive discrimination.0 -
Tory divisions over Europe destroyed the premierships of Cameron, Major and Thatcher. They will certainly destroy what remains of May.TOPPING said:
I thought it was a fairly astute post, regardless of his views on the EU. When the Cons tear themselves apart over Europe (or do you think they never do?!) then it leaves the way open for Labour.
Surely even small children in Bruges see that.0 -
I am definitely going to vote Corbyn out of sheer nihilism.rottenborough said:"As a senior Labour politician recently told me: "There is simply no historical model anywhere in the world for what we want to do, which has been successful. A left government being elected in a post-industrial society and then successfully managing to transition into a major new settlement, whether a new form of capitalism or socialism: this is not easy to achieve."
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/09/why-labour-wise-use-war-game-planning-government0 -
Similarly, Barniers comments merit reading:williamglenn said:
https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/912412333791678465
0 -
Polly's warming to Jezza since the election is fast approaching a full embrace:
Labour has indeed become the nation’s adults, the sensibles, the party least likely to wreck the country’s future. How short a time ago Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell were regarded as delinquent adolescents who had never grown out of the 1970s. They may be the masters soon [...] Labour looks more credible by the day, its senior team more impressive: one reminder here is the roster of excellent Labour mayors and leaders running the country’s best councils, while Kensington and Chelsea stands as the Tory’s sorry emblem.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/25/jeremy-corbyn-power-labour-brexit0 -
Why?Dura_Ace said:
I am definitely going to vote Corbyn out of sheer nihilism.rottenborough said:"As a senior Labour politician recently told me: "There is simply no historical model anywhere in the world for what we want to do, which has been successful. A left government being elected in a post-industrial society and then successfully managing to transition into a major new settlement, whether a new form of capitalism or socialism: this is not easy to achieve."
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/09/why-labour-wise-use-war-game-planning-government0 -
Whereas we see countless Brexiteers who promised that leaving the EU would solve the problems of migrants undercutting British service providers cheering on a company whose business model is largely dependent on the use of migrant labour to undercut British service providers. It turns out that the interests of expensive British plumbers and electricians are worth protecting, but those of expensive British black cab drivers are not. Go figure!!Casino_Royale said:
The Uber furore gives a preview of that.Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, absolutely. The youngsters voting for Corbyn won't know what's hit them, but by that time it will be too late.david_herdson said:The issue isn't so much technical, it's political. The freedom to transfer money abroad is completely taken for granted, rather more so even than the right to use and Uber. Reimposing exchange controls in 1987 might have seemed a bit retro but was still something that would have been familiar to most adults who'd travelled abroad. That's not at all the case now.
The little cherubs still can't make the link. Bless.
0 -
More accurate to say European divisions over Tories.anothernick said:
Tory divisions over Europe destroyed the premierships of Cameron, Major and Thatcher. They will certainly destroy what remains of May.TOPPING said:
I thought it was a fairly astute post, regardless of his views on the EU. When the Cons tear themselves apart over Europe (or do you think they never do?!) then it leaves the way open for Labour.
Surely even small children in Bruges see that.
The direction of the EU post 1988 simply wasn't (and isn't) politically sustainable for the UK.
Smart Europhiles will, of course, do the logical reverse thinking: that that means that a reversion to some sort of associate membership of the EU, together with membership of the single market and customs union, and a voice in both, but with a brake on excessive movement of people, and a full opt-out of anything from Maastricht and beyond, would be.0 -
Has anybody told McD that City contribues £70b a year in tax.Richard_Nabavi said:
Err, you need to address those questions to John McDonnell, not to me.OchEye said:
Which banks? UK? Or will you stop transfer of funds to foreign, or dare I say it, I must, I must, an off shore bank account? You won't be popular with a couple of recent ex-PM's, a CoE or two, and many movers and shakers in the City of London. If there is a market, someone will find a way to serve it. And if the government of which ever point of view, makes a law which is ignored by the majority, then they become irrelevant, and certainly if it loses control of the currency, then the game becomes very interesting, to say the least.
However, I can answer the technical points on his behalf: Of course if he introduces exchange controls the restrictions will apply to any foreign bank operating here. They operate here under UK financial regulation, after all. If it's like the 1970s (which seems to be the model Corbyn and McDonnell want to follow), UK citizens won't be allowed to hold bank accounts offshore.
Has he wargamed that declining massively in a hurry?
I guess he'll just print the difference.
0 -
If he's gaming properly, he'll keep the Lords as it is. Yes, it might create trouble but nothing that can't be overcome - with the Parliament Act if necessary but it rarely goes that far. However, promoting the abolition will likely produce a demand for it to be replaced with an elected second chamber: a demand that will be hard to ignore (not least because Labour could use that as a check on future Tory governments). A Senate, elected by PR, would be a much greater threat than the Lords as currently constituted.rottenborough said:
Of course he does. He's war gaming what will stop him and I reckon there's a bloomin good chance HoL has come up repeatedly.rural_voter said:
Unlike you, I'm a non-Tory who tolerates the views of some Tories (Grieve, Soubry, Clarke, Heseltine, Patten if he still is a Tory, Gummer) and disagrees with the views of others (Tebbit, Howard, Mogg, Bone, Cash, Redwood, IDS). When Clarke uses the word headbangers he seems to refer to the latter group!Big_G_NorthWales said:
I agree with but would include the conservatives and the DUP in both houses and also the prospect of countless appeals to the High Courts as per Gina Miller on rights over share values etcrural_voter said:
Unless they get the youth to vote early and vote often, which would be a Northern Ireland-scale scandal I don't think they'll get a majority of 50. Hung parliament but the reverse of the current Tory/Labour split?Big_G_NorthWales said:The one thing that has become apparent that over the summer Corbyn has become a cult figure that has revitalised the youth and with the help of momentum has seen him grow in confidence to follow his hard left agenda.
However, this is the first time I have witnessed anything like this and it is possible Corbyn, McDonnell et al have put too much faith in how much the voting public will endorse them.
If Labour is the largest party, it still has to get its programme past Lib.Dems, Greens, Plaid, SNP ... and the House of Lords. The Lords have a reasonable record of trying to block mad legislation.
The Lords also had a reasonable record in the 1980s of acting as the official opposition to Thatcher and her 'headbanger' policies. I think under FPTP it would be dangerous to abolish it as McD probably wants to do.0 -
What will happen is that UK citizens will give money to their relatives to hold in their own names, in trust.Richard_Nabavi said:
Err, you need to address those questions to John McDonnell, not to me.OchEye said:
Which banks? UK? Or will you stop transfer of funds to foreign, or dare I say it, I must, I must, an off shore bank account? You won't be popular with a couple of recent ex-PM's, a CoE or two, and many movers and shakers in the City of London. If there is a market, someone will find a way to serve it. And if the government of which ever point of view, makes a law which is ignored by the majority, then they become irrelevant, and certainly if it loses control of the currency, then the game becomes very interesting, to say the least.
However, I can answer the technical points on his behalf: Of course if he introduces exchange controls the restrictions will apply to any foreign bank operating here. They operate here under UK financial regulation, after all. If it's like the 1970s (which seems to be the model Corbyn and McDonnell want to follow), UK citizens won't be allowed to hold bank accounts offshore.
I have cousins in Australia, Canada and New Zealand that I trust, plus an Uncle in the USA, and a relative in Bulgaria I also trust.0 -
Brexit is all. And to keep her right wing happy Theresa May has spent the last year followings its playbook. To predictably poor effect.Richard_Nabavi said:
Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true. It's evident nonsense; inasmuch as it is doing anything other than Brexit, the government is continuing with a mainstream centrist programme:SouthamObserver said:The Tories have long since given up on the centre ground. Like Labour, they are moving to their extreme.
The main non-Brexit proposals of the [Queen's] speech include:
- A Civil Liability Bill, designed to address the "compensation culture" around motoring insurance claims
- A Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, establishing a Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner to stand up for victims and survivors and monitor the response of the authorities
- A Tenant's Fees Bill, banning landlords from charging "letting fees"
- A High-Speed Two Bill to authorise the second leg of the rail link from Birmingham to Crewe
- A Data Protection Bill to strengthen individuals' rights and introduce a "right to be forgotten".
- An Armed Forces Bill allowing people to serve on a part-time and flexible basis
Hardly extreme right wing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40345280
0 -
He would be right if he said divided parties lose elections.TOPPING said:
I thought it was a fairly astute post, regardless of his views on the EU. When the Cons tear themselves apart over Europe (or do you think they never do?!) then it leaves the way open for Labour.Casino_Royale said:
William: you are a restless fanatic on the EU. You think attitudes to it are the cause of every problem, and itself is the solution, and, in attacking those that disagree, and rejecting any form of nuance, you are guilty of just the same level of fanaticism as the Corbynites and Redwoods you criticise.williamglenn said:
It's not the cause of his rise, but it's the reason why the Conservatives are fairly powerless to oppose it. When the Tories lose their minds over Europe, they leave the field clear for Labour. It was the same in the 90s. Only a united pro-European Tory party can deliver stable centre-right government.Casino_Royale said:
Correlation does not equal causation.SouthamObserver said:
Brexit, with its sunny uplands and if you tell them what they want to hear, they will vote for you; cry Project Fear and promise the world, and you have every chance of success.MarqueeMark said:
As with Brexit.williamglenn said:
Wrong only in degree. In fact I wislide.MarqueeMark said:
Er.. there was no Corbyn majority in the quick general election after winning the referendum. So you were wrong - as ever.williamglenn said:
People tried to warn conservatives like you where this was heading.Casino_Royale said:
Or several, if Corbyn gets in.DavidL said:
After 2007 nothing could save our AAA rating. The country is deep in the brown stuff and it will take a generation to recover from that man's incompetence.Jonathan said:Tories not as good on the economy as they think they are. I remember when only the Tories could save our AAA rating. Oh dear.
E.g. me on June 5th 2016:
http://politicalbetting.vanillaforums.com/discussion/comment/1083093/#Comment_1083093
The
Brexit has given a boost to Corbyn's vote, but it's not the cause of his rise.
Your only line of innovation is trying to find an angle on any poster who appears eurosceptic (who desires something else, politically) and then explaining why being pro-EU is the answer to that.
You have zero credibility with me, and I take your posts with that level of seriousness.
Surely even small children in Bruges see that.0 -
Aren't Labour 'intensely relaxed' about them?Charles said:
It was aimed firmly at the tax dodging global super rich who pollute LondonSouthamObserver said:
She triggered Article 50 before having an EU exit strategy and a settled final destination; she labelled those who disagreed with her as citizens of nowhere; stood by as her media cheerleaders labelled judges with the temerity to enforce the law enemies of the people; and then accused the EU of trying to fix the outcome of the totally unnecessary general election she called. What's more she made Boris Johnson foreign secretary and is now too weak to fire him. Her incompetence, embrace of the Tory right and manifest inability to lead has set the UK on a path to a cliff-edge Brexit that will cause seious, sustained damage to our economy and international standing.rkrkrk said:
IDS was worse in opposition for sure I think.SouthamObserver said:The UK has got itself into a situation where it has no good choices. The worst government and the worst opposition in living memory at a time of maximum peacetime need and exposure. What a mess.
I think you're a bit harsh on TM also - she was left a really tough situation by Cam and Osborne... I'd argue their government from 2015 was worse in many ways.
And don't start me on the ludicrous Jeremy Corbyn, whose intolerant Labour party will bankrupt Britain and drive away the wealth creators this country so drsperately needs.
What a mess.0 -
I'm really not sure that I find a chum, buddie, mate, party loyalist or ex MP moved upstairs any more worthy or in any way better than a hereditary.rural_voter said:
The Lords should appoint a committee of Patten, Steel and respected people from othere parties and the cross benchers (obviously Patten, I think) to lead the opposition to abolition and the case for steady reform. The latter is opposed by a lot of vested interests which must be why duds continue to be appointed to the Lords.rottenborough said:
Of course he does. He's war gaming what will stop him and I reckon there's a bloomin good chance HoL has come up repeatedly.rural_voter said:
Unlike you, I'm a non-Tory who tolerates the views of some Tories (Grieve, Soubry, Clarke, Heseltine, Patten if he still is a Tory, Gummer) and disagrees with the views of others (Tebbit, Howard, Mogg, Bone, Cash, Redwood, IDS). When Clarke uses the word headbangers he seems to refer to the latter group!Big_G_NorthWales said:
I agree with but would include the conservatives and the DUP in both houses and also the prospect of countless appeals to the High Courts as per Gina Miller on rights over share values etcrural_voter said:
Unless they get the youth to vote early and vote often, which would be a Northern Ireland-scale scandal I don't think they'll get a majority of 50. Hung parliament but the reverse of the current Tory/Labour split?Big_G_NorthWales said:Corbyn has become a cult figure that has revitalised the youth and with the help of momentum has seen him grow in confidence to follow his hard left agenda.
However, this is the first time I have witnessed anything like this and it is possible Corbyn, McDonnell et al have put too much faith in how much the voting public will endorse them.
If Labour is the largest party, it still has to get its programme past Lib.Dems, Greens, Plaid, SNP ... and the House of Lords. The Lords have a reasonable record of trying to block mad legislation.
The Lords also had a reasonable record in the 1980s of acting as the official opposition to Thatcher and her 'headbanger' policies. I think under FPTP it would be dangerous to abolish it as McD probably wants to do.
The obvious next stage in steady reform, it seems to me, is to abolish the elections for new hereditary peers when the old ones die off. So when for instance Lord Carrington who's nearly 100 finally leaves this world he wouldn't be replaced.
The heraditaries are a smoke screen. Sure there is no justification for them (except Historical, and that fails the democratic test).
The equal lunacy is appointments. Appointments are worse when they get to the position through arse licking and sycophantic means.
0 -
Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/21/uk-banks-to-check-70m-bank-accounts-in-search-for-illegal-immigrants0 -
The big thing that's missing there is 100% compensation for any mistakes.TheScreamingEagles said:Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/21/uk-banks-to-check-70m-bank-accounts-in-search-for-illegal-immigrants0 -
I had noted that too. Decent pay and conditions for WWC folk doesnt matter if they are cabbies.SouthamObserver said:
Whereas we see countless Brexiteers who promised that leaving the EU would solve the problems of migrants undercutting British service providers cheering on a company whose business model is largely dependent on the use of migrant labour to undercut British service providers. It turns out that the interests of expensive British plumbers and electricians are worth protecting, but those of expensive British black cab drivers are not. Go figure!!Casino_Royale said:
The Uber furore gives a preview of that.Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, absolutely. The youngsters voting for Corbyn won't know what's hit them, but by that time it will be too late.david_herdson said:The issue isn't so much technical, it's political. The freedom to transfer money abroad is completely taken for granted, rather more so even than the right to use and Uber. Reimposing exchange controls in 1987 might have seemed a bit retro but was still something that would have been familiar to most adults who'd travelled abroad. That's not at all the case now.
The little cherubs still can't make the link. Bless.
But as we all know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even when having very short memories:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/9123233958193684490 -
Possibly. But HoL will be able to block/delay non-manifesto proposals. These are precisely the things McD probably has up his sleeve. Too extreme to be in a manifesto.david_herdson said:
If he's gaming properly, he'll keep the Lords as it is. Yes, it might create trouble but nothing that can't be overcome - with the Parliament Act if necessary but it rarely goes that far. However, promoting the abolition will likely produce a demand for it to be replaced with an elected second chamber: a demand that will be hard to ignore (not least because Labour could use that as a check on future Tory governments). A Senate, elected by PR, would be a much greater threat than the Lords as currently constituted.rottenborough said:
Of course he does. He's war gaming what will stop him and I reckon there's a bloomin good chance HoL has come up repeatedly.rural_voter said:
Unlike you, I'm a non-Tory who tolerates the views of some Tories (Grieve, Soubry, Clarke, Heseltine, Patten if he still is a Tory, Gummer) and disagrees with the views of others (Tebbit, Howard, Mogg, Bone, Cash, Redwood, IDS). When Clarke uses the word headbangers he seems to refer to the latter group!Big_G_NorthWales said:
I agree with but would include the conservatives and the DUP in both houses and also the prospect of countless appeals to the High Courts as per Gina Miller on rights over share values etcrural_voter said:
Unless they get the youth to vote early and vote often, which would be a Northern Ireland-scale scandal I don't think they'll get a majority of 50. Hung parliament but the reverse of the current Tory/Labour split?Big_G_NorthWales said:The one thing that has become apparent that over the summer Corbyn has become a cult figure that has revitalised the youth and with the help of momentum has seen him grow in confidence to follow his hard left agenda.
However, this is the first time I have witnessed anything like this and it is possible Corbyn, McDonnell et al have put too much faith in how much the voting public will endorse them.
If Labour is the largest party, it still has to get its programme past Lib.Dems, Greens, Plaid, SNP ... and the House of Lords. The Lords have a reasonable record of trying to block mad legislation.
The Lords also had a reasonable record in the 1980s of acting as the official opposition to Thatcher and her 'headbanger' policies. I think under FPTP it would be dangerous to abolish it as McD probably wants to do.
Plus hubris is in the air already. Imagine if they win. Completing the hundred year battle to reform the Lords - they would go for it imho.0 -
As a US resident with a British bank account, I have a very bad feeling about this.TheScreamingEagles said:Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/21/uk-banks-to-check-70m-bank-accounts-in-search-for-illegal-immigrants
About a year ago our UK bank (First Direct) asked us to do video calls with them to show proof of ID and address. It wasn't mandatory but if you didn't your online access would be significantly down-graded. I did it but my wife didn't bother as we barely use the account anyway and she lets me manage it. I can't help but feel this may prove to be a mistake come January, even though as an Irish citizen my wife has an unqualified right to travel to and settle in the UK.0 -
An example... the government might attempt seriously to address the pathetically low level of house building ?welshowl said:
True of course, but I always feel there's a default mode "to do" rather than "not to do".Nigelb said:
Rather more important that they recognise which tasks actually do matter, and get on with them.welshowl said:
Great. I wish more politicians would be cured of the urge to "do things and be seen to be doing things". I'm convinced because they have no job spec or key result eras or whatever like normal folk they are gripped by an inner terror that they might be caught "doing nothing".Nigelb said:
No - more like the Major government, they are embracing their inner aimlessness, and just Pootering around.Richard_Nabavi said:
Repeatedly saying that doesn't make it true. It's evident nonsense; inasmuch as it is doing anything other than Brexit, the government is continuing with a mainstream centrist programme:SouthamObserver said:The Tories have long since given up on the centre ground. Like Labour, they are moving to their extreme.
The main non-Brexit proposals of the [Queen's] speech include:
- A Civil Liability Bill, designed to address the "compensation culture" around motoring insurance claims
- A Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, establishing a Domestic Violence and Abuse Commissioner to stand up for victims and survivors and monitor the response of the authorities
- A Tenant's Fees Bill, banning landlords from charging "letting fees"
- A High-Speed Two Bill to authorise the second leg of the rail link from Birmingham to Crewe
- A Data Protection Bill to strengthen individuals' rights and introduce a "right to be forgotten".
- An Armed Forces Bill allowing people to serve on a part-time and flexible basis
Hardly extreme right wing!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40345280
Take a leaf out of the Texas constitution and limit the number of days you sit, and remember a lot of us really wouldn't mind one jot if they did less and just left us all alone a lot more.
End of soapbox.
May, notoriously, said she did not wish her administration to be defined by Brexit....
Not doing has a lot of virtues. Hammond for instance is doing a great job not being McDonnell. I struggle to see what he could achieve that's better than "not being" at present. That's perfectly fine.
It's not a particularly party political issue, but it has national salience. And it has the merit that spending on this could genuinely described as 'investment'.0 -
The Home Office doesn't make mistakes citizen!Richard_Nabavi said:
The big thing that's missing there is 100% compensation for any mistakes.TheScreamingEagles said:Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/21/uk-banks-to-check-70m-bank-accounts-in-search-for-illegal-immigrants0 -
I remember when it was only sneering, latte drinking, metropolitan elitists who benefited from cheap migrant labour that lowered the living standards of good, salt-of-the-earth, patriotic Brits. But, it seems, we are all sneering, latte drinking, metropolitan elitists now!!foxinsoxuk said:
I had noted that too. Decent pay and conditions for WWC folk doesnt matter if they are cabbies.SouthamObserver said:
Whereas we see countless Brexiteers who promised that leaving the EU would solve the problems of migrants undercutting British service providers cheering on a company whose business model is largely dependent on the use of migrant labour to undercut British service providers. It turns out that the interests of expensive British plumbers and electricians are worth protecting, but those of expensive British black cab drivers are not. Go figure!!Casino_Royale said:
The Uber furore gives a preview of that.Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, absolutely. The youngsters voting for Corbyn won't know what's hit them, but by that time it will be too late.david_herdson said:The issue isn't so much technical, it's political. The freedom to transfer money abroad is completely taken for granted, rather more so even than the right to use and Uber. Reimposing exchange controls in 1987 might have seemed a bit retro but was still something that would have been familiar to most adults who'd travelled abroad. That's not at all the case now.
The little cherubs still can't make the link. Bless.
But as we all know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even when having very short memories:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/912323395819368449
0 -
But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.Richard_Nabavi said:
The big thing that's missing there is 100% compensation for any mistakes.TheScreamingEagles said:Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/21/uk-banks-to-check-70m-bank-accounts-in-search-for-illegal-immigrants0 -
Reality is starting to dawn (or bite). The shrill, febrile atmosphere post-Brexit, stoked up by the likes of Boris and Farage, now just seems juvenile. Thankfully, Boris has been sidelined and Farage is hanging around with American evangelical fundamentalists. There's a route for Theresa to engineer a revival, but she has to stay sensible and cool.williamglenn said:0 -
It’s deeper than that. Euroscepticism is particularly toxic to the British centre-right, and when it morphs into delegitimising our membership of the EU altogether it becomes fatal. Events are demonstrating in a brutally humiliating fashion that the people who believe our national interest would be best pursued outside the EU are simply wrong.Casino_Royale said:
He would be right if he said divided parties lose elections.TOPPING said:
I thought it was a fairly astute post, regardless of his views on the EU. When the Cons tear themselves apart over Europe (or do you think they never do?!) then it leaves the way open for Labour.
Surely even small children in Bruges see that.0 -
But most of those points are very subjective and depend on where one starts from. I am not a Corbynite and have concerns regarding point 8. I have never believed in 10 either , but that cannot be pinned on Corbyn - Blair brought in All Women Shortlists etc.The other points are all fair game and should be up for discussion via our political processes. But I cannot accept that reverting to policy positions which were very mainstream in both political parties until the mid-1980s amounts to an extreme policy programme. It would be radical - but so was Thatcher's programme - and after effectively 40 years of Neoliberalism under all Governments it seems entirely reasonable to seek to push back in the other direction when the status quo has been found wanting. Corbyn & Mcdonnell seeking in the 2020s to reverse some of the privatisation of the 1980s and 1990s is no different to Thatcher & Major - and to some extent Blair - undoing the Attlee Govt's nationalisation policies from the late 1940s.david_herdson said:
Ignoring general shifts in society since then (e.g. on minority rights):Big_G_NorthWales said:I am sorry but I disagree. What Labour is proposing would still leave the public sector significantly smaller than was the case in 1974. Increasing the top rate of Income Tax to 50% is a very modest commitment - well below the 60% level considered acceptable by Thatcher until 1988. There are no proposals to take over the Top 100 companies such as Tony Benn mooted before the 1974 elections. In what way is Labour policy more left wing today than in the early to mid 1970s?
1. Direction and speed of travel
2. Relative position to the electorate
3. Foreign policy
4. Defence policy
5. N Ireland (not so much Labour as Corbyn / McDonnell personally)
6. Monetary policy
7. Willingness to consider confiscation / requisitioning
8. Freedom of speech, in practice
9. Attitude to the nation and its history.
10. Positive discrimination.0 -
No she hasn't. There might be a valid criticism that she has been over-optimistic, but she's been completely clear from the start that she wants a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, wants the EU to succeed, and wants to set up structures for continuing cooperation in security and lots of other areas. She's also prepared to pay a reasonable sum for all this. In fact, the same as Sir Keir Starmer wants. I really don't know how you conclude that this is extreme, it's a straightforward implementation of the referendum result with as much mitigation as possible (or more mitigation than is possible - as I just said, she might be over-optimistic).SouthamObserver said:Brexit is all. And to keep her right wing happy Theresa May has spent the last year followings its playbook. To predictably poor effect.
0 -
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.TheScreamingEagles said:But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
0 -
-
Good. Why shouldn't the Government try and enforce its immigration law?TheScreamingEagles said:Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/21/uk-banks-to-check-70m-bank-accounts-in-search-for-illegal-immigrants0 -
Nothing wrong with enforcing the laws, but I expect that an awful lot of innocent people are going to get caught in the net.Casino_Royale said:Good. Why shouldn't the Government try and enforce its immigration law?
0 -
McDonnell is far more interested in the politics of taxation, rather than the economics.rottenborough said:
Has anybody told McD that City contribues £70b a year in tax.Richard_Nabavi said:
Err, you need to address those questions to John McDonnell, not to me.OchEye said:
Which banks? UK? Or will you stop transfer of funds to foreign, or dare I say it, I must, I must, an off shore bank account? You won't be popular with a couple of recent ex-PM's, a CoE or two, and many movers and shakers in the City of London. If there is a market, someone will find a way to serve it. And if the government of which ever point of view, makes a law which is ignored by the majority, then they become irrelevant, and certainly if it loses control of the currency, then the game becomes very interesting, to say the least.
However, I can answer the technical points on his behalf: Of course if he introduces exchange controls the restrictions will apply to any foreign bank operating here. They operate here under UK financial regulation, after all. If it's like the 1970s (which seems to be the model Corbyn and McDonnell want to follow), UK citizens won't be allowed to hold bank accounts offshore.
Has he wargamed that declining massively in a hurry?
I guess he'll just print the difference.0 -
Could be worse. At least May isn't trying to provoke a nuclear war.SouthamObserver said:The UK has got itself into a situation where it has no good choices. The worst government and the worst opposition in living memory at a time of maximum peacetime need and exposure. What a mess.
0 -
A genuine question this: what is Labour's policy on Brexit?foxinsoxuk said:
I cannot recall such a time when the "winning" party ripped up its manifesto so completely. It is now implementing a very different set of policies. Right or wrong, this is not going to restore faith in the honesty of politicians. It also makes Corbyn look an authentic and sage leader.HYUFD said:Given the previous poll was taken before the general election hardly surprising there has been a shift.
The biggest ones are on pensioners, which the Tories having scrapped the ending of the triple lock and winter fuel allowance have begun to redress and on students where Hammond is set to raise the threshold for fees and likely cut fees for courses with a lower earnings premium and maybe the interest rate too0 -
Some mistakes will be made - and boy oh boy will they be heavily covered in The Guardian - but most won't be, and the Home Office will catch a lot of illegal immigrants.glw said:
Nothing wrong with enforcing the laws, but I expect that an awful lot of innocent people are going to get caught in the net.Casino_Royale said:Good. Why shouldn't the Government try and enforce its immigration law?
Which, of course, is the real objection.0 -
Have its cake and eat it?Cyclefree said:
A genuine question this: what is Labour's policy on Brexit?foxinsoxuk said:
I cannot recall such a time when the "winning" party ripped up its manifesto so completely. It is now implementing a very different set of policies. Right or wrong, this is not going to restore faith in the honesty of politicians. It also makes Corbyn look an authentic and sage leader.HYUFD said:Given the previous poll was taken before the general election hardly surprising there has been a shift.
The biggest ones are on pensioners, which the Tories having scrapped the ending of the triple lock and winter fuel allowance have begun to redress and on students where Hammond is set to raise the threshold for fees and likely cut fees for courses with a lower earnings premium and maybe the interest rate too
0 -
The EU don't want that as much as they want Brexit to be seen as anything but a success.Richard_Nabavi said:
No she hasn't. There might be a valid criticism that she has been over-optimistic, but she's been completely clear from the start that she wants a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, wants the EU to succeed, and wants to set up structures for continuing cooperation in security and lots of other areas. She's also prepared to pay a reasonable sum for all this. In fact, the same as Sir Keir Starmer wants. I really don't know how you conclude that this is extreme, it's a straightforward implementation of the referendum result with as much mitigation as possible (or more mitigation than is possible - as I just said, she might be over-optimistic).SouthamObserver said:Brexit is all. And to keep her right wing happy Theresa May has spent the last year followings its playbook. To predictably poor effect.
0 -
Because the error rate of Home Office enforcement actions is pretty dreadful ?Casino_Royale said:
Good. Why shouldn't the Government try and enforce its immigration law?TheScreamingEagles said:Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/21/uk-banks-to-check-70m-bank-accounts-in-search-for-illegal-immigrants
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/26/leave-uk-immediately-scientist-is-latest-victim-of-home-office-blunder
Add to that the additional paperwork burden imposed on 70m account holders...0 -
Well, yes, that is the huge risk factor in all of this. As I've said before, I recommend taking whatever measures one can to protect oneself. The same measures will probably help protect against McDonnell, so it's a no-brainer really.Casino_Royale said:
The EU don't want that as much as they want Brexit to be seen as anything but a success.Richard_Nabavi said:
No she hasn't. There might be a valid criticism that she has been over-optimistic, but she's been completely clear from the start that she wants a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, wants the EU to succeed, and wants to set up structures for continuing cooperation in security and lots of other areas. She's also prepared to pay a reasonable sum for all this. In fact, the same as Sir Keir Starmer wants. I really don't know how you conclude that this is extreme, it's a straightforward implementation of the referendum result with as much mitigation as possible (or more mitigation than is possible - as I just said, she might be over-optimistic).SouthamObserver said:Brexit is all. And to keep her right wing happy Theresa May has spent the last year followings its playbook. To predictably poor effect.
0 -
No issue with that, but given the track record of the Home Office, they are going to cause more grief and not meet their aim.Casino_Royale said:
Good. Why shouldn't the Government try and enforce its immigration law?TheScreamingEagles said:Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Bts0 -
What is the error rate?Nigelb said:
Because the error rate of Home Office enforcement actions is pretty dreadful ?Casino_Royale said:
Good. Why shouldn't the Government try and enforce its immigration law?TheScreamingEagles said:Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Banks and building societies are to carry out immigration checks on 70m current accounts from January in the biggest extension of Theresa May’s plans to create a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants in Britain, the Guardian has learned.
The Home Office expects to identify 6,000 visa overstayers, failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders facing deportation in the first year of the checks, which are to be carried out quarterly.
The accounts of those identified will be closed down or frozen “to make it harder for them to establish or maintain a settled life in the UK”. Officials say freezing accounts that hold significant sums “will create a powerful incentive [for those involved] to agree to voluntary departure” so they can secure their money once they have left the country.
Immigration welfare campaigners warned that the Home Office’s recent record meant it could not be trusted to implement this new system without errors and that migrants with every right to be in Britain were likely to be hit by mistakes in the imposition of the checks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/21/uk-banks-to-check-70m-bank-accounts-in-search-for-illegal-immigrants
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/26/leave-uk-immediately-scientist-is-latest-victim-of-home-office-blunder
Add to that the additional paperwork burden imposed on 70m account holders...0 -
I have figured, thank you Joff.SouthamObserver said:
Whereas we see countless Brexiteers who promised that leaving the EU would solve the problems of migrants undercutting British service providers cheering on a company whose business model is largely dependent on the use of migrant labour to undercut British service providers. It turns out that the interests of expensive British plumbers and electricians are worth protecting, but those of expensive British black cab drivers are not. Go figure!!Casino_Royale said:
The Uber furore gives a preview of that.Richard_Nabavi said:
Oh, absolutely. The youngsters voting for Corbyn won't know what's hit them, but by that time it will be too late.david_herdson said:The issue isn't so much technical, it's political. The freedom to transfer money abroad is completely taken for granted, rather more so even than the right to use and Uber. Reimposing exchange controls in 1987 might have seemed a bit retro but was still something that would have been familiar to most adults who'd travelled abroad. That's not at all the case now.
The little cherubs still can't make the link. Bless.
You can be critical of a closed shop, protected and outdated working practices, and also of unrestricted immigration that doesn't have popular consent. And, of course, there are the cultural and social angles, as well as economic ones.
Like most things in life, these are all complex factors that need to be debated and traded off.
Who's to say Uber still wouldn't have established itself successfully in London if, say, we'd restricted EU net immigration to 75,000 per year over the last 10 years?
If you've read my posts recently, you'll see I've been critical of both black cabs, and some of the practices of Uber.0 -
It was only a few months ago that she was accusing the Commission of interfering in the general election and standing by as her cheerleaders in the press accused judges of being enemies of the people. The government has approached Brexit as if the UK really did have less to lose than the EU and in the serious expectation that German car manufacturers would be beating down Angela Merkel's door to demand a deal. It could just be that May is finally beginning to understand reality - or perhaps she's preparing the way for a UK walkout and that ultimate right wing fantasy, the cliff-edge departure. We shall see.Richard_Nabavi said:
No she hasn't. There might be a valid criticism that she has been over-optimistic, but she's been completely clear from the start that she wants a comprehensive trade deal with the EU, wants the EU to succeed, and wants to set up structures for continuing cooperation in security and lots of other areas. She's also prepared to pay a reasonable sum for all this. In fact, the same as Sir Keir Starmer wants. I really don't know how you conclude that this is extreme, it's a straightforward implementation of the referendum result with as much mitigation as possible (or more mitigation than is possible - as I just said, she might be over-optimistic).SouthamObserver said:Brexit is all. And to keep her right wing happy Theresa May has spent the last year followings its playbook. To predictably poor effect.
0 -
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwnn.williamglenn said:
It’s deeper than that. Euroscepticism is particularly toxic to the British centre-right, and when it morphs into delegitimising our membership of the EU altogether it becomes fatal. Events are demonstrating in a brutally humiliating fashion that the people who believe our national interest would be best pursued outside the EU are simply wrong.Casino_Royale said:
He would be right if he said divided parties lose elections.TOPPING said:
I thought it was a fairly astute post, regardless of his views on the EU. When the Cons tear themselves apart over Europe (or do you think they never do?!) then it leaves the way open for Labour.
Surely even small children in Bruges see that.0 -
So will they cover lost opportunities, house deal collapses, or inability to pay for school fees, so little Joshua has to go to the state comprehensive instead?Richard_Nabavi said:
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.TheScreamingEagles said:But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
0 -
The Home Office, like many Government departments, is of questionable competence, I agree.TheScreamingEagles said:
No issue with that, but given the track record of the Home Office, they are going to cause more grief and not meet their aim.Casino_Royale said:
Good. Why shouldn't the Government try and enforce its immigration law?TheScreamingEagles said:Well this is a disaster waiting to happen, especially given the record of the Home Office.
Bts
Not many of the most talented end up there.0 -
10%philiph said:
What is the error rate?Nigelb said:
Because the error rate of Home Office enforcement actions is pretty dreadful ?Casino_Royale said:
Good. Why shouldn't the Government try and enforce its immigration law?TheScreamingEagles said:s
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/26/leave-uk-immediately-scientist-is-latest-victim-of-home-office-blunder
Add to that the additional paperwork burden imposed on 70m account holders...
As many as one in 10 people refused a new account because they failed an immigration status check were wrongly denied access to Britain’s banking system because of mistakes in Home Office records, according to an official watchdog.
An examination of Theresa May’s existing “hostile environment” measures against illegal immigrants by the chief inspector of borders also found that hundreds of driving licences had been wrongly revoked after Home Office mistakes in identifying people as remaining in Britain unlawfully.
David Bolt, the chief inspector of borders and immigration, said – after uncovering the 10% error rate in refusing new bank accounts in his 2016 report – that the Home Office “failed to appreciate the potential impact of such wrong decisions on those affected”.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/22/home-office-errors-already-leading-to-people-being-denied-bank-accounts0 -
No, probably not. Maybe there should be an additional automatic payment of £1000 a day to encourage them to get it right first time.TheScreamingEagles said:
So will they cover lost opportunities, house deal collapses, or inability to pay for school fees, so little Joshua has to go to the state comprehensive instead?Richard_Nabavi said:
True, but I mean genuine 100% compensation, taking account of all that - which could be serious money. The bank and the Home Office should have to share it 50-50, to avoid any buck-passing and to give them an incentive to do something about it fast.TheScreamingEagles said:But that doesn't mitigate for the buggeration factor when you're unable to access your account/funds for days and weeks.
0
