politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the third Thursday of May exactly a year ago Mrs May launch

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

surby said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.


https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21

We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.

They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.

Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.

Nope. I am with Surby on this. Netanyahu should be on trial.

What if he does nothing? Lets the crowd storm the border, approach the Israeli border villages? What do you suppose would happen?

TSE mentioned NI - here's an analogy when inaction was the chosen route.

What they do is deal with protestors once they are actually at the border. Not when they are 700 yards away as they are doing at the moment.


I am sure there would be uproar if the US took to shooting any Mexican who came within 700 yards of the border.

Jeez another armchair general - 50,000 protesters AT THE BORDER!!

Oh, and are the Mexicans trying effectively to invade the USA? Nuh-huh.

Richard, read what you have written back and think about it.

I have thought about it. And I think that those advocating the premeditated murder of civilians by snipers really do nee to refind their moral compass.

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

archer101au said:

RoyalBlue said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.

With the greatest of respect, your red line is very unrepresentative of the bulk of the people who voted Leave. This would be abundantly clear to anyone who canvassed for it door to door.

As others have pointed out, it took us 7 years to transition into the CU. The intensity of our EU trade is much higher than Commonwealth trade was before 1973, so we can’t afford to get it wrong.

Eurosceptics kept the flame burning for 41 years before June 2016. We should have a little more patience.

Sorry, Morris_Dancer is completely correct. There is no sensible economic basis whatsoever for the UK to join the CU if it wants to leave the SM. It is, indeed, insane.

The only reason that CU is being raised is that it would require the UK to align with SM regulations - it is a straw man for continued membership of the SM.

Neither May nor Corbyn support continued membership of the SM, both now support staying in a CU though for a number of years

And the Single Market is next. If we are outside the Single Market we still need that Irish border in some form that has been used as an excuse for us to stay in a CU. Once again it is salami tactics to negate Brexit.

No it is not as neither May nor Corbyn back the single market and both are absolutely firm on that.

Using alignment to the CU to negate an Irish hard border is all that is needed on that, neither will concede on the single market and especially not on ending free movement which is so vital to crucial working class Leave voters in marginal seats in the North and Midlands

If they do not concede on the SM then the whole debate over the CU with regard to the Irish border is pointless.

No it isn't as there is no need to concede on the SM over the Irish border and nor does ending free movement prevent a FTA with the EU as even Barnier has conceded, see Canada

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gardenwalker said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

As an unabashed free marketeer who would in an ideal world privatise the NHS and schools I’m having a crisis of faith about privastising the railways.

It isn’t working but I know nationalisation isn’t the answer but what is?

Why isn’t nationalisation *an* answer?
It’s 2018. The idea that the market works best in every instance died ten years ago.

Because I used the trains when it was British Rail, I remember.

I have a theory that the best things in Britain - the BBC, John Lewis, the National Trust - operate on a hybrid model - part private, part public, part charitable.

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

surby said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.


https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21

We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.

They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.

Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.

Nope. I am with Surby on this. Netanyahu should be on trial.

What if he does nothing? Lets the crowd storm the border, approach the Israeli border villages? What do you suppose would happen?

TSE mentioned NI - here's an analogy when inaction was the chosen route.

What they do is deal with protestors once they are actually at the border. Not when they are 700 yards away as they are doing at the moment.


I am sure there would be uproar if the US took to shooting any Mexican who came within 700 yards of the border.

Jeez another armchair general - 50,000 protesters AT THE BORDER!!

Oh, and are the Mexicans trying effectively to invade the USA? Nuh-huh.

Richard, read what you have written back and think about it.

I have thought about it. And I think that those advocating the premeditated murder of civilians by snipers really do nee to refind their moral compass.

Hmm - there are tens of thousands of protesters who are approaching a national border. For what? To light candles and sing songs?

So far of the people killed we have had an acknowledgement that 50-60 (?) were members of Hamas (= terrorists). So how many do you think in total were terrorists? 500? 1,000? All of them terrorists, or not, marching to overwhelm the border and effectively invade another country.

What would you do?

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

surby said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.


https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21

We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.

They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.

Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.

Nope. I am with Surby on this. Netanyahu should be on trial.

What if he does nothing? Lets the crowd storm the border, approach the Israeli border villages? What do you suppose would happen?

TSE mentioned NI - here's an analogy when inaction was the chosen route.

What they do is deal with protestors once they are actually at the border. Not when they are 700 yards away as they are doing at the moment.


I am sure there would be uproar if the US took to shooting any Mexican who came within 700 yards of the border.

Jeez another armchair general - 50,000 protesters AT THE BORDER!!

Oh, and are the Mexicans trying effectively to invade the USA? Nuh-huh.

Richard, read what you have written back and think about it.

I have thought about it. And I think that those advocating the premeditated murder of civilians by snipers really do nee to refind their moral compass.

Hmm - there are tens of thousands of protesters who are approaching a national border. For what? To light candles and sing songs?

So far of the people killed we have had an acknowledgement that 50-60 (?) were members of Hamas (= terrorists). So how many do you think in total were terrorists? 500? 1,000? All of them terrorists, or not, marching to overwhelm the border and effectively invade another country.

What would you do?

Stop occupying their land for generations.

archer101au said:

RoyalBlue said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.

With the greatest of respect, your red line is very unrepresentative of the bulk of the people who voted Leave. This would be abundantly clear to anyone who canvassed for it door to door.

As others have pointed out, it took us 7 years to transition into the CU. The intensity of our EU trade is much higher than Commonwealth trade was before 1973, so we can’t afford to get it wrong.

Eurosceptics kept the flame burning for 41 years before June 2016. We should have a little more patience.

The only reason that CU is being raised is that it would require the UK to align with SM regulations - it is a straw man for continued membership of the SM.

'Straw Man' or 'stalking horse'?

archer101au said:

RoyalBlue said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.

With the greatest of respect, your red line is very unrepresentative of the bulk of the people who voted Leave. This would be abundantly clear to anyone who canvassed for it door to door.

As others have pointed out, it took us 7 years to transition into the CU. The intensity of our EU trade is much higher than Commonwealth trade was before 1973, so we can’t afford to get it wrong.

Eurosceptics kept the flame burning for 41 years before June 2016. We should have a little more patience.

Sorry, Morris_Dancer is completely correct. There is no sensible economic basis whatsoever for the UK to join the CU if it wants to leave the SM. It is, indeed, insane.

The only reason that CU is being raised is that it would require the UK to align with SM regulations - it is a straw man for continued membership of the SM.

Correct.

NickPalmer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gardenwalker said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

As an unabashed free marketeer who would in an ideal world privatise the NHS and schools I’m having a crisis of faith about privastising the railways.

It isn’t working but I know nationalisation isn’t the answer but what is?

Why isn’t nationalisation *an* answer?
It’s 2018. The idea that the market works best in every instance died ten years ago.

Because I used the trains when it was British Rail, I remember.

I remember too, and my experience was mixed, but the basic problem was that the Government ran it on the cheap. The correct answer to that is to use it as a reason to vote in a different government, not to change the system into a mess run by temporary monopolists answerable to nobody.

Remember 'education. education,. education' ?

The railways will always be a minor priority for any government: attention will always go first to things like education and health. This is exactly why Blair did not renationalise - they're just not a priority. I see no reason to believe Labour would change that, especially given prior record.

This is my view of what would happen, given the swiss cheese Labour is currently proposing:

*) Labour would renationalise the franchises.
*) They shift more of the burden of fares onto taxpayers, reducing fares. A quick political win.
*) Freight and OA operators do not get paths, as passengers are the priority (remember there needs to be a 'win').
*) ROSCO's are slowly financially screwed.
*) The DfT repeats the disastrous mistake with the IEP train.

After a few years, the government has to buy out the freight operators and ROSCOs as the system they have introduced is unworkable. But this is a massive cost, and as money is needed for the NHS and education, fares go up to pay for it...

Philip_Thompson said:

Elliot said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

surby said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.


https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21

We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.

They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.

Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.

Nope. I am with Surby on this. Netanyahu should be on trial.

What if he does nothing? Lets the crowd storm the border, approach the Israeli border villages? What do you suppose would happen?

TSE mentioned NI - here's an analogy when inaction was the chosen route.

r.

the USA? Nuh-huh.

Richard, read what you have written back and think about it.

I have thought about it. And I think that those advocating the premeditated murder of civilians by snipers really do nee to refind their moral compass.

Hmm - there are tens of thousands of protesters who are approaching a national border. For what? To light candles and sing songs?

So far of the people killed we have had an acknowledgement that 50-60 (?) were members of Hamas (= terrorists). So how many do you think in total were terrorists? 500? 1,000? All of them terrorists, or not, marching to overwhelm the border and effectively invade another country.

What would you do?

Stop occupying their land for generations.

They're not. They took the land from Jordan and Egypt not "Palestine" after Jordan and Egypt attacked them, and now Jordan and Egypt don't want the land back and nobody will sign a peace accord.

That's like saying the British and the French had every right to endlessly occupy Iraq and Syria because they took it from the Ottomans.

Mahmoud Abbas was very happy to sign a peace accord, and did everything the West asked of him. But Israel completely undermined his position by continuing to colonise the West Bank, causing huge loss of support among Palestinians and Hamas' return. This is deliberate strategy by Israel to keep the Palestinians angry so they can point to violence as an excuse to continue their colonisation.

Elliot said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

surby said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.


https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21

We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.

They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.

Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.

Nope. I am with Surby on this. Netanyahu should be on trial.

What if he does nothing? Lets the crowd storm the border, approach the Israeli border villages? What do you suppose would happen?

TSE mentioned NI - here's an analogy when inaction was the chosen route.

What they do is deal with protestors once they are actually at the border. Not when they are 700 yards away as they are doing at the moment.


I am sure there would be uproar if the US took to shooting any Mexican who came within 700 yards of the border.

Jeez another armchair general - 50,000 protesters AT THE BORDER!!

Oh, and are the Mexicans trying effectively to invade the USA? Nuh-huh.

Richard, read what you have written back and think about it.

I have thought about it. And I think that those advocating the premeditated murder of civilians by snipers really do nee to refind their moral compass.

Hmm - there are tens of thousands of protesters who are approaching a national border. For what? To light candles and sing songs?

So far of the people killed we have had an acknowledgement that 50-60 (?) were members of Hamas (= terrorists). So how many do you think in total were terrorists? 500? 1,000? All of them terrorists, or not, marching to overwhelm the border and effectively invade another country.

What would you do?

Stop occupying their land for generations.

Didn't it start 5,000 years ago? How many generations is that?

TOPPING said:

Elliot said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

surby said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.


https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21

We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.

They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.

Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.

Nope. I am with Surby on this. Netanyahu should be on trial.

What if he does nothing? Lets the crowd storm the border, approach the Israeli border villages? What do you suppose would happen?

TSE mentioned NI - here's an analogy when inaction was the chosen route.

What they do is deal with protestors once they are actually at the border. Not when they are 700 yards away as they are doing at the moment.


I am sure there would be uproar if the US took to shooting any Mexican who came within 700 yards of the border.

Jeez another armchair general - 50,000 protesters AT THE BORDER!!

Oh, and are the Mexicans trying effectively to invade the USA? Nuh-huh.

Richard, read what you have written back and think about it.

I have thought about it. And I think that those advocating the premeditated murder of civilians by snipers really do nee to refind their moral compass.

Hmm - there are tens of thousands of protesters who are approaching a national border. For what? To light candles and sing songs?

So far of the people killed we have had an acknowledgement that 50-60 (?) were members of Hamas (= terrorists). So how many do you think in total were terrorists? 500? 1,000? All of them terrorists, or not, marching to overwhelm the border and effectively invade another country.

What would you do?

Stop occupying their land for generations.

Didn't it start 5,000 years ago? How many generations is that?

Are you really stupid enough to claim Israel has the right to occupy land which has been majority Muslim Arab for centuries based on the state of play prior to the Roman Empire?

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

surby said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.


https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21

We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.

They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.

Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.

Nope. I am with Surby on this. Netanyahu should be on trial.

What if he does nothing? Lets the crowd storm the border, approach the Israeli border villages? What do you suppose would happen?

TSE mentioned NI - here's an analogy when inaction was the chosen route.

What they do is deal with protestors once they are actually at the border. Not when they are 700 yards away as they are doing at the moment.


I am sure there would be uproar if the US took to shooting any Mexican who came within 700 yards of the border.

Jeez another armchair general - 50,000 protesters AT THE BORDER!!

Oh, and are the Mexicans trying effectively to invade the USA? Nuh-huh.

Richard, read what you have written back and think about it.

I have thought about it. And I think that those advocating the premeditated murder of civilians by snipers really do nee to refind their moral compass.

Thousands of violent protestors attacking the border are civilians?

Yes. Overwhelmingly they are. No one in their right mind should believe the Israeli propaganda on this.

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

surby said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.


https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21

We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.

They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.

Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.

Nope. I am with Surby on this. Netanyahu should be on trial.

What if he does nothing? Lets the crowd storm the border, approach the Israeli border villages? What do you suppose would happen?

TSE mentioned NI - here's an analogy when inaction was the chosen route.

What they do is deal with protestors once they are actually at the border. Not when they are 700 yards away as they are doing at the moment.


I am sure there would be uproar if the US took to shooting any Mexican who came within 700 yards of the border.

Jeez another armchair general - 50,000 protesters AT THE BORDER!!

Oh, and are the Mexicans trying effectively to invade the USA? Nuh-huh.

Richard, read what you have written back and think about it.

I have thought about it. And I think that those advocating the premeditated murder of civilians by snipers really do nee to refind their moral compass.

Thousands of violent protestors attacking the border are civilians?

As with most cases regarding Israel, it's complicated. 'Thousands of violent protestors' rather fails to capture that, just as does 'premeditated murder of civilians'.
However what seems entirely clear from the footage and photographs of the events is that the Israeli response was grossly disproportionate, and likely criminal under international law.

The Israeli/US line that every other nation would have done exactly the same is quite bogus.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

surby said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.


https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21

We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.

They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.

Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.

Nope. I am with Surby on this. Netanyahu should be on trial.

What if he does nothing? Lets the crowd storm the border, approach the Israeli border villages? What do you suppose would happen?

TSE mentioned NI - here's an analogy when inaction was the chosen route.

What they do is deal with protestors once they are actually at the border. Not when they are 700 yards away as they are doing at the moment.


I am sure there would be uproar if the US took to shooting any Mexican who came within 700 yards of the border.

Jeez another armchair general - 50,000 protesters AT THE BORDER!!

Oh, and are the Mexicans trying effectively to invade the USA? Nuh-huh.

Richard, read what you have written back and think about it.

I have thought about it. And I think that those advocating the premeditated murder of civilians by snipers really do nee to refind their moral compass.

Thousands of violent protestors attacking the border are civilians?

Yes. Overwhelmingly they are. No one in their right mind should believe the Israeli propaganda on this.

What evidence do you have of that? And why aren't we talking about thousands of fatalities instead of dozens if Israel was as evil as you're suggesting?

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

archer101au said:

RoyalBlue said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.

With the greatest of respect, your red line is very unrepresentative of the bulk of the people who voted Leave. This would be abundantly clear to anyone who canvassed for it door to door.

As others have pointed out, it took us 7 years to transition into the CU. The intensity of our EU trade is much higher than Commonwealth trade was before 1973, so we can’t afford to get it wrong.

Eurosceptics kept the flame burning for 41 years before June 2016. We should have a little more patience.

Sorry, Morris_Dancer is completely correct. There is no sensible economic basis whatsoever for the UK to join the CU if it wants to leave the SM. It is, indeed, insane.

The only reason that CU is being raised is that it would require the UK to align with SM regulations - it is a straw man for continued membership of the SM.

Neither May nor Corbyn support continued membership of the SM, both now support staying in a CU though for a number of years

And the Single Market is next. If we are outside the Single Market we still need that Irish border in some form that has been used as an excuse for us to stay in a CU. Once again it is salami tactics to negate Brexit.

No it is not as neither May nor Corbyn back the single market and both are absolutely firm on that.

Using alignment to the CU to negate an Irish hard border is all that is needed on that, neither will concede on the single market and especially not on ending free movement which is so vital to crucial working class Leave voters in marginal seats in the North and Midlands

If they do not concede on the SM then the whole debate over the CU with regard to the Irish border is pointless.

No it isn't as there is no need to concede on the SM over the Irish border and nor does ending free movement prevent a FTA with the EU as even Barnier has conceded, see Canada

To prevent a border of some sort in Ireland we have to be in the Single Market. That is a given.

If we are in the Single Market then there is freedom of movement. Agreeing to stay in a CU simply sets the stage for remaining in the SM whether you, Corbyn or May want it or not.

Elliot said:

Mahmoud Abbas was very happy to sign a peace accord, and did everything the West asked of him.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43967600

"Remarks by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas about the Holocaust have been condemned as anti-Semitic by Israeli politicians and rights activists.

"Mr Abbas told a meeting in the West Bank the Nazi mass murder of European Jews was the result of their financial activities, not anti-Semitism.

"He described their "social function" as "usury and banking and such"."

Richard_Tyndall said:

To prevent a border of some sort in Ireland we have to be in the Single Market. That is a given.

If we are in the Single Market then there is freedom of movement. Agreeing to stay in a CU simply sets the stage for remaining in the SM whether you, Corbyn or May want it or not.

Neither the single market nor the customs union alone are sufficient to avoid a border. It's true that if you had to pick one, the single market gets you further than the customs union, but we need both. The only way round this is to jettison Northern Ireland.

Philip_Thompson said:

Elliot said:

TOPPING said:

Didn't it start 5,000 years ago? How many generations is that?

Are you really stupid enough to claim Israel has the right to occupy land which has been majority Muslim Arab for centuries based on the state of play prior to the Roman Empire?

Are you disputing Israel's right to hold territories it took off its attackers in 67 until a peace deal is reached?

Or are you disputing Israel's right to exist at all? Like Hamas still does who control Gaza and are organising today's violence.

The former. You do not have a right to permanently occupy land lived in by a majority that do not want to be part of your state.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Thoughts ?

https://twitter.com/iealondon/status/997014605846253568?s=21

I like Moral Panics. We get a new one every week. Legal highs, acid attacks, scooter robbers, Facebook data, knife crime, now gaming machines. Plus 1001 others over the years.

AlastairMeeks said:

What would people identify as the main problems with the British railway system? I suggest the following:

1) It's very expensive by international standards.
2) Some commuter lines into London have an inadequate service.
3) Some of the infrastructure is creaking.

I'm very open to any structure that addresses these problems. Nationalisation by itself, however, won't do that. More money is required from somewhere. And that's the point where everyone starts shuffling awkwardly and looking away.

Oddly, all three of these are partly a function of increased usage. To carry more passengers, you need to enhance the infrastructure - and the existing infrastructure wears out quicker. Costs also go up as you get less time to perform the work. The inadequate services into London (and other urban areas) are expensive to fix (see Crossrail or Thameslink 2000 or the lengthening of platforms. All this work needs paying for, which increases costs.

A way to fix it would be to discourage rail travel, particularly at peak times: but then where do people go (or do they go at all); another would be to alter the split between funding from the passenger and the state - which is what I reckon Labour will do for a quick win.

Philip_Thompson said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

What would people identify as the main problems with the British railway system? I suggest the following:

1) It's very expensive by international standards.
2) Some commuter lines into London have an inadequate service.
3) Some of the infrastructure is creaking.

I'm very open to any structure that addresses these problems. Nationalisation by itself, however, won't do that. More money is required from somewhere. And that's the point where everyone starts shuffling awkwardly and looking away.

Your third point is the main reason why I'm opposed to HS2.

Infrastructure is creaking so I oppose new infrastructure? Odd argument.

HS2 is an enhancement. What we need is more renewals.

tlg86 said:

Philip_Thompson said:

tlg86 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

What would people identify as the main problems with the British railway system? I suggest the following:

1) It's very expensive by international standards.
2) Some commuter lines into London have an inadequate service.
3) Some of the infrastructure is creaking.

I'm very open to any structure that addresses these problems. Nationalisation by itself, however, won't do that. More money is required from somewhere. And that's the point where everyone starts shuffling awkwardly and looking away.

Your third point is the main reason why I'm opposed to HS2.

Infrastructure is creaking so I oppose new infrastructure? Odd argument.

HS2 is an enhancement. What we need is more renewals.

Buckinghamshire needs the roads to be re-built - not HS2 to slash through it..

TheScreamingEagles said:

Gardenwalker said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

As an unabashed free marketeer who would in an ideal world privatise the NHS and schools I’m having a crisis of faith about privastising the railways.

It isn’t working but I know nationalisation isn’t the answer but what is?

Why isn’t nationalisation *an* answer?
It’s 2018. The idea that the market works best in every instance died ten years ago.

Because I used the trains when it was British Rail, I remember.

What you mean therefore is that chronic under-investment in the railways isn't the answer. Under-investment presided over by Mrs T back in the period you recall.

Proper investment, all going into renewing, expanding, improving the railways - rather than lining some pockets - and we can have a world-class railway network.

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

I think such reforms can be done but they need to be heavily trailed and tested first, and public support slowly built.

If you try and bounce them on the voters during an election campaign, they will smell a rat and vote accordingly.

That is exactly right. The Dementia tax was good policy but poor politics. The manifesto should have given a hard commitment on increasing the legacy allowance to £100k and then given promised to consult on "measures to harmonise the financial burden placed on those with different forms of ongoing care".

That could have led to a White Paper in the first year of the parliament and allowed for proposals to be tweaked in response to the consultation without it looking like headless-chicken syndrome, which it inevitably does in the hot-house of an election campaign. The new system could have been introduced around 2019 giving people time to get used to it before the next GE.

But no, a couple of policy wonks thought they knew political campaigning better than Lynton Crosby does.

The Dementia Tax was a bad policy and bad politics, sneeking it out mid Parliament would not work either, see the Poll Tax

Why is it a bad policy to make people who can afford to pay for something that they receive? Particularly when other people, in an identical financial situation, pay to receive their similar care?

archer101au said:

You are completely wrong if you claim that CU membership does not require almost full alignment with SM regulations. To quote from lawyersforbritain who explain this very well:

"The EU customs union is a system under which all the Member States follow a set of common rules in exercising customs controls over goods entering the EU from the outside. The core of this system of controls is the levying of tariffs and the imposition of trade quotas under the EU’s Common Customs Tariff; but the controls exercised by customs extend far beyond tariffs to a huge range of other matters, such as checking food for compliance with health standards and checking that consumer goods comply with safety rules (such as the rules limiting lead in children’s toys).

The very nature of the EU customs union requires that the common rules be interpreted and applied in a uniform manner by all Member States. If this were not done, it would result in goods entering the EU via the ports of a Member State with laxer controls and then circulating freely inside the EU into the markets of other Member States. Obviously, this cannot be tolerated under a system where no systematic customs controls are exercised on the flow of goods inside the EU between Member States, especially since importers might be tempted to “game the system” by diverting their imports into the EU to flow through the ports of a Member State where they had found a weakness."

Lawyers for Britain elide two things.

A customs union is a WTO concept, concerning tariffs. A customs union applies tariffs on goods, once, as they enter the union, so you don't need to apply them again as they cross into the other constituent territory. Components are particularly complicated. When a car manufacturer in one territory imports a headlamp from outside both territories and then includes it in a car, does the car now attract import duties as it passes from one territory to the other? A customs union is a binary thing. You are either in one or not. If you are, you notify the WTO of the fact.

The Single Market isn't a formal concept,unlike a customs union. It is an agreement between the EU countries, including a couple of non-EU members such as Norway, to apply a common regulatory system so goods sold in one territory are automatically compliant in the other.

It is possible to be in a customs union but not the SIngle Market. In that case goods need to be tested for compliance at the border. The same personnel will do this as would apply customs duties but it is a different set of checks that applies to all goods coming from the other territory. Outside a customs union you check goods coming from outside both territories at the same border.

If you want a frictionless border you need to be in both the Customs Union and the SIngle Market.

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

archer101au said:

RoyalBlue said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.

With the greatest of respect, your red line is very unrepresentative of the bulk of the people who voted Leave. This would be abundantly clear to anyone who canvassed for it door to door.

As others have pointed out, it took us 7 years to transition into the CU. The intensity of our EU trade is much higher than Commonwealth trade was before 1973, so we can’t afford to get it wrong.

Eurosceptics kept the flame burning for 41 years before June 2016. We should have a little more patience.

Sorry, Morris_Dancer is completely correct. There is no sensible economic basis whatsoever for the UK to join the CU if it wants to leave the SM. It is, indeed, insane.

The only reason that CU is being raised is that it would require the UK to align with SM regulations - it is a straw man for continued membership of the SM.

Neither May nor Corbyn support continued membership of the SM, both now support staying in a CU though for a number of years

And the Single Market is next. If we are outside the Single Market we still need that Irexit.

No it is not as neither May nor Corbyn back the single market and both are absolutely firm on that.

Using alignment to the CU to negate an Irish hard border is the North and Midlands

If they do not concede on the SM then the whole debate over the CU with regard to the Irish border is pointless.

No it isn't as there is no need to concede on the SM over the Irish border and nor does ending free movement prevent a FTA with the EU as even Barnier has conceded, see Canada

To prevent a border of some sort in Ireland we have to be in the Single Market. That is a given.

If we are in the Single Market then there is freedom of movement. Agreeing to stay in a CU simply sets the stage for remaining in the SM whether you, Corbyn or May want it or not.

No, regulatory alignment to avoid a hard border in Ireland does not technically require staying in the Single Market nor does it require freedom of movement.

The basis of that principle was already agreed with the EU in December to progress to FTA talks

Philip_Thompson said:

Elliot said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Elliot said:

TOPPING said:

Didn't it start 5,000 years ago? How many generations is that?

Are you really stupid enough to claim Israel has the right to occupy land which has been majority Muslim Arab for centuries based on the state of play prior to the Roman Empire?

Are you disputing Israel's right to hold territories it took off its attackers in 67 until a peace deal is reached?

Or are you disputing Israel's right to exist at all? Like Hamas still does who control Gaza and are organising today's violence.

The former. You do not have a right to permanently occupy land lived in by a majority that do not want to be part of your state.

They're not permanently occupying land, they're temporarily doing so until a peace deal is reached.

Unfortunately the current "leaders" in Gaza dispute Israel's right to even exist so peace doesn't seem close.

A temporary period of 51 years. During which they demolish and evacuate Palestinians in that territory and legalise Israeli colonists. Countries that want to give the land back always engage in settlement of the occupied land. Your apologism is an obvious joke of a position.

Gardenwalker said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Gardenwalker said:

JosiasJessop said:

Anazina said:

NickPalmer said:

We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

Yes, a sensible piece. Why not give it a chance? It was successful in 09-15 when it was last nationalised. As a side point, even a majority Conservatives generally support nationalisation so it is hardly a niche left wing view.

(Snip)

Here is one well known leftie calling for renationalisation...

How can you be so sure that renationalising the franchises will be a success, when the part of the railway that is failing at the moment is Network Rail?

And what would you do about the ROSCOs, Open Access, freight operators etc?

As far as I can tell, Labour's plans are not fully formed or workable - unless there is much they are not saying ...

Is rail usage now in decline nationally?
If so, is this (unexpected) decline in passenger numbers behind the East Coast franchise failure?

Certainly, numbers are down on the London network, creating a large deficit for TfL which they are responding to by deferring upgrades on the Northern and Victoria lines.

Nope. Virgin say it is because the promised investment by Network Rail which they were promised which would have allowed growth of the business was not forthcoming. Now personally I think they basic problem is they bid way too low but it is also the case that Network Rai - the main publicly owned bit of the system - are indeed the cause of many of the issues for the rail operators.

Hmmm. Who to side with? Virgin or Network Rail?

Given the atrocious record of Network Rail I am pretty sure I know where my sympathies lie.

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

I think such reforms can be done but they need to be heavily trailed and tested first, and public support slowly built.

If you try and bounce them on the voters during an election campaign, they will smell a rat and vote accordingly.

That is exactly right. The Dementia tax was good policy but poor politics. The manifesto should have given a hard commitment on increasing the legacy allowance to £100k and then given promised to consult on "measures to harmonise the financial burden placed on those with different forms of ongoing care".

That could have led to a White Paper in the first year of the parliament and allowed for proposals to be tweaked in response to the consultation without it looking like headless-chicken syndrome, which it inevitably does in the hot-house of an election campaign. The new system could have been introduced around 2019 giving people time to get used to it before the next GE.

But no, a couple of policy wonks thought they knew political campaigning better than Lynton Crosby does.

The Dementia Tax was a bad policy and bad politics, sneeking it out mid Parliament would not work either, see the Poll Tax

Why is it a bad policy to make people who can afford to pay for something that they receive? Particularly when other people, in an identical financial situation, pay to receive their similar care?

As it would negate the benefit of Osborne's inheritance tax cut for many with relatives needing personal at home care.

As I said NI and council tax will be the primary source of funds going forward for social care

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

HYUFD said:

archer101au said:

RoyalBlue said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. HYUFD, disagree. Held the view for years that there's a broad spectrum of acceptable leaving options. My only firm red line, which I've held, is that being in the customs union whilst leaving the EU is insane.

With the greatest of respect, your red line is very unrepresentative of the bulk of the people who voted Leave. This would be abundantly clear to anyone who canvassed for it door to door.

As others have pointed out, it took us 7 years to transition into the CU. The intensity of our EU trade is much higher than Commonwealth trade was before 1973, so we can’t afford to get it wrong.

Eurosceptics kept the flame burning for 41 years before June 2016. We should have a little more patience.

Sorry, Morris_Dancer is completely correct. There is no sensible economic basis whatsoever for the UK to join the CU if it wants to leave the SM. It is, indeed, insane.

The only reason that CU is being raised is that it would require the UK to align with SM regulations - it is a straw man for continued membership of the SM.

Neither May nor Corbyn support continued membership of the SM, both now support staying in a CU though for a number of years

And the Single Market is next. If we are outside the Single Market we still need that Irexit.

No it is not as neither May nor Corbyn back the single market and both are absolutely firm on that.

Using alignment to the CU to negate an Irish hard border is the North and Midlands

If they do not concede on the SM then the whole debate over the CU with regard to the Irish border is pointless.

No it isn't as there is no need to concede on the SM over the Irish border and nor does ending free movement prevent a FTA with the EU as even Barnier has conceded, see Canada

To prevent a border of some sort in Ireland we have to be in the Single Market. That is a given.

If we are in the Single Market then there is freedom of movement. Agreeing to stay in a CU simply sets the stage for remaining in the SM whether you, Corbyn or May want it or not.

No, regulatory alignment to avoid a hard border in Ireland does not technically require staying in the Single Market nor does it require freedom of movement.

The basis of that principle was already agreed with the EU in December to progress to FTA talks

Sorry but as has already been quoted by Barnesian it does mean exactly that.

Barnesian said:

Gardenwalker said:

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

Alignment with some regulations does not require FoM, at the end of the day beyond technically leaving the EU it is ending free movement which is most important to most Leave voters

You are completely wrong if you claim that CU membership does not require almost full alignment with SM regulations. To quote from lawyersforbritain who explain this very well:

"The EU customs union is a system under which all the Member States follow a set of common rules in exercising customs controls over goods entering the EU from the outside. The core of this system of controls is the levying of tariffs and the imposition of trade quotas under the EU’s Common Customs Tariff; but the controls exercised by customs extend far beyond tariffs to a huge range of other matters, such as checking food for compliance with health standards and checking that consumer goods comply with safety rules (such as the rules limiting lead in children’s toys).

The very nature of the EU customs union requires that the common rules be interpreted and applied in a uniform manner by all Member States. If this were not done, it would result in goods entering the EU via the ports of a Member State with laxer controls and then circulating freely inside the EU into the markets of other Member States. Obviously, this cannot be tolerated under a system where no systematic customs controls are exercised on the flow of goods inside the EU between Member States, especially since importers might be tempted to “game the system” by diverting their imports into the EU to flow through the ports of a Member State where they had found a weakness."

Why won't you answer on what comprises FOM? Afraid May will sell you out before you hit 'post'?

It’s quite funny that @archer101au - dismissed as a fruitcake by both Remainers and Leavers on here - seems to have called all of this right.

I agree. The Joint Report agreed by the UK says "In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the
Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all Ireland
economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement."

As the PM has said a border in the Irish Sea is unacceptable this means it will apply to all the UK. This where we are heading. To start with it will be temporary until 2013 and then kicked down the road.

It is interesting that it specifies "those rules" which presumably doesn't include EU FOM rules as these are already covered by the CTA.

We can live with it being temporary until 2013....

Elliot said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Elliot said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Elliot said:

TOPPING said:

Didn't it start 5,000 years ago? How many generations is that?

Are you really stupid enough to claim Israel has the right to occupy land which has been majority Muslim Arab for centuries based on the state of play prior to the Roman Empire?

Are you disputing Israel's right to hold territories it took off its attackers in 67 until a peace deal is reached?

Or are you disputing Israel's right to exist at all? Like Hamas still does who control Gaza and are organising today's violence.

The former. You do not have a right to permanently occupy land lived in by a majority that do not want to be part of your state.

They're not permanently occupying land, they're temporarily doing so until a peace deal is reached.

Unfortunately the current "leaders" in Gaza dispute Israel's right to even exist so peace doesn't seem close.

A temporary period of 51 years. During which they demolish and evacuate Palestinians in that territory and legalise Israeli colonists. Countries that want to give the land back always engage in settlement of the occupied land. Your apologism is an obvious joke of a position.

After peace treaties with Egypt, Israel withdrew from the Sinai, and they withdrew from Southern Lebanon. They are perfectly willing to give up territory, but they only seem to want to do it with people they can trust and work with. Odd, that.

As an aside, I'm far from sure the civilians in the Sinai are faring better under Egyptian rule than they were under Israeli ...

tlg86 said:

So what we really need is a new Brighton Mainline.

What we need is a new north-south main line through the centre of London, connecting lines north and south. Think of Thameslink 2019 done better, or Crossrail. I'm unsure the current plans for Crossrail 2 are it.

MarqueeMark said:

Barnesian said:

Gardenwalker said:

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

archer101au said:

HYUFD said:

You are completely wrong if you claim that CU membership does not require almost full alignment with SM regulations. To quote from lawyersforbritain who explain this very well:

"The EU customs union is a system under which all the Member States follow a set of common rules in exercising customs controls over goods entering the EU from the outside. The core of this system of controls is the levying of tariffs and the imposition of trade quotas under the EU’s Common Customs Tariff; but the controls exercised by customs extend far beyond tariffs to a huge range of other matters, such as checking food for compliance with health standards and checking that consumer goods comply with safety rules (such as the rules limiting lead in children’s toys).

The very nature of the EU customs union requires that the common rules be interpreted and applied in a uniform manner by all Member States. If this were not done, it would result in goods entering the EU via the ports of a Member State with laxer controls and then circulating freely inside the EU into the markets of other Member States. Obviously, this cannot be tolerated under a system where no systematic customs controls are exercised on the flow of goods inside the EU between Member States, especially since importers might be tempted to “game the system” by diverting their imports into the EU to flow through the ports of a Member State where they had found a weakness."

Why won't you answer on what comprises FOM? Afraid May will sell you out before you hit 'post'?

It’s quite funny that @archer101au - dismissed as a fruitcake by both Remainers and Leavers on here - seems to have called all of this right.

I agree. The Joint Report agreed by the UK says "In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the
Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all Ireland
economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement."

As the PM has said a border in the Irish Sea is unacceptable this means it will apply to all the UK. This where we are heading. To start with it will be temporary until 2013 and then kicked down the road.

It is interesting that it specifies "those rules" which presumably doesn't include EU FOM rules as these are already covered by the CTA.

We can live with it being temporary until 2013....

Too late to edit.

More of Liam Fox's shared British values with the Philippines.

The Philippines correctional system chief has said anyone convicted of a drug offence – including personal possession - should be executed, as a bill reintroducing the death penalty gains overwhelming support in the House of Representatives

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Glenn, as I've said before, we can all agree May is incompetent.

She's just following through on the Brexiteers' promises. What would you have done?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35692452

I doubt there are very many Germans who believe in a "right of return" to territories they lost to Poland and Russia in 1945.

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Glenn, that's a strange argument. The Republic is in the EU. The UK (in name, at least...) is leaving. The idea the UK and EU will not trade if the UK is not in the single market is demented.

Non-EU and EU trade occurs all the time. We do it right now with America, Canada, South Korea and many other nations. If that can happen, why* is it seen by some as a major obstacle for the UK?

*Obviously some mendacious scoundrels are emphasising every potential bump in the road to try and dilute, or even thwart, our departure from the UK. But I was referring to reasonable reasons rather than those who sit on the EU side of the negotiating table.

It's a negotiation. The UK has committed to no border or checks, and now has to deliver on a mechanism on its side to achieve that. What happens in other cases is neither here nor there.

It hasn't, actually. It's said that that's its confirmed preference and that'll work to that end, and re-confirmed so in last year's 'agreement'. However, I put 'agreement' in apostrophes because everything is subject to the clause that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" - and not everything is agreed, therefore, as yet, nothing - including any commitment on the Irish land border - is agreed.

It's much more than a confirmed preference. It's agreed in in writing in the joint report with the EU. It's true that this is not yet a legally enforceable deal, but it's an international political agreement so any attempt to backtrack will come at considerable cost to the UK's standing.

In any case, the UK will find itself quite literally incapable of any other approach. Any attempt to impose a separate customs jurisdiction would lead to a cycle of political escalation that would end in the break up of the UK.

Mr. Glenn, agreeing to fully align unless the EU agrees to something else was always dumb, and was pointed out as such.

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Glenn, that's a strange argument. The Republic is in the EU. The UK (in name, at least...) is leaving. The idea the UK and EU will not trade if the UK is not in the single market is demented.

Non-EU and EU trade occurs all the time. We do it right now with America, Canada, South Korea and many other nations. If that can happen, why* is it seen by some as a major obstacle for the UK?

*Obviously some mendacious scoundrels are emphasising every potential bump in the road to try and dilute, or even thwart, our departure from the UK. But I was referring to reasonable reasons rather than those who sit on the EU side of the negotiating table.

It's a negotiation. The UK has committed to no border or checks, and now has to deliver on a mechanism on its side to achieve that. What happens in other cases is neither here nor there.

It hasn't, actually. It's said that that's its confirmed preference and that'll work to that end, and re-confirmed so in last year's 'agreement'. However, I put 'agreement' in apostrophes because everything is subject to the clause that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" - and not everything is agreed, therefore, as yet, nothing - including any commitment on the Irish land border - is agreed.

Technically correct. But at this stage we can put it another way, "everything is agreed, unless nothing is agreed". If both sides decide something needs to be agreed we have effectively agreed everything. This column is worth signing up to the Telegraph for to get your free paywall article.

https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/995946375765549056

CarlottaVance said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Well that wasn't so hard in the end, was it?

https://www.ft.com/content/8834c20a-59a1-11e8-b8b2-d6ceb45fa9d0

British officials, however, argue that this is a problem of Mr Barnier’s own making.

“How can you address the Irish backstop question without talking about customs?” said one British diplomat.

Well, quite. As has been pointed out on here from the beginning......

The EU's draft text for the backstop does include a customs solution.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TOPPING said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

TGOHF said:

surby said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I’m assuming the Paras who were on duty on Bloody Sunday have been advising the IDF.


https://twitter.com/sharifkouddous/status/996734428956299265?s=21

We heard a lot about "anti-semitism" recently . Very little about this. The whole Israeli cabinet should be brought to the Hague.

They should be brought to Oslo for the Nobel Peace prize. Their restraint given the continual Iranian sponsored attacks on their country is admirable.

Pity the Palestinians who have leaders bought and paid for by a foreign power with no interest in peace.

Nope. I am with Surby on this. Netanyahu should be on trial.

What if he does nothing? Lets the crowd storm the border, approach the Israeli border villages? What do you suppose would happen?

TSE mentioned NI - here's an analogy when inaction was the chosen route.

What they do is deal with protestors once they are actually at the border. Not when they are 700 yards away as they are doing at the moment.


I am sure there would be uproar if the US took to shooting any Mexican who came within 700 yards of the border.

Jeez another armchair general - 50,000 protesters AT THE BORDER!!

Oh, and are the Mexicans trying effectively to invade the USA? Nuh-huh.

Richard, read what you have written back and think about it.

I have thought about it. And I think that those advocating the premeditated murder of civilians by snipers really do nee to refind their moral compass.

Thousands of violent protestors attacking the border are civilians?

Yes. Overwhelmingly they are. No one in their right mind should believe the Israeli propaganda on this.

Of course thousands of them were civilians. Lead by terrorists. And what do you think would have happened if they had succeeded in storming the border?

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

What would people identify as the main problems with the British railway system? I suggest the following:

1) It's very expensive by international standards.
2) Some commuter lines into London have an inadequate service.
3) Some of the infrastructure is creaking.

I'm very open to any structure that addresses these problems. Nationalisation by itself, however, won't do that. More money is required from somewhere. And that's the point where everyone starts shuffling awkwardly and looking away.

I’m not sure it is expensive.

All railways are subsidised, it’s just that Continental Europe tends to subsidise more, and across the board, whereas British policy of late has been to reduce subsidy (raising fares) and to encourage gouging of certain classes of travellers - ie those who don’t book well in advance.

The other factor is the complexity of running a system which has London as its hub, requiring the balancing of its role as both the central network node and a mass commuter destination.

We must be unique for that given London’s role versus the rest of the country, and the particular spatial characteristics of London (ie low density, high commuter).

Edit: one more thought/theory.
Infrastructure is probably more expensive because of London. In turn there is less to spend outside of London.

If you pay on the day, it is very expensive. Yes.

If you pay in advance, it is not. There did not seem to be any benefit paying in advance when I lived on the continent, although that might have been due to language issues.

anothernick said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Glenn, that's a strange argument. The Republic is in the EU. The UK (in name, at least...) is leaving. The idea the UK and EU will not trade if the UK is not in the single market is demented.

Non-EU and EU trade occurs all the time. We do it right now with America, Canada, South Korea and many other nations. If that can happen, why* is it seen by some as a major obstacle for the UK?

*Obviously some mendacious scoundrels are emphasising every potential bump in the road to try and dilute, or even thwart, our departure from the UK. But I was referring to reasonable reasons rather than those who sit on the EU side of the negotiating table.

It's a negotiation. The UK has committed to no border or checks, and now has to deliver on a mechanism on its side to achieve that. What happens in other cases is neither here nor there.

It hasn't, actually. It's said that that's its confirmed preference and that'll work to that end, and re-confirmed so in last year's 'agreement'. However, I put 'agreement' in apostrophes because everything is subject to the clause that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" - and not everything is agreed, therefore, as yet, nothing - including any commitment on the Irish land border - is agreed.

It's much more than a confirmed preference. It's agreed in in writing in the joint report with the EU. It's true that this is not yet a legally enforceable deal, but it's an international political agreement so any attempt to backtrack will come at considerable cost to the UK's standing.

In any case, the UK will find itself quite literally incapable of any other approach. Any attempt to impose a separate customs jurisdiction would lead to a cycle of political escalation that would end in the break up of the UK.

So the position now seems to be that the UK will remain in a customs union and accept all EU food and product standards for an indefinite period. Which in reality will become a permanent end-state.

It can't become a permanent end-state because a position where we're a rule-taker will be unstable even before it happens. We're not Norway.

All roads lead to Remain.

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

What would people identify as the main problems with the British railway system? I suggest the following:

1) It's very expensive by international standards.
2) Some commuter lines into London have an inadequate service.
3) Some of the infrastructure is creaking.

I'm very open to any structure that addresses these problems. Nationalisation by itself, however, won't do that. More money is required from somewhere. And that's the point where everyone starts shuffling awkwardly and looking away.

I’m not sure it is expensive.

All railways are subsidised, it’s just that Continental Europe tends to subsidise more, and across the board, whereas British policy of late has been to reduce subsidy (raising fares) and to encourage gouging of certain classes of travellers - ie those who don’t book well in advance.

The other factor is the complexity of running a system which has London as its hub, requiring the balancing of its role as both the central network node and a mass commuter destination.

We must be unique for that given London’s role versus the rest of the country, and the particular spatial characteristics of London (ie low density, high commuter).

Edit: one more thought/theory.
Infrastructure is probably more expensive because of London. In turn there is less to spend outside of London.

So apparently railways as good as the SBB are ruled out in London due to high density. But high-speed broadband coverage as good as rural Switzerland is ruled out where I live because of low density and I must be thankful that I get 5-7 Mb/s not 1 Mb/s.

Excuses, excuses ...

BannedInParis said:

Gardenwalker said:

AlastairMeeks said:

What would people identify as the main problems with the British railway system? I suggest the following:

1) It's very expensive by international standards.
2) Some commuter lines into London have an inadequate service.
3) Some of the infrastructure is creaking.

I'm very open to any structure that addresses these problems. Nationalisation by itself, however, won't do that. More money is required from somewhere. And that's the point where everyone starts shuffling awkwardly and looking away.

I’m not sure it is expensive.

All railways are subsidised, it’s just that Continental Europe tends to subsidise more, and across the board, whereas British policy of late has been to reduce subsidy (raising fares) and to encourage gouging of certain classes of travellers - ie those who don’t book well in advance.

The other factor is the complexity of running a system which has London as its hub, requiring the balancing of its role as both the central network node and a mass commuter destination.

We must be unique for that given London’s role versus the rest of the country, and the particular spatial characteristics of London (ie low density, high commuter).

Edit: one more thought/theory.
Infrastructure is probably more expensive because of London. In turn there is less to spend outside of London.

If you pay on the day, it is very expensive. Yes.

If you pay in advance, it is not. There did not seem to be any benefit paying in advance when I lived on the continent, although that might have been due to language issues.

It is very expensive. In my experience (mainly NE/Yorkshire) only if you book very far in advance and/or at a strange time of day, can you get a decent price that makes it worthwhile not driving.

On Portuguese and French trains the costs were more reasonable and more proportionate to the actual distance of the journey.

williamglenn said:

anothernick said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Glenn, that's a strange argument. The Republic is in the EU. The UK (in name, at least...) is leaving. The idea the UK and EU will not trade if the UK is not in the single market is demented.

Non-EU and EU trade occurs all the time. We do it right now with America, Canada, South Korea and many other nations. If that can happen, why* is it seen by some as a major obstacle for the UK?

*Obviously some mendacious scoundrels are emphasising every potential bump in the road to try and dilute, or even thwart, our departure from the UK. But I was referring to reasonable reasons rather than those who sit on the EU side of the negotiating table.

It's a negotiation. The UK has committed to no border or checks, and now has to deliver on a mechanism on its side to achieve that. What happens in other cases is neither here nor there.

It hasn't, actually. It's said that that's its confirmed preference and that'll work to that end, and re-confirmed so in last year's 'agreement'. However, I put 'agreement' in apostrophes because everything is subject to the clause that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" - and not everything is agreed, therefore, as yet, nothing - including any commitment on the Irish land border - is agreed.

It's much more than a confirmed preference. It's agreed in in writing in the joint report with the EU. It's true that this is not yet a legally enforceable deal, but it's an international political agreement so any attempt to backtrack will come at considerable cost to the UK's standing.

In any case, the UK will find itself quite literally incapable of any other approach. Any attempt to impose a separate customs jurisdiction would lead to a cycle of political escalation that would end in the break up of the UK.

So the position now seems to be that the UK will remain in a customs union and accept all EU food and product standards for an indefinite period. Which in reality will become a permanent end-state.

It can't become a permanent end-state because a position where we're a rule-taker will be unstable even before it happens. We're not Norway.

All roads lead to Remain.

I'm not sure we will rejoin, although it is a logical position. The political inertia against rejoining will be huge. Brexit is going to be very uncomfortable in any scenario.

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

HYUFD said:

david_herdson said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

I think such reforms can be done but they need to be heavily trailed and tested first, and public support slowly built.

If you try and bounce them on the voters during an election campaign, they will smell a rat and vote accordingly.

That is exactly right. The Dementia tax was good policy but poor politics. The manifesto should have given a hard commitment on increasing the legacy allowance to £100k and then given promised to consult on "measures to harmonise the financial burden placed on those with different forms of ongoing care".

That could have led to a White Paper in the first year of the parliament and allowed for proposals to be tweaked in response to the consultation without it looking like headless-chicken syndrome, which it inevitably does in the hot-house of an election campaign. The new system could have been introduced around 2019 giving people time to get used to it before the next GE.

But no, a couple of policy wonks thought they knew political campaigning better than Lynton Crosby does.

The Dementia Tax was a bad policy and bad politics, sneeking it out mid Parliament would not work either, see the Poll Tax

Why is it a bad policy to make people who can afford to pay for something that they receive? Particularly when other people, in an identical financial situation, pay to receive their similar care?

As it would negate the benefit of Osborne's inheritance tax cut for many with relatives needing personal at home care.

As I said NI and council tax will be the primary source of funds going forward for social care

just because something increases someone's tax bill, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's bad policy. On that basis, why shouldn't the state pay for people's care home fees?

FF43 said:

anothernick said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Glenn, that's a strange argument. The Republic is in the EU. The UK (in name, at least...) is leaving. The idea the UK and EU will not trade if the UK is not in the single market is demented.

Non-EU and EU trade occurs all the time. We do it right now with America, Canada, South Korea and many other nations. If that can happen, why* is it seen by some as a major obstacle for the UK?

*Obviously some mendacious scoundrels are emphasising every potential bump in the road to try and dilute, or even thwart, our departure from the UK. But I was referring to reasonable reasons rather than those who sit on the EU side of the negotiating table.

It's a negotiation. The UK has committed to no border or checks, and now has to deliver on a mechanism on its side to achieve that. What happens in other cases is neither here nor there.

It hasn't, actually. It's said that that's its confirmed preference and that'll work to that end, and re-confirmed so in last year's 'agreement'. However, I put 'agreement' in apostrophes because everything is subject to the clause that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" - and not everything is agreed, therefore, as yet, nothing - including any commitment on the Irish land border - is agreed.

It's much more than a confirmed preference. It's agreed in in writing in the joint report with the EU. It's true that this is not yet a legally enforceable deal, but it's an international political agreement so any attempt to backtrack will come at considerable cost to the UK's standing.

In any case, the UK will find itself quite literally incapable of any other approach. Any attempt to impose a separate customs jurisdiction would lead to a cycle of political escalation that would end in the break up of the UK.

So the position now seems to be that the UK will remain in a customs union and accept all EU food and product standards for an indefinite period. Which in reality will become a permanent end-state.

That has been my central prediction since the referendum. The Brexit contradiction needs to b resolved somehow.

But that central prediction is based on the assumption that it will not be resolved and we'll simply enter into purgatory, wondering what happened. That seems highly unlikely to me.

williamglenn said:

FF43 said:

anothernick said:

williamglenn said:

david_herdson said:

williamglenn said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Glenn, that's a strange argument. The Republic is in the EU. The UK (in name, at least...) is leaving. The idea the UK and EU will not trade if the UK is not in the single market is demented.

Non-EU and EU trade occurs all the time. We do it right now with America, Canada, South Korea and many other nations. If that can happen, why* is it seen by some as a major obstacle for the UK?

*Obviously some mendacious scoundrels are emphasising every potential bump in the road to try and dilute, or even thwart, our departure from the UK. But I was referring to reasonable reasons rather than those who sit on the EU side of the negotiating table.

It's a negotiation. The UK has committed to no border or checks, and now has to deliver on a mechanism on its side to achieve that. What happens in other cases is neither here nor there.

It hasn't, actually. It's said that that's its confirmed preference and that'll work to that end, and re-confirmed so in last year's 'agreement'. However, I put 'agreement' in apostrophes because everything is subject to the clause that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" - and not everything is agreed, therefore, as yet, nothing - including any commitment on the Irish land border - is agreed.

It's much more than a confirmed preference. It's agreed in in writing in the joint report with the EU. It's true that this is not yet a legally enforceable deal, but it's an international political agreement so any attempt to backtrack will come at considerable cost to the UK's standing.

In any case, the UK will find itself quite literally incapable of any other approach. Any attempt to impose a separate customs jurisdiction would lead to a cycle of political escalation that would end in the break up of the UK.

So the position now seems to be that the UK will remain in a customs union and accept all EU food and product standards for an indefinite period. Which in reality will become a permanent end-state.

That has been my central prediction since the referendum. The Brexit contradiction needs to b resolved somehow.

But that central prediction is based on the assumption that it will not be resolved and we'll simply enter into purgatory, wondering what happened. That seems highly unlikely to me.

Part of that contradiction is that the British people voted to leave the European Union. I think that's a bigger deal than I suspect you do. I don't think the contradiction can really be resolved either inside or outside the EU, but something has to occupy the vacuum.