Major is another fucking 2nd voter, like Starmer et al. Despicable piece of anti-democratic sh1t. Another British Trumpite marching on parliament to overthrow an election
"Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.
In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.
“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”
“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said."
Let him fuck off back to Huntingdonshire and his deserved obscurity. He has no credibility on anything
In what way is holding another democratic vote not democratic.
Its perfectly democratic, its just that it would also have massively damaged trust in democracy. Millions of people regarded the initial referendum as something to be respected, whether the vote went the way they wanted or not. I voted remain, the country voted out, and i expected that to be delivered.
So while its wrong to say a second vote would be undemocratic, its also true that it would have damaged trust in democracy,
Suppose there had been a genuine groundswell of opinion, and the public had changed its mind, so that by early 2019 a clear 2-1 majority was in favour of cancelling Article 50 and forgetting that the previous three years had happened.
In that unlikely circumstance it would have been absurd and undemocratic to continue with Brexit.
My objection to a second referendum was purely that this evidently hadn't happened. The argument hadn't been won.
And we saw this very clearly with the GE2019 result.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
Major is another fucking 2nd voter, like Starmer et al. Despicable piece of anti-democratic sh1t. Another British Trumpite marching on parliament to overthrow an election
"Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.
In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.
“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”
“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said."
Let him fuck off back to Huntingdonshire and his deserved obscurity. He has no credibility on anything
In what way is holding another democratic vote not democratic.
Its perfectly democratic, its just that it would also have massively damaged trust in democracy. Millions of people regarded the initial referendum as something to be respected, whether the vote went the way they wanted or not. I voted remain, the country voted out, and i expected that to be delivered.
So while its wrong to say a second vote would be undemocratic, its also true that it would have damaged trust in democracy,
Suppose there had been a genuine groundswell of opinion, and the public had changed its mind, so that by early 2019 a clear 2-1 majority was in favour of cancelling Article 50 and forgetting that the previous three years had happened.
In that unlikely circumstance it would have been absurd and undemocratic to continue with Brexit.
My objection to a second referendum was purely that this evidently hadn't happened. The argument hadn't been won.
And we saw this very clearly with the GE2019 result.
Such arguments had been ‘won’ among the denizens of London and university towns, including many in politics and media, who mistakenly thought that all they had to do was convince each other.
In December 2019, the people gave their own opinion.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
We were told by Remainers that inward investment would "collapse" after Brexit
The reality?
"AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026.
The planned purchases would keep the weighting of UK and European assets as a proportion of the fund’s total steady. .... More than half of the fund is already invested offshore, including in major UK assets like Heathrow airport and London’s King’s Cross redevelopment project, but Moloney sees more international opportunities in private markets.
Moloney said that the UK was an “obvious choice” to deploy more cash, particularly considering the fund was a long-term investor.
“Our experience to date in the UK has been very positive, with investments in assets like Heathrow, Peel Ports and the King's Cross redevelopment,” he added.
“There are deep pools of high-quality talent, a stable and reliable legal and regulatory environment and many like-minded partners with whom to work. There is also a strong cultural fit.”
Wayne Fitzgibbon, partner with Mercer, the professional services firm, said it “made sense” for Australian superannuation funds to expand in the UK, given the government’s efforts to attract more local and foreign capital with its “investment big bang” initiative.
“The type of infrastructure opportunities in UK — particularly social infrastructure and affordable housing — will offer diversification benefits in a global portfolio,” said Fitzgibbon.
As part of its global expansion, AustralianSuper, which manages pensions for one in 10 Australian workers, will double its London office headcount from 50 to 100."
If you think that is "bullshit" then, well, that probably says more about you
Oh, I'm not saying that increased inward investment is "bullshit". It's the spin that this is somehow a Brexit dividend when the reality is that there is a (marginal) rebalance away from the UK in their portfolio. That's the bullshit aspect.
Oh and there's this. Glad we got rid of all that dodgy forrin share trading.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
Major is another fucking 2nd voter, like Starmer et al. Despicable piece of anti-democratic sh1t. Another British Trumpite marching on parliament to overthrow an election
"Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.
In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.
“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”
“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said."
Let him fuck off back to Huntingdonshire and his deserved obscurity. He has no credibility on anything
John Major was truly the king of the hypocrites.
There were no free votes or referendum on his precious Maastricht treaty.
And then there was his affair with Edwina Currie contrasted with his 'back to basics' morality drive.
I find Major an utterly repulsive figure, his canting lies about Europe are one reason we ended up where we did, as you say
There are a zillion reasons to dump Boris, and I think he should be dumped, but the opinion of John bloody Major is not one of them
I actually disagree with that. Maastricht, with its pillars, variable geometry, opt outs and subsidiarity created a place where the UK could be in the EU getting what we wanted out of it whilst not getting in the road of those who wanted more, such as the single currency. Of course we should have had a vote on it but it did offer us at least the foundations of the half way house we were looking for.
The problem was that Blair in particular, and Brown, wanted to be at the heart of Europe so they gave up some of the opt outs and put us back on the track to ever closer union, albeit at a slower pace, through Lisbon. And, of course, we still didn't get a vote on it.
If they had built on the path Major set out in Maastricht instead I think that we would still be in the EU, with the vast majority (if not all the fanatics) quite content with our half way house.
The problem being that the variable geometry turned out only to be varying speeds of EverCloserUnion with no scope to reverse anything.
Even the opt-out from the single currency was suspected of being only for show and that ERM membership would inevitably lead to joining the single currency.
That's because we never really fought for the implementation of subsidiarity. It could have been the tool that restored local democracy and accountability. We may not have succeeded, of course, but we never even tried. We were paralysed by a government that was deeply divided about the EU and didn't want to talk about it any more than they had to and then a government which thought being at the centre was the better option.
When Cameron tried to get us back to something nearer Maastricht he was told that ship had sailed from Lisbon and it was Merkle's way or the heighway. Probably not her biggest misjudgment but its up there.
Major is another fucking 2nd voter, like Starmer et al. Despicable piece of anti-democratic sh1t. Another British Trumpite marching on parliament to overthrow an election
"Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.
In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.
“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”
“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said."
Let him fuck off back to Huntingdonshire and his deserved obscurity. He has no credibility on anything
John Major was truly the king of the hypocrites.
There were no free votes or referendum on his precious Maastricht treaty.
And then there was his affair with Edwina Currie contrasted with his 'back to basics' morality drive.
I find Major an utterly repulsive figure, his canting lies about Europe are one reason we ended up where we did, as you say
There are a zillion reasons to dump Boris, and I think he should be dumped, but the opinion of John bloody Major is not one of them
I actually disagree with that. Maastricht, with its pillars, variable geometry, opt outs and subsidiarity created a place where the UK could be in the EU getting what we wanted out of it whilst not getting in the road of those who wanted more, such as the single currency. Of course we should have had a vote on it but it did offer us at least the foundations of the half way house we were looking for.
The problem was that Blair in particular, and Brown, wanted to be at the heart of Europe so they gave up some of the opt outs and put us back on the track to ever closer union, albeit at a slower pace, through Lisbon. And, of course, we still didn't get a vote on it.
If they had built on the path Major set out in Maastricht instead I think that we would still be in the EU, with the vast majority (if not all the fanatics) quite content with our half way house.
And that would also be Blair and Brown who were democratically elected to govern the UK according to their political philosophy.
No-one (sane) is disputing that Brown had the legal right to do what he did. It's just that, if he wanted us to remain part of the EU, what he did was very bad strategy, because it essentially forced the electorate to demand an in-out referendum to settle the matter, and therefore he takes a large share of the blame for why we left.
I agree that if Brown had followed through, allowed the referendum on Lisbon, and then refused to sign it after we voted No by (say) 65:35, we would still be in the EU. Unless of course, the EU had found another way to enact it anyway, and then we would have also left by now, having spotted that they don't actually care what we think.
Did the electorate really demand an in-out referendum, as you claim? I think that may be a bit of myth. Despite efforts in the media to ramp up hatred of the EU, my recollection is that prior to around 2015 the electorate wasn't that interested in the EU - although they did have concerns about immigration.
But the referendum was primarily about the Tory Party, and the threat to its right flank from UKIP, wasn't it? That's the boil that Cameron was seeking, and failed, to lance.
The elctorate wanted a chance to say no to the federalisation ratchet and ever closer union. Because we were denied the chance over Maastricht, the Constitution and Lisbon, the in/out vote was the only option.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
We were told by Remainers that inward investment would "collapse" after Brexit
The reality?
"AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026.
The planned purchases would keep the weighting of UK and European assets as a proportion of the fund’s total steady. .... More than half of the fund is already invested offshore, including in major UK assets like Heathrow airport and London’s King’s Cross redevelopment project, but Moloney sees more international opportunities in private markets.
Moloney said that the UK was an “obvious choice” to deploy more cash, particularly considering the fund was a long-term investor.
“Our experience to date in the UK has been very positive, with investments in assets like Heathrow, Peel Ports and the King's Cross redevelopment,” he added.
“There are deep pools of high-quality talent, a stable and reliable legal and regulatory environment and many like-minded partners with whom to work. There is also a strong cultural fit.”
Wayne Fitzgibbon, partner with Mercer, the professional services firm, said it “made sense” for Australian superannuation funds to expand in the UK, given the government’s efforts to attract more local and foreign capital with its “investment big bang” initiative.
“The type of infrastructure opportunities in UK — particularly social infrastructure and affordable housing — will offer diversification benefits in a global portfolio,” said Fitzgibbon.
As part of its global expansion, AustralianSuper, which manages pensions for one in 10 Australian workers, will double its London office headcount from 50 to 100."
If you think that is "bullshit" then, well, that probably says more about you
That’s £8bn of FDI over five years, and 50 new jobs managing it. Not to be sneezed at. These investments all add up.
I guess now we know what Ms Truss was doing, on that Australia trip everyone was complaining about the other week.
Or looked at another way it is more likely another chunk of our infrastructure sold so that we can perpetually pay rent for its use, and all so we can buy more tat from China. I am all for FDI that brings new manufacturing, new skills and new opportunities here but just selling what we have to pay the bills is a road to penury. And we are a long way down it.
Major is another fucking 2nd voter, like Starmer et al. Despicable piece of anti-democratic sh1t. Another British Trumpite marching on parliament to overthrow an election
"Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.
In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.
“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”
“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said."
Let him fuck off back to Huntingdonshire and his deserved obscurity. He has no credibility on anything
John Major was truly the king of the hypocrites.
There were no free votes or referendum on his precious Maastricht treaty.
And then there was his affair with Edwina Currie contrasted with his 'back to basics' morality drive.
I find Major an utterly repulsive figure, his canting lies about Europe are one reason we ended up where we did, as you say
There are a zillion reasons to dump Boris, and I think he should be dumped, but the opinion of John bloody Major is not one of them
I actually disagree with that. Maastricht, with its pillars, variable geometry, opt outs and subsidiarity created a place where the UK could be in the EU getting what we wanted out of it whilst not getting in the road of those who wanted more, such as the single currency. Of course we should have had a vote on it but it did offer us at least the foundations of the half way house we were looking for.
The problem was that Blair in particular, and Brown, wanted to be at the heart of Europe so they gave up some of the opt outs and put us back on the track to ever closer union, albeit at a slower pace, through Lisbon. And, of course, we still didn't get a vote on it.
If they had built on the path Major set out in Maastricht instead I think that we would still be in the EU, with the vast majority (if not all the fanatics) quite content with our half way house.
And that would also be Blair and Brown who were democratically elected to govern the UK according to their political philosophy.
No-one (sane) is disputing that Brown had the legal right to do what he did. It's just that, if he wanted us to remain part of the EU, what he did was very bad strategy, because it essentially forced the electorate to demand an in-out referendum to settle the matter, and therefore he takes a large share of the blame for why we left.
I agree that if Brown had followed through, allowed the referendum on Lisbon, and then refused to sign it after we voted No by (say) 65:35, we would still be in the EU. Unless of course, the EU had found another way to enact it anyway, and then we would have also left by now, having spotted that they don't actually care what we think.
Did the electorate really demand an in-out referendum, as you claim? I think that may be a bit of myth. Despite efforts in the media to ramp up hatred of the EU, my recollection is that prior to around 2015 the electorate wasn't that interested in the EU - although they did have concerns about immigration.
But the referendum was primarily about the Tory Party, and the threat to its right flank from UKIP, wasn't it? That's the boil that Cameron was seeking, and failed, to lance.
The elctorate wanted a chance to say no to the federalisation ratchet and ever closer union. Because we were denied the chance over Maastricht, the Constitution and Lisbon, the in/out vote was the only option.
Wearing Captain Hindsight’s glasses, it didn’t need to be an in out referendum, that made for a campaign very poor at educating the electorate on all the potential options and outcomes. I blame the remainers for this, if the options were known the electorate would have chosen something the remainers didn’t want, the remainers tried to bounce us.
In my opinion, and I am right, if it started with 6 options for type of arrangement and new deal, whittled down in a run off between two, the campaign would have been x100 more educational, and our country in a much better place today.
Major is another fucking 2nd voter, like Starmer et al. Despicable piece of anti-democratic sh1t. Another British Trumpite marching on parliament to overthrow an election
"Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.
In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.
“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”
“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said."
Let him fuck off back to Huntingdonshire and his deserved obscurity. He has no credibility on anything
In what way is holding another democratic vote not democratic.
Its perfectly democratic, its just that it would also have massively damaged trust in democracy. Millions of people regarded the initial referendum as something to be respected, whether the vote went the way they wanted or not. I voted remain, the country voted out, and i expected that to be delivered.
So while its wrong to say a second vote would be undemocratic, its also true that it would have damaged trust in democracy,
Suppose there had been a genuine groundswell of opinion, and the public had changed its mind, so that by early 2019 a clear 2-1 majority was in favour of cancelling Article 50 and forgetting that the previous three years had happened.
In that unlikely circumstance it would have been absurd and undemocratic to continue with Brexit.
My objection to a second referendum was purely that this evidently hadn't happened. The argument hadn't been won.
And we saw this very clearly with the GE2019 result.
Such arguments had been ‘won’ among the denizens of London and university towns, including many in politics and media, who mistakenly thought that all they had to do was convince each other.
In December 2019, the people gave their own opinion.
Quite. They were the same people who walked round on the day after the initial vote in shock, because they didn't know anyone who voted leave. Working at a Uni I get this a lot. Genuinely bright people who often have little interaction with people outside the sphere of academia. After 2019 a colleague's first comment to me the morning after was "isn't it terrible?" I countered by saying that actually, no, the thought of an idiotic anti-semitic sympathizer (at best) with uncosted electoral bribes drove me to vote AGAINST labour/Corbyn. But what was striking was the idea that she thought I too would be upset.
I think it helps if people play sport, or do other activities with non-academics. Drink with plumbers, and builders and traffic wardens, as well as just your fellow academic friends. It gives you a better shot at understanding a national vote.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
I’ve just put a pony on Mark Harper as next Tory leader. Analysis. He clearly already has the nod as the backbench candidate of the right (those people who bragged couple of weeks back they installed Boris Johnson) this gives him foundation of a lot of MP support at the start to boost his profile and ensure he stays in safely for a few rounds. Meanwhile, he comes across very well, people who haven’t listened to him much before will be impressed by his communication skills and politeness, yet firm in conviction like Lady Thatcher, as he uses the oxygen of publicity of the election platforms. If he gets to the last two I think he beats everyone except Sunak, because his platform is so perfect in tune with the Conservative membership and their favourite newspapers.
Major is another fucking 2nd voter, like Starmer et al. Despicable piece of anti-democratic sh1t. Another British Trumpite marching on parliament to overthrow an election
"Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.
In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.
“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”
“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said."
Let him fuck off back to Huntingdonshire and his deserved obscurity. He has no credibility on anything
John Major was truly the king of the hypocrites.
There were no free votes or referendum on his precious Maastricht treaty.
And then there was his affair with Edwina Currie contrasted with his 'back to basics' morality drive.
I find Major an utterly repulsive figure, his canting lies about Europe are one reason we ended up where we did, as you say
There are a zillion reasons to dump Boris, and I think he should be dumped, but the opinion of John bloody Major is not one of them
I actually disagree with that. Maastricht, with its pillars, variable geometry, opt outs and subsidiarity created a place where the UK could be in the EU getting what we wanted out of it whilst not getting in the road of those who wanted more, such as the single currency. Of course we should have had a vote on it but it did offer us at least the foundations of the half way house we were looking for.
The problem was that Blair in particular, and Brown, wanted to be at the heart of Europe so they gave up some of the opt outs and put us back on the track to ever closer union, albeit at a slower pace, through Lisbon. And, of course, we still didn't get a vote on it.
If they had built on the path Major set out in Maastricht instead I think that we would still be in the EU, with the vast majority (if not all the fanatics) quite content with our half way house.
And that would also be Blair and Brown who were democratically elected to govern the UK according to their political philosophy.
No-one (sane) is disputing that Brown had the legal right to do what he did. It's just that, if he wanted us to remain part of the EU, what he did was very bad strategy, because it essentially forced the electorate to demand an in-out referendum to settle the matter, and therefore he takes a large share of the blame for why we left.
I agree that if Brown had followed through, allowed the referendum on Lisbon, and then refused to sign it after we voted No by (say) 65:35, we would still be in the EU. Unless of course, the EU had found another way to enact it anyway, and then we would have also left by now, having spotted that they don't actually care what we think.
Did the electorate really demand an in-out referendum, as you claim? I think that may be a bit of myth. Despite efforts in the media to ramp up hatred of the EU, my recollection is that prior to around 2015 the electorate wasn't that interested in the EU - although they did have concerns about immigration.
But the referendum was primarily about the Tory Party, and the threat to its right flank from UKIP, wasn't it? That's the boil that Cameron was seeking, and failed, to lance.
The elctorate wanted a chance to say no to the federalisation ratchet and ever closer union. Because we were denied the chance over Maastricht, the Constitution and Lisbon, the in/out vote was the only option.
Wearing Captain Hindsight’s glasses, it didn’t need to be an in out referendum, that made for a campaign very poor at educating the electorate on all the potential options and outcomes. I blame the remainers for this, if the options were known the electorate would have chosen something the remainers didn’t want, the remainers tried to bounce us.
In my opinion, and I am right, if it started with 6 options for type of arrangement and new deal, whittled down in a run off between two, the campaign would have been x100 more educational, and our country in a much better place today.
Correct - Cameron wasn't interested in the electorate making an educated decision, he wanted us to vote to Remain.
Major is another fucking 2nd voter, like Starmer et al. Despicable piece of anti-democratic sh1t. Another British Trumpite marching on parliament to overthrow an election
"Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.
In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.
“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”
“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said."
Let him fuck off back to Huntingdonshire and his deserved obscurity. He has no credibility on anything
Seems early for G (And no T) time.... Hmmm... It is 3pm in Sri Lanka....
I know I have a deserved reputation for drinking. but I am quite capable of losing my rag after << checks hotel room >> two cups of tea and a coffee, if needs be
And if there is one thing that enrages me, it is the people that called for the 2nd vote, without enacting the first. They wanted to cancel democracy, they should grovellingly apologise, be stripped to their vests and y-fronts and pelted with soft rancid eclairs in Leicester Square, then they should slink away from public life forever
There were people who wanted to overturn the 2019 general election because they didn't like the result:
Mere speculation, but: dodgy postal vote spike, dodgy Tory funding, Kuenssberg breaking electoral rules - what’s the chance of the election being voided, hung Parliament returning & this time getting it right: a government of national unity and a second-thoughts EU referendum?
You banana it's not "overturning" the election result if it is by means of another election. Or rather it is but that's the way it's supposed to work. The 2019 GE overturned the 2017 GE. The 2017 GE overturned the 2015 GE, usw.
Grayling wanted to overturn 2019GE with 2017GE.
I think we can agree that no one with the surname Grayling should be allowed anywhere near politics.
Major is another fucking 2nd voter, like Starmer et al. Despicable piece of anti-democratic sh1t. Another British Trumpite marching on parliament to overthrow an election
"Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.
In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.
“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”
“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said."
Let him fuck off back to Huntingdonshire and his deserved obscurity. He has no credibility on anything
John Major was truly the king of the hypocrites.
There were no free votes or referendum on his precious Maastricht treaty.
And then there was his affair with Edwina Currie contrasted with his 'back to basics' morality drive.
I find Major an utterly repulsive figure, his canting lies about Europe are one reason we ended up where we did, as you say
There are a zillion reasons to dump Boris, and I think he should be dumped, but the opinion of John bloody Major is not one of them
I actually disagree with that. Maastricht, with its pillars, variable geometry, opt outs and subsidiarity created a place where the UK could be in the EU getting what we wanted out of it whilst not getting in the road of those who wanted more, such as the single currency. Of course we should have had a vote on it but it did offer us at least the foundations of the half way house we were looking for.
The problem was that Blair in particular, and Brown, wanted to be at the heart of Europe so they gave up some of the opt outs and put us back on the track to ever closer union, albeit at a slower pace, through Lisbon. And, of course, we still didn't get a vote on it.
If they had built on the path Major set out in Maastricht instead I think that we would still be in the EU, with the vast majority (if not all the fanatics) quite content with our half way house.
The problem being that the variable geometry turned out only to be varying speeds of EverCloserUnion with no scope to reverse anything.
Even the opt-out from the single currency was suspected of being only for show and that ERM membership would inevitably lead to joining the single currency.
That's because we never really fought for the implementation of subsidiarity. It could have been the tool that restored local democracy and accountability. We may not have succeeded, of course, but we never even tried. We were paralysed by a government that was deeply divided about the EU and didn't want to talk about it any more than they had to and then a government which thought being at the centre was the better option.
When Cameron tried to get us back to something nearer Maastricht he was told that ship had sailed from Lisbon and it was Merkle's way or the heighway. Probably not her biggest misjudgment but its up there.
I appreciate Merkel is lauded as one of the greats but she does seem to have made a whole series of epic misjudgements. Scrapping nuclear. Nordstream. Encouraging migrants. Has she made an y good calls?
Major is another fucking 2nd voter, like Starmer et al. Despicable piece of anti-democratic sh1t. Another British Trumpite marching on parliament to overthrow an election
"Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.
In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.
“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”
“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said."
Let him fuck off back to Huntingdonshire and his deserved obscurity. He has no credibility on anything
Seems early for G (And no T) time.... Hmmm... It is 3pm in Sri Lanka....
I know I have a deserved reputation for drinking. but I am quite capable of losing my rag after << checks hotel room >> two cups of tea and a coffee, if needs be
And if there is one thing that enrages me, it is the people that called for the 2nd vote, without enacting the first. They wanted to cancel democracy, they should grovellingly apologise, be stripped to their vests and y-fronts and pelted with soft rancid eclairs in Leicester Square, then they should slink away from public life forever
There were people who wanted to overturn the 2019 general election because they didn't like the result:
Mere speculation, but: dodgy postal vote spike, dodgy Tory funding, Kuenssberg breaking electoral rules - what’s the chance of the election being voided, hung Parliament returning & this time getting it right: a government of national unity and a second-thoughts EU referendum?
You banana it's not "overturning" the election result if it is by means of another election. Or rather it is but that's the way it's supposed to work. The 2019 GE overturned the 2017 GE. The 2017 GE overturned the 2015 GE, usw.
Grayling wanted to overturn 2019GE with 2017GE.
I think we can agree that no one with the surname Grayling should be allowed anywhere near politics.
That's a bit harsh on the headmistress of Malory Towers. I think she'd do us some good.
I’ve just put a pony on Mark Harper as next Tory leader. Analysis. He clearly already has the nod as the backbench candidate of the right (those people who bragged couple of weeks back they installed Boris Johnson) this gives him foundation of a lot of MP support at the start to boost his profile and ensure he stays in safely for a few rounds. Meanwhile, he comes across very well, people who haven’t listened to him much before will be impressed by his communication skills and politeness, yet firm in conviction like Lady Thatcher, as he uses the oxygen of publicity of the election platforms. If he gets to the last two I think he beats everyone except Sunak, because his platform is so perfect in tune with the Conservative membership and their favourite newspapers.
Following media reports that Putin had sent his €87 million yacht “Graceful” to a Hamburg shipyard for an overhaul, the ship hurriedly left German waters without finishing the repairs — apparently over fears it could get caught up in Western sanctions.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
We were told by Remainers that inward investment would "collapse" after Brexit
The reality?
"AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026.
The planned purchases would keep the weighting of UK and European assets as a proportion of the fund’s total steady. .... More than half of the fund is already invested offshore, including in major UK assets like Heathrow airport and London’s King’s Cross redevelopment project, but Moloney sees more international opportunities in private markets.
Moloney said that the UK was an “obvious choice” to deploy more cash, particularly considering the fund was a long-term investor.
“Our experience to date in the UK has been very positive, with investments in assets like Heathrow, Peel Ports and the King's Cross redevelopment,” he added.
“There are deep pools of high-quality talent, a stable and reliable legal and regulatory environment and many like-minded partners with whom to work. There is also a strong cultural fit.”
Wayne Fitzgibbon, partner with Mercer, the professional services firm, said it “made sense” for Australian superannuation funds to expand in the UK, given the government’s efforts to attract more local and foreign capital with its “investment big bang” initiative.
“The type of infrastructure opportunities in UK — particularly social infrastructure and affordable housing — will offer diversification benefits in a global portfolio,” said Fitzgibbon.
As part of its global expansion, AustralianSuper, which manages pensions for one in 10 Australian workers, will double its London office headcount from 50 to 100."
If you think that is "bullshit" then, well, that probably says more about you
Oh, I'm not saying that increased inward investment is "bullshit". It's the spin that this is somehow a Brexit dividend when the reality is that there is a (marginal) rebalance away from the UK in their portfolio. That's the bullshit aspect.
Oh and there's this. Glad we got rid of all that dodgy forrin share trading.
And yet.... remember the predix that the City would collapse post-Brexit? Squillions of jobs fleeing to Paris and Dublin and Wroclaw and Lombard Street reduced to a flea market patrolled by feral wolverines?
"The high number of companies making their stock market debut in 2021 — there were 122 initial public offerings, the highest amount since 2007 — are another example of London's appeal.
""London continues to be an attractive destination for business investment and finance professionals alike," Morgan McKinley's managing director Hakan Enver told AFP. "To date, we are yet to see an exodus due to Brexit, and it's now unlikely that will ever happen.""
I’ve just put a pony on Mark Harper as next Tory leader. Analysis. He clearly already has the nod as the backbench candidate of the right (those people who bragged couple of weeks back they installed Boris Johnson) this gives him foundation of a lot of MP support at the start to boost his profile and ensure he stays in safely for a few rounds. Meanwhile, he comes across very well, people who haven’t listened to him much before will be impressed by his communication skills and politeness, yet firm in conviction like Lady Thatcher, as he uses the oxygen of publicity of the election platforms. If he gets to the last two I think he beats everyone except Sunak, because his platform is so perfect in tune with the Conservative membership and their favourite newspapers.
He's never been a cabinet minister. Closest he came was as Chief Whip 2015-2016. Not tempted.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Well, Scotland could say to potential investors that it is going nowhere, staying within the UK and keeping a known regime in place with no huge regulatory divergence threatened any time soon. And in fairness, the people of Scotland gave them that comfort in 2014.
Major is another fucking 2nd voter, like Starmer et al. Despicable piece of anti-democratic sh1t. Another British Trumpite marching on parliament to overthrow an election
"Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.
In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.
“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”
“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said."
Let him fuck off back to Huntingdonshire and his deserved obscurity. He has no credibility on anything
In what way is holding another democratic vote not democratic.
Its perfectly democratic, its just that it would also have massively damaged trust in democracy. Millions of people regarded the initial referendum as something to be respected, whether the vote went the way they wanted or not. I voted remain, the country voted out, and i expected that to be delivered.
So while its wrong to say a second vote would be undemocratic, its also true that it would have damaged trust in democracy,
We've been properly out of the EU for just over a month. All trade statistics collected via customs rather than VAT returns/intrastat. So we could hold a referendum to head back in now, but not before 1st Jan 2022 as we hadn't properly left before then.
Following media reports that Putin had sent his €87 million yacht “Graceful” to a Hamburg shipyard for an overhaul, the ship hurriedly left German waters without finishing the repairs — apparently over fears it could get caught up in Western sanctions.
Putin has repeatedly miscalculated in Ukraine. In 2013, his pressure on President Viktor Yanukovych not to sign a free-trade agreement with the European Union led to the Maidan protests and Yanukovych’s overthrow. In 2014–15, Putin’s ambition to carve an expansive ‘Novorossiya’ from Ukraine failed in the face of local resistance and Western threats of sanctions. He has alienated President Volodymyr Zelensky, who in 2019 took office seeking a more constructive relationship. In short, he keeps making mistakes. As Talleyrand said of the Bourbons, Putin has learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
Secondly, pandemic isolation is deepening Putin’s misperceptions. Few now get face time with him, and most of those who do are from the security elite, such as Sergei Naryshkin, head of foreign intelligence
That's a seriously good piece, and rather worrying in terms of Putin's aims and possible or probable missteps. At present, aggression is the only option that is not certain to leave Russia in a worse diplomatic position than before its build-up.
Because you have to enact the first vote before anything else, AND we were solemnly told by the prime minister and by the government - in a leaflet sent to every British household - that our say in that vote in June 2016 was FINAL. That what we chose is what would happen: REMAIN or LEAVE
There is simply no escaping this moral logic, and anyone that is still trying is adding risible absurdity to grotesque outrage
No you don't. You are asking the same people so it's perfectly democratic. Hugely impractical but perfectly democratic.
Except of course that isn't right or true at all.
If you have held a second vote in (say) 2018, the date of the article, the electorate would've been different. People who died between the two would not be able to vote (obviously) and 16 and 17 year olds who couldn't vote in 2016 would in 2018. Unless you planned to disenfranchise them?
I suppose the best way to demonstrate the utter comtempt of your position is to suggest this.
I didn't like the results of the 1979 general election. Instead therefore, I propose to hold a second general election in 1982, somehow using the same electorate as in 1979. To avoid changes therefore, I will disenfranchise anyone who might turn 18 between now and 1982. Anyone who dies in the meantime will be required to fill in form BVT198 which will set out how they would vote in this future general election. You're not allowed to die without completing this form. Nor are you allowed to emigrate from the UK unless you agree to vote by post in the 1982 election AND any immigrants are not allowed to achieve British citizenship in order to be able to vote in this 1982 election.
In the meantime however, to avoid implementing the result of the 1979 election until the 1982 election clarifies matters, Jim Callaghan will stay as Prime Minister with the Labour party in power. To avoid Labour losing votes in the House, I'll dismiss half the Conservative MPs.
But don't worry, the above is all perfectly democratic.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
It certainly talks about it. Practical action isn't abundant.
More interesting for me than the poll leads are the relative numbers and direction of travel. It's not just about the Tory fall, Labour have been consistently edging up since last summer, albeit with acceleration recently. This is good for Labour, I think, as it's a bit more positive than just the other side being shit.
But still no signs of life in Scottish Labour though. Every time I suspect I spot a wee uptick it evaporates.
SLab Westminster VI since Anas Sarwar became leader:
I cannot detect any sort of trend there. Flatlining within MoE.
And without very significant increases in Scotland, Starmer can forget Lab Maj.
True, though if Labour win most seats in a hung parliament then Starmer can ignore the SNP too.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament would Starmer need SNP support to govern if Labour +SNP are still more than Tories +DUP
How is Labour going to pass English domestic legislation?
They wouldn't but that just results in a second election where the English would need to make up their minds and where Labour may have a chance of winning a few Scottish seats.
Although any sensible Labour Government stuck with a minority but supported by the SNP would probably be rapidly looking at a form of PR to fix the issue.
I’d be amazed if Starmer has not got his PR plan ready to go. He’s just got to time it right.
PR splits the Labour Party.
Corbynites and Unions would walk out and form their own party, RefUK would also win seats. The SNP would also win only about half of the seats they do now with PR.
Though most of our governments would end up being Starmer or Blairite Labour and LD or Cameroon Tory and LD (albeit 2015 would have been a Tory and UKIP government with PR)
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
Hasn't working from home revealed that people aren't so keen on living in London? Many have seemed happy to get out.
I’ve just put a pony on Mark Harper as next Tory leader. Analysis. He clearly already has the nod as the backbench candidate of the right (those people who bragged couple of weeks back they installed Boris Johnson) this gives him foundation of a lot of MP support at the start to boost his profile and ensure he stays in safely for a few rounds. Meanwhile, he comes across very well, people who haven’t listened to him much before will be impressed by his communication skills and politeness, yet firm in conviction like Lady Thatcher, as he uses the oxygen of publicity of the election platforms. If he gets to the last two I think he beats everyone except Sunak, because his platform is so perfect in tune with the Conservative membership and their favourite newspapers.
Cor blimey that's a lot of money to invest in anything as fallible as human judgment. I was greatly cheered yesterday to receive a note from Betfair that their minimum stake had been reduced from £2 to £1. That's twice as much fun watching my money disappear half as quickly.
More interesting for me than the poll leads are the relative numbers and direction of travel. It's not just about the Tory fall, Labour have been consistently edging up since last summer, albeit with acceleration recently. This is good for Labour, I think, as it's a bit more positive than just the other side being shit.
But still no signs of life in Scottish Labour though. Every time I suspect I spot a wee uptick it evaporates.
SLab Westminster VI since Anas Sarwar became leader:
I cannot detect any sort of trend there. Flatlining within MoE.
And without very significant increases in Scotland, Starmer can forget Lab Maj.
True, though if Labour win most seats in a hung parliament then Starmer can ignore the SNP too.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament would Starmer need SNP support to govern if Labour +SNP are still more than Tories +DUP
How is Labour going to pass English domestic legislation?
They wouldn't but that just results in a second election where the English would need to make up their minds and where Labour may have a chance of winning a few Scottish seats.
Although any sensible Labour Government stuck with a minority but supported by the SNP would probably be rapidly looking at a form of PR to fix the issue.
I’d be amazed if Starmer has not got his PR plan ready to go. He’s just got to time it right.
PR splits the Labour Party.
Corbynites and Unions would walk out and form their own party, RefUK would also win seats. The SNP would also win only about half of the seats they do now with PR.
Though most of our governments would end up being Starmer or Blairite Labour and LD or Cameroon Tory and LD (albeit 2015 would have been a Tory and UKIP government with PR)
What’s not to like?? If your name’s Keir Starmer!
Corbynites fuck off. Check.
Sane unions stay, mad unions go. Check.
SNP halved. Check.
Centrist government in perpetuity. Check.
Far right screwed. Check.
He’d be a mug not to.
We would generally have centrist governments under PR yes, with the LDs becoming like the FDP in Germany and almost always being in power in coalition governments regardless of whether there was a Tory or Labour led government.
However not always, for example in 2015 we would have had a Conservative and UKIP government under PR, so would still have probably ended up with Brexit anyway (unless Cameron had decided to do a Merkel style grand coalition with Ed Miliband's Labour to avoid dealing with Farage)
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
Why does it have no sense in this context? If they had invested the same amount of money in, say Liechtenstein, as in the entire EU, don't you think that would have been viewed a win for Liechtenstein?
A "win" in the sense that they were increasing overall levels of investment? Of course. "Over someone else"? Not really, no.
It is all relative the existing investment portfolio. If they were *already* heavily invested in Lichtenstein and decided to rebalance away from Lichtenstein a little and towards the EU, then that is a win for everyone in the region (overall increased investment), but a nod towards the fact that there may be some increased risk in Lichtenstein (slightly lower overall in the balance of things).
I don't see what information the "per capita" number gives you?
I suppose the better number to use would have been as a fraction of the size of the economy, but then the point would have still been the same. At some level comparing absolute amounts is meaningless, 1bn would represent a much larger investment to a very small country than a very big one.
It's definitely fair to say that we continue to outperform the EU average in terms of attracting inward investment, even if that outperformance is slightly declining.
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
This is the real challenge of levelling up. London is not standing still, it is the most dynamic tech, particularly fintech, centre in Europe by an increasing distance. How do the north and Scotland hold onto their investments and talent in the face of such a behemoth? A few railways and roads are certainly not going to do it. They simply facilitate the departure of the young, ambitious and talented.
Very true. London had a critical mass of talent, money, liquidity, culture, universities, rich folk and the rest before Brexit, and it still has that critical mass now
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
Hasn't working from home revealed that people aren't so keen on living in London? Many have seemed happy to get out.
London rents are now surging, inc the centre. Prices are following. So i guess not
Plus a ton of pent-up global demand, not least Hong Kong, is being unleashed
In a turbulent world, a London property still looks a very safe haven. Brexit has been and gone. Corbyn is a memory. Etc
Major is another fucking 2nd voter, like Starmer et al. Despicable piece of anti-democratic sh1t. Another British Trumpite marching on parliament to overthrow an election
"Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.
In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.
“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”
“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said."
Let him fuck off back to Huntingdonshire and his deserved obscurity. He has no credibility on anything
In what way is holding another democratic vote not democratic.
Its perfectly democratic, its just that it would also have massively damaged trust in democracy. Millions of people regarded the initial referendum as something to be respected, whether the vote went the way they wanted or not. I voted remain, the country voted out, and i expected that to be delivered.
So while its wrong to say a second vote would be undemocratic, its also true that it would have damaged trust in democracy,
Suppose there had been a genuine groundswell of opinion, and the public had changed its mind, so that by early 2019 a clear 2-1 majority was in favour of cancelling Article 50 and forgetting that the previous three years had happened.
In that unlikely circumstance it would have been absurd and undemocratic to continue with Brexit.
My objection to a second referendum was purely that this evidently hadn't happened. The argument hadn't been won.
And we saw this very clearly with the GE2019 result.
Such arguments had been ‘won’ among the denizens of London and university towns, including many in politics and media, who mistakenly thought that all they had to do was convince each other.
In December 2019, the people gave their own opinion.
Quite. They were the same people who walked round on the day after the initial vote in shock, because they didn't know anyone who voted leave. Working at a Uni I get this a lot. Genuinely bright people who often have little interaction with people outside the sphere of academia. After 2019 a colleague's first comment to me the morning after was "isn't it terrible?" I countered by saying that actually, no, the thought of an idiotic anti-semitic sympathizer (at best) with uncosted electoral bribes drove me to vote AGAINST labour/Corbyn. But what was striking was the idea that she thought I too would be upset.
I think it helps if people play sport, or do other activities with non-academics. Drink with plumbers, and builders and traffic wardens, as well as just your fellow academic friends. It gives you a better shot at understanding a national vote.
Absolutely. Drinking buddies at my old local were everyone from the barrister and banker, to the barman and the butcher. You learn so much by spending time with a wide cross-section of society, and see perspectives that you never thought about before.
This forum, for example, is over-representative of those in white-collar and technical professions, those with university education, those who own property, higher-rate taxpayers. More barristers and bankers, than barmen and butchers.
Other forums, clubs and pubs will have a different balance, and understanding the balance of any given community is important. It’s easy to mistakenly extrapolate your forum to wider society.
Because you have to enact the first vote before anything else, AND we were solemnly told by the prime minister and by the government - in a leaflet sent to every British household - that our say in that vote in June 2016 was FINAL. That what we chose is what would happen: REMAIN or LEAVE
There is simply no escaping this moral logic, and anyone that is still trying is adding risible absurdity to grotesque outrage
No you don't. You are asking the same people so it's perfectly democratic. Hugely impractical but perfectly democratic.
Except of course that isn't right or true at all.
If you have held a second vote in (say) 2018, the date of the article, the electorate would've been different. People who died between the two would not be able to vote (obviously) and 16 and 17 year olds who couldn't vote in 2016 would in 2018. Unless you planned to disenfranchise them?
I suppose the best way to demonstrate the utter comtempt of your position is to suggest this.
I didn't like the results of the 1979 general election. Instead therefore, I propose to hold a second general election in 1982, somehow using the same electorate as in 1979. To avoid changes therefore, I will disenfranchise anyone who might turn 18 between now and 1982. Anyone who dies in the meantime will be required to fill in form BVT198 which will set out how they would vote in this future general election. You're not allowed to die without completing this form. Nor are you allowed to emigrate from the UK unless you agree to vote by post in the 1982 election AND any immigrants are not allowed to achieve British citizenship in order to be able to vote in this 1982 election.
In the meantime however, to avoid implementing the result of the 1979 election until the 1982 election clarifies matters, Jim Callaghan will stay as Prime Minister with the Labour party in power. To avoid Labour losing votes in the House, I'll dismiss half the Conservative MPs.
But don't worry, the above is all perfectly democratic.
Major is another fucking 2nd voter, like Starmer et al. Despicable piece of anti-democratic sh1t. Another British Trumpite marching on parliament to overthrow an election
"Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.
In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.
“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”
“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said."
Let him fuck off back to Huntingdonshire and his deserved obscurity. He has no credibility on anything
John Major was truly the king of the hypocrites.
There were no free votes or referendum on his precious Maastricht treaty.
And then there was his affair with Edwina Currie contrasted with his 'back to basics' morality drive.
I find Major an utterly repulsive figure, his canting lies about Europe are one reason we ended up where we did, as you say
There are a zillion reasons to dump Boris, and I think he should be dumped, but the opinion of John bloody Major is not one of them
I actually disagree with that. Maastricht, with its pillars, variable geometry, opt outs and subsidiarity created a place where the UK could be in the EU getting what we wanted out of it whilst not getting in the road of those who wanted more, such as the single currency. Of course we should have had a vote on it but it did offer us at least the foundations of the half way house we were looking for.
The problem was that Blair in particular, and Brown, wanted to be at the heart of Europe so they gave up some of the opt outs and put us back on the track to ever closer union, albeit at a slower pace, through Lisbon. And, of course, we still didn't get a vote on it.
If they had built on the path Major set out in Maastricht instead I think that we would still be in the EU, with the vast majority (if not all the fanatics) quite content with our half way house.
And that would also be Blair and Brown who were democratically elected to govern the UK according to their political philosophy.
No-one (sane) is disputing that Brown had the legal right to do what he did. It's just that, if he wanted us to remain part of the EU, what he did was very bad strategy, because it essentially forced the electorate to demand an in-out referendum to settle the matter, and therefore he takes a large share of the blame for why we left.
I agree that if Brown had followed through, allowed the referendum on Lisbon, and then refused to sign it after we voted No by (say) 65:35, we would still be in the EU. Unless of course, the EU had found another way to enact it anyway, and then we would have also left by now, having spotted that they don't actually care what we think.
Did the electorate really demand an in-out referendum, as you claim? I think that may be a bit of myth. Despite efforts in the media to ramp up hatred of the EU, my recollection is that prior to around 2015 the electorate wasn't that interested in the EU - although they did have concerns about immigration.
But the referendum was primarily about the Tory Party, and the threat to its right flank from UKIP, wasn't it? That's the boil that Cameron was seeking, and failed, to lance.
The elctorate wanted a chance to say no to the federalisation ratchet and ever closer union. Because we were denied the chance over Maastricht, the Constitution and Lisbon, the in/out vote was the only option.
Wearing Captain Hindsight’s glasses, it didn’t need to be an in out referendum, that made for a campaign very poor at educating the electorate on all the potential options and outcomes. I blame the remainers for this, if the options were known the electorate would have chosen something the remainers didn’t want, the remainers tried to bounce us.
In my opinion, and I am right, if it started with 6 options for type of arrangement and new deal, whittled down in a run off between two, the campaign would have been x100 more educational, and our country in a much better place today.
As one who was a foot soldier in the 1975 campaign, and would have been in the 2016 one, if I could have found anywhere to volunteer, I'm of the opinion that Remain went on the back foot early and never recovered. That wasn't the case in 1975. Almost no-one asked Leave what they meant by Leave, and when they did the answers were mixed.
Great to hear the PM in full throated and repeated defence of the poor energy companies who are having such a hard time.
I know this hasn't been as punchy a session as some previous ones have been, but the cost of living crisis is the long term issue, and the government are forcing people to take loans to support the energy companies, which isn't an obviously populist policy.
This windfall tax policy - is it smart politics by Starmer and Labour?
As the government are jacking up energy bills and forcing consumers to take out a loan to help out the poor energy companies it certainly feels like smart politics.
More interesting for me than the poll leads are the relative numbers and direction of travel. It's not just about the Tory fall, Labour have been consistently edging up since last summer, albeit with acceleration recently. This is good for Labour, I think, as it's a bit more positive than just the other side being shit.
But still no signs of life in Scottish Labour though. Every time I suspect I spot a wee uptick it evaporates.
SLab Westminster VI since Anas Sarwar became leader:
I cannot detect any sort of trend there. Flatlining within MoE.
And without very significant increases in Scotland, Starmer can forget Lab Maj.
True, though if Labour win most seats in a hung parliament then Starmer can ignore the SNP too.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament would Starmer need SNP support to govern if Labour +SNP are still more than Tories +DUP
How is Labour going to pass English domestic legislation?
They wouldn't but that just results in a second election where the English would need to make up their minds and where Labour may have a chance of winning a few Scottish seats.
Although any sensible Labour Government stuck with a minority but supported by the SNP would probably be rapidly looking at a form of PR to fix the issue.
I’d be amazed if Starmer has not got his PR plan ready to go. He’s just got to time it right.
PR splits the Labour Party.
Corbynites and Unions would walk out and form their own party, RefUK would also win seats. The SNP would also win only about half of the seats they do now with PR.
Though most of our governments would end up being Starmer or Blairite Labour and LD or Cameroon Tory and LD (albeit 2015 would have been a Tory and UKIP government with PR)
What’s not to like?? If your name’s Keir Starmer!
Corbynites fuck off. Check.
Sane unions stay, mad unions go. Check.
SNP halved. Check.
Centrist government in perpetuity. Check.
Far right screwed. Check.
He’d be a mug not to.
We would generally have centrist governments under PR yes, with the LDs becoming like the FDP in Germany and almost always being in power in coalition governments regardless of whether there was a Tory or Labour led government.
However not always, for example in 2015 we would have had a Conservative and UKIP government under PR, so would still have probably ended up with Brexit anyway
I have no idea what would happen under PR although I don't necessarily think PR would be good for the Lib Dems (as opposed to sticking with FPTP and trying to build up new fortresses in the south). I'm looking particularly at Spain here (where Ciudadanos has collapsed) which is where I think we'd end up under PR and where hard VOX is in the ascendancy, nudging into 2nd in some polls.
PR hasn't been good for Liberal parties in Europe recently apart from the Netherlands, Germany and arguably Austria (considering the D66, the FDP who are both in gvt and NEOS who are doing OK).
That said I think the chances of any kind of grand coalition have collapsed now that they've fallen out of favour in Europe too.
It occurs to me that Starmer pressing for a windfall tax on the gas and oil industry is not going to win friends in Scotland when even the SNP oppose it and it is vital to Scotland's economy
I think there’s a time and a place for windfall taxes - I’d have gone for the Premier League after the 2016-2019 deal was agreed. Not sure about energy companies.
More interesting for me than the poll leads are the relative numbers and direction of travel. It's not just about the Tory fall, Labour have been consistently edging up since last summer, albeit with acceleration recently. This is good for Labour, I think, as it's a bit more positive than just the other side being shit.
But still no signs of life in Scottish Labour though. Every time I suspect I spot a wee uptick it evaporates.
SLab Westminster VI since Anas Sarwar became leader:
I cannot detect any sort of trend there. Flatlining within MoE.
And without very significant increases in Scotland, Starmer can forget Lab Maj.
True, though if Labour win most seats in a hung parliament then Starmer can ignore the SNP too.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament would Starmer need SNP support to govern if Labour +SNP are still more than Tories +DUP
How is Labour going to pass English domestic legislation?
They wouldn't but that just results in a second election where the English would need to make up their minds and where Labour may have a chance of winning a few Scottish seats.
Although any sensible Labour Government stuck with a minority but supported by the SNP would probably be rapidly looking at a form of PR to fix the issue.
I’d be amazed if Starmer has not got his PR plan ready to go. He’s just got to time it right.
PR splits the Labour Party.
Corbynites and Unions would walk out and form their own party, RefUK would also win seats. The SNP would also win only about half of the seats they do now with PR.
Though most of our governments would end up being Starmer or Blairite Labour and LD or Cameroon Tory and LD (albeit 2015 would have been a Tory and UKIP government with PR)
What’s not to like?? If your name’s Keir Starmer!
Corbynites fuck off. Check.
Sane unions stay, mad unions go. Check.
SNP halved. Check.
Centrist government in perpetuity. Check.
Far right screwed. Check.
He’d be a mug not to.
We would generally have centrist governments under PR yes, with the LDs becoming like the FDP in Germany and almost always being in power in coalition governments regardless of whether there was a Tory or Labour led government.
However not always, for example in 2015 we would have had a Conservative and UKIP government under PR, so would still have probably ended up with Brexit anyway (unless Cameron had decided to do a Merkel style grand coalition with Ed Miliband's Labour to avoid dealing with Farage)
I'm not sure of that, as I think you also agreed previously, because the existing parties would fragment and reform into different groupings, although I agree it would generally be centrist but not necessarily always.
It occurs to me that Starmer pressing for a windfall tax on the gas and oil industry is not going to win friends in Scotland when even the SNP oppose it and it is vital to Scotland's economy
Labour will never recover in Scotland so it’s not really a risky move and will go down well with the vast majority of voters . Very good politics by Starmer .
On thread - the Daily Mail appear to be reporting that there are no technical bars to Boris facing a VONC within days, rather than reporting any increased likelihood of the 54 letters getting to Graham Brady.
This windfall tax policy - is it smart politics by Starmer and Labour?
Magic money tree always is. Point to this year's £20bn profit, nary a word about last year's £20bn loss.
Indeed.
Rather than taxing them to death, encourage the O&G companies to get fracking and building more gas import terminals, so the UK gas price doesn’t get set by the big angry bear in Moscow.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
We were told by Remainers that inward investment would "collapse" after Brexit
The reality?
"AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026.
The planned purchases would keep the weighting of UK and European assets as a proportion of the fund’s total steady. .... More than half of the fund is already invested offshore, including in major UK assets like Heathrow airport and London’s King’s Cross redevelopment project, but Moloney sees more international opportunities in private markets.
Moloney said that the UK was an “obvious choice” to deploy more cash, particularly considering the fund was a long-term investor.
“Our experience to date in the UK has been very positive, with investments in assets like Heathrow, Peel Ports and the King's Cross redevelopment,” he added.
“There are deep pools of high-quality talent, a stable and reliable legal and regulatory environment and many like-minded partners with whom to work. There is also a strong cultural fit.”
Wayne Fitzgibbon, partner with Mercer, the professional services firm, said it “made sense” for Australian superannuation funds to expand in the UK, given the government’s efforts to attract more local and foreign capital with its “investment big bang” initiative.
“The type of infrastructure opportunities in UK — particularly social infrastructure and affordable housing — will offer diversification benefits in a global portfolio,” said Fitzgibbon.
As part of its global expansion, AustralianSuper, which manages pensions for one in 10 Australian workers, will double its London office headcount from 50 to 100."
If you think that is "bullshit" then, well, that probably says more about you
Oh, I'm not saying that increased inward investment is "bullshit". It's the spin that this is somehow a Brexit dividend when the reality is that there is a (marginal) rebalance away from the UK in their portfolio. That's the bullshit aspect.
Oh and there's this. Glad we got rid of all that dodgy forrin share trading.
And yet.... remember the predix that the City would collapse post-Brexit? Squillions of jobs fleeing to Paris and Dublin and Wroclaw and Lombard Street reduced to a flea market patrolled by feral wolverines?
"The high number of companies making their stock market debut in 2021 — there were 122 initial public offerings, the highest amount since 2007 — are another example of London's appeal.
""London continues to be an attractive destination for business investment and finance professionals alike," Morgan McKinley's managing director Hakan Enver told AFP. "To date, we are yet to see an exodus due to Brexit, and it's now unlikely that will ever happen.""
Yes, that is the great irony of Brexit. Remainia in the Metropolitan, knowledge led cities continues to prosper, Leaverstan in the neglected towns continues its relative decline.
The cure for the ills of globalisation isn't accelerated globalisation.
More interesting for me than the poll leads are the relative numbers and direction of travel. It's not just about the Tory fall, Labour have been consistently edging up since last summer, albeit with acceleration recently. This is good for Labour, I think, as it's a bit more positive than just the other side being shit.
But still no signs of life in Scottish Labour though. Every time I suspect I spot a wee uptick it evaporates.
SLab Westminster VI since Anas Sarwar became leader:
I cannot detect any sort of trend there. Flatlining within MoE.
And without very significant increases in Scotland, Starmer can forget Lab Maj.
True, though if Labour win most seats in a hung parliament then Starmer can ignore the SNP too.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament would Starmer need SNP support to govern if Labour +SNP are still more than Tories +DUP
How is Labour going to pass English domestic legislation?
They wouldn't but that just results in a second election where the English would need to make up their minds and where Labour may have a chance of winning a few Scottish seats.
Although any sensible Labour Government stuck with a minority but supported by the SNP would probably be rapidly looking at a form of PR to fix the issue.
I’d be amazed if Starmer has not got his PR plan ready to go. He’s just got to time it right.
PR splits the Labour Party.
Corbynites and Unions would walk out and form their own party, RefUK would also win seats. The SNP would also win only about half of the seats they do now with PR.
Though most of our governments would end up being Starmer or Blairite Labour and LD or Cameroon Tory and LD (albeit 2015 would have been a Tory and UKIP government with PR)
What’s not to like?? If your name’s Keir Starmer!
Corbynites fuck off. Check.
Sane unions stay, mad unions go. Check.
SNP halved. Check.
Centrist government in perpetuity. Check.
Far right screwed. Check.
He’d be a mug not to.
We would generally have centrist governments under PR yes, with the LDs becoming like the FDP in Germany and almost always being in power in coalition governments regardless of whether there was a Tory or Labour led government.
However not always, for example in 2015 we would have had a Conservative and UKIP government under PR, so would still have probably ended up with Brexit anyway (unless Cameron had decided to do a Merkel style grand coalition with Ed Miliband's Labour to avoid dealing with Farage)
I'm not sure of that, as I think you also agreed previously, because the existing parties would fragment and reform into different groupings, although I agree it would generally be centrist but not necessarily always.
Hmm. Look at Israel. Govt frequently at whim of extremes. Law of unintended consequences.
More interesting for me than the poll leads are the relative numbers and direction of travel. It's not just about the Tory fall, Labour have been consistently edging up since last summer, albeit with acceleration recently. This is good for Labour, I think, as it's a bit more positive than just the other side being shit.
But still no signs of life in Scottish Labour though. Every time I suspect I spot a wee uptick it evaporates.
SLab Westminster VI since Anas Sarwar became leader:
I cannot detect any sort of trend there. Flatlining within MoE.
And without very significant increases in Scotland, Starmer can forget Lab Maj.
True, though if Labour win most seats in a hung parliament then Starmer can ignore the SNP too.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament would Starmer need SNP support to govern if Labour +SNP are still more than Tories +DUP
How is Labour going to pass English domestic legislation?
They wouldn't but that just results in a second election where the English would need to make up their minds and where Labour may have a chance of winning a few Scottish seats.
Although any sensible Labour Government stuck with a minority but supported by the SNP would probably be rapidly looking at a form of PR to fix the issue.
I’d be amazed if Starmer has not got his PR plan ready to go. He’s just got to time it right.
PR splits the Labour Party.
Corbynites and Unions would walk out and form their own party, RefUK would also win seats. The SNP would also win only about half of the seats they do now with PR.
Though most of our governments would end up being Starmer or Blairite Labour and LD or Cameroon Tory and LD (albeit 2015 would have been a Tory and UKIP government with PR)
What’s not to like?? If your name’s Keir Starmer!
Corbynites fuck off. Check.
Sane unions stay, mad unions go. Check.
SNP halved. Check.
Centrist government in perpetuity. Check.
Far right screwed. Check.
He’d be a mug not to.
We would generally have centrist governments under PR yes, with the LDs becoming like the FDP in Germany and almost always being in power in coalition governments regardless of whether there was a Tory or Labour led government.
However not always, for example in 2015 we would have had a Conservative and UKIP government under PR, so would still have probably ended up with Brexit anyway
I have no idea what would happen under PR although I don't necessarily think PR would be good for the Lib Dems (as opposed to sticking with FPTP and trying to build up new fortresses in the south). I'm looking particularly at Spain here (where Ciudadanos has collapsed) which is where I think we'd end up under PR and where hard VOX is in the ascendancy, nudging into 2nd in some polls.
PR hasn't been good for Liberal parties in Europe recently apart from the Netherlands, Germany and arguably Austria (considering the D66, the FDP who are both in gvt and NEOS who are doing OK).
That said I think the chances of any kind of grand coalition have collapsed now that they've fallen out of favour in Europe too.
Ciudadanos' problem wasn't PR, it was that they moved a long way to the right of their voters.
The Lib Dems have already found out what happens when you try that and are in no hurry to repeat the experience.
This windfall tax policy - is it smart politics by Starmer and Labour?
Magic money tree always is. Point to this year's £20bn profit, nary a word about last year's £20bn loss.
Indeed.
Rather than taxing them to death, encourage the O&G companies to get fracking and building more gas import terminals, so the UK gas price doesn’t get set by the big angry bear in Moscow.
As @Richard_Tyndall pointed out yesterday what the oil firms want is consistency.
And the problem here is that with North Sea entering a decline and with oil prices low the rate of tax they were paying on oil was set to zero to allow them to recover the decommissioning costs. But that means now prices are high we the Government has a problem....
What we need to do is revisit that rate and replace it with a taper based on market prices and production costs.
More interesting for me than the poll leads are the relative numbers and direction of travel. It's not just about the Tory fall, Labour have been consistently edging up since last summer, albeit with acceleration recently. This is good for Labour, I think, as it's a bit more positive than just the other side being shit.
But still no signs of life in Scottish Labour though. Every time I suspect I spot a wee uptick it evaporates.
SLab Westminster VI since Anas Sarwar became leader:
I cannot detect any sort of trend there. Flatlining within MoE.
And without very significant increases in Scotland, Starmer can forget Lab Maj.
True, though if Labour win most seats in a hung parliament then Starmer can ignore the SNP too.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament would Starmer need SNP support to govern if Labour +SNP are still more than Tories +DUP
How is Labour going to pass English domestic legislation?
They wouldn't but that just results in a second election where the English would need to make up their minds and where Labour may have a chance of winning a few Scottish seats.
Although any sensible Labour Government stuck with a minority but supported by the SNP would probably be rapidly looking at a form of PR to fix the issue.
I’d be amazed if Starmer has not got his PR plan ready to go. He’s just got to time it right.
PR splits the Labour Party.
Corbynites and Unions would walk out and form their own party, RefUK would also win seats. The SNP would also win only about half of the seats they do now with PR.
Though most of our governments would end up being Starmer or Blairite Labour and LD or Cameroon Tory and LD (albeit 2015 would have been a Tory and UKIP government with PR)
What’s not to like?? If your name’s Keir Starmer!
Corbynites fuck off. Check.
Sane unions stay, mad unions go. Check.
SNP halved. Check.
Centrist government in perpetuity. Check.
Far right screwed. Check.
He’d be a mug not to.
We would generally have centrist governments under PR yes, with the LDs becoming like the FDP in Germany and almost always being in power in coalition governments regardless of whether there was a Tory or Labour led government.
However not always, for example in 2015 we would have had a Conservative and UKIP government under PR, so would still have probably ended up with Brexit anyway (unless Cameron had decided to do a Merkel style grand coalition with Ed Miliband's Labour to avoid dealing with Farage)
I'm not sure of that, as I think you also agreed previously, because the existing parties would fragment and reform into different groupings, although I agree it would generally be centrist but not necessarily always.
Hmm. Look at Israel. Govt frequently at whim of extremes. Law of unintended consequences.
It's the system they use. Ireland's a better example.
This windfall tax policy - is it smart politics by Starmer and Labour?
As the government are jacking up energy bills and forcing consumers to take out a loan to help out the poor energy companies it certainly feels like smart politics.
Wow. I'm sure it's possible to compose a bigger mischaracterisation of the situation, but this is a fine effort.
This windfall tax policy - is it smart politics by Starmer and Labour?
As the government are jacking up energy bills and forcing consumers to take out a loan to help out the poor energy companies it certainly feels like smart politics.
Wow. I'm sure it's possible to compose a bigger mischaracterisation of the situation, but this is a fine effort.
"forcing consumers to take out a loan" - the literal policy being imposed "to help out the poor energy companies" - a minor paraphrasing of what the PM has just said at the dispatch box.
More interesting for me than the poll leads are the relative numbers and direction of travel. It's not just about the Tory fall, Labour have been consistently edging up since last summer, albeit with acceleration recently. This is good for Labour, I think, as it's a bit more positive than just the other side being shit.
But still no signs of life in Scottish Labour though. Every time I suspect I spot a wee uptick it evaporates.
SLab Westminster VI since Anas Sarwar became leader:
I cannot detect any sort of trend there. Flatlining within MoE.
And without very significant increases in Scotland, Starmer can forget Lab Maj.
True, though if Labour win most seats in a hung parliament then Starmer can ignore the SNP too.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament would Starmer need SNP support to govern if Labour +SNP are still more than Tories +DUP
How is Labour going to pass English domestic legislation?
They wouldn't but that just results in a second election where the English would need to make up their minds and where Labour may have a chance of winning a few Scottish seats.
Although any sensible Labour Government stuck with a minority but supported by the SNP would probably be rapidly looking at a form of PR to fix the issue.
I’d be amazed if Starmer has not got his PR plan ready to go. He’s just got to time it right.
PR splits the Labour Party.
Corbynites and Unions would walk out and form their own party, RefUK would also win seats. The SNP would also win only about half of the seats they do now with PR.
Though most of our governments would end up being Starmer or Blairite Labour and LD or Cameroon Tory and LD (albeit 2015 would have been a Tory and UKIP government with PR)
What’s not to like?? If your name’s Keir Starmer!
Corbynites fuck off. Check.
Sane unions stay, mad unions go. Check.
SNP halved. Check.
Centrist government in perpetuity. Check.
Far right screwed. Check.
He’d be a mug not to.
We would generally have centrist governments under PR yes, with the LDs becoming like the FDP in Germany and almost always being in power in coalition governments regardless of whether there was a Tory or Labour led government.
However not always, for example in 2015 we would have had a Conservative and UKIP government under PR, so would still have probably ended up with Brexit anyway
I have no idea what would happen under PR although I don't necessarily think PR would be good for the Lib Dems (as opposed to sticking with FPTP and trying to build up new fortresses in the south). I'm looking particularly at Spain here (where Ciudadanos has collapsed) which is where I think we'd end up under PR and where hard VOX is in the ascendancy, nudging into 2nd in some polls.
PR hasn't been good for Liberal parties in Europe recently apart from the Netherlands, Germany and arguably Austria (considering the D66, the FDP who are both in gvt and NEOS who are doing OK).
That said I think the chances of any kind of grand coalition have collapsed now that they've fallen out of favour in Europe too.
If what you say is true and PR also benefits the populist hard right, not necessarily the Liberals, then that could certainly lead to a grand coalition between Labour and the Tories, if say the Tories were again led by a Cameron like figure. That would be to keep the UKIP/RefUK style party out of power. Much as the CDU did deals with the SPD rather than AfD under Merkel under PR.
If the Tories were led by a rightwinger though they would deal with the UKIP/RefUK party, as the PP in Spain deals with Vox and Berlusconi's Forza Italia in Italy deals with Lega Nord and Brothers of Italy under PR
This windfall tax policy - is it smart politics by Starmer and Labour?
As the government are jacking up energy bills and forcing consumers to take out a loan to help out the poor energy companies it certainly feels like smart politics.
Wow. I'm sure it's possible to compose a bigger mischaracterisation of the situation, but this is a fine effort.
"forcing consumers to take out a loan" - the literal policy being imposed "to help out the poor energy companies" - a minor paraphrasing of what the PM has just said at the dispatch box.
Just as a matter of interest how many energy companies have failed recently, how much has that cost the treasury, and how do you suggest the treasury recovers the losses
More interesting for me than the poll leads are the relative numbers and direction of travel. It's not just about the Tory fall, Labour have been consistently edging up since last summer, albeit with acceleration recently. This is good for Labour, I think, as it's a bit more positive than just the other side being shit.
But still no signs of life in Scottish Labour though. Every time I suspect I spot a wee uptick it evaporates.
SLab Westminster VI since Anas Sarwar became leader:
I cannot detect any sort of trend there. Flatlining within MoE.
And without very significant increases in Scotland, Starmer can forget Lab Maj.
True, though if Labour win most seats in a hung parliament then Starmer can ignore the SNP too.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament would Starmer need SNP support to govern if Labour +SNP are still more than Tories +DUP
How is Labour going to pass English domestic legislation?
They wouldn't but that just results in a second election where the English would need to make up their minds and where Labour may have a chance of winning a few Scottish seats.
Although any sensible Labour Government stuck with a minority but supported by the SNP would probably be rapidly looking at a form of PR to fix the issue.
I’d be amazed if Starmer has not got his PR plan ready to go. He’s just got to time it right.
PR splits the Labour Party.
Corbynites and Unions would walk out and form their own party, RefUK would also win seats. The SNP would also win only about half of the seats they do now with PR.
Though most of our governments would end up being Starmer or Blairite Labour and LD or Cameroon Tory and LD (albeit 2015 would have been a Tory and UKIP government with PR)
What’s not to like?? If your name’s Keir Starmer!
Corbynites fuck off. Check.
Sane unions stay, mad unions go. Check.
SNP halved. Check.
Centrist government in perpetuity. Check.
Far right screwed. Check.
He’d be a mug not to.
We would generally have centrist governments under PR yes, with the LDs becoming like the FDP in Germany and almost always being in power in coalition governments regardless of whether there was a Tory or Labour led government.
However not always, for example in 2015 we would have had a Conservative and UKIP government under PR, so would still have probably ended up with Brexit anyway (unless Cameron had decided to do a Merkel style grand coalition with Ed Miliband's Labour to avoid dealing with Farage)
I'm not sure of that, as I think you also agreed previously, because the existing parties would fragment and reform into different groupings, although I agree it would generally be centrist but not necessarily always.
Hmm. Look at Israel. Govt frequently at whim of extremes. Law of unintended consequences.
It's the system they use. Ireland's a better example.
The point of PR is that it can be designed to give yourself almost the result you want.
Personally I like the Irish approach of 5 member constituencies because it ensures there is a choice of views with popular parties getting 2 seats but the size of the constituency does determine the final makeup....
4 seat constituencies than the most popular party ends up with 2 seats in most constituencies, 5 seat constituencies and the 2 most popular parties would end up with 2 seats.
The latter creates a Parliament that would feel very different to the former.
Major is another fucking 2nd voter, like Starmer et al. Despicable piece of anti-democratic sh1t. Another British Trumpite marching on parliament to overthrow an election
"Former British prime minister John Major has called for a free vote in parliament on whether to hold a second EU referendum. He is the most senior Conservative yet to attack what he called the government’s “unrealistic” Brexit strategy.
In a speech in London that comes at the lowest point so far in the 18-month withdrawal negotiations, Major argued parliament had a duty to consider the “wellbeing of the people”, as well as the will of the people in the first referendum.
“This must be a decisive vote, in which parliament can accept or reject the final outcome; or send the negotiators back to seek improvements; or order a referendum,” he was due to say according to an advance copy of the speech. “That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.”
“No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide. Or put the issue back to the people,” he said."
Let him fuck off back to Huntingdonshire and his deserved obscurity. He has no credibility on anything
In what way is holding another democratic vote not democratic.
Its perfectly democratic, its just that it would also have massively damaged trust in democracy. Millions of people regarded the initial referendum as something to be respected, whether the vote went the way they wanted or not. I voted remain, the country voted out, and i expected that to be delivered.
So while its wrong to say a second vote would be undemocratic, its also true that it would have damaged trust in democracy,
Suppose there had been a genuine groundswell of opinion, and the public had changed its mind, so that by early 2019 a clear 2-1 majority was in favour of cancelling Article 50 and forgetting that the previous three years had happened.
In that unlikely circumstance it would have been absurd and undemocratic to continue with Brexit.
My objection to a second referendum was purely that this evidently hadn't happened. The argument hadn't been won.
And we saw this very clearly with the GE2019 result.
Such arguments had been ‘won’ among the denizens of London and university towns, including many in politics and media, who mistakenly thought that all they had to do was convince each other.
In December 2019, the people gave their own opinion.
Oh indeed. There was a complete absence of a recognition that they'd have to convince people who disagreed with them. It's the same as with many of the Corbynites, who weren't interested in persuading one-time Tory voters to change their minds.
I did expect at least a picture of him swigging from it....
Yes not exactly devastating. I was expecting to see him snogging someone on the dancefloor with a bottle in hand, but I do wonder why this event isn't on the Mets list in the first place.
This windfall tax policy - is it smart politics by Starmer and Labour?
As the government are jacking up energy bills and forcing consumers to take out a loan to help out the poor energy companies it certainly feels like smart politics.
Wow. I'm sure it's possible to compose a bigger mischaracterisation of the situation, but this is a fine effort.
"forcing consumers to take out a loan" - the literal policy being imposed "to help out the poor energy companies" - a minor paraphrasing of what the PM has just said at the dispatch box.
So the first part of that is untrue - it's no more a loan than a student loan is a loan.
And the second, one man's minor paraphrasing is another's total invention.
"Australia’s largest pension fund to pour £23bn into UK and Europe"
Much more, per capita, is going into the UK than the EU
They are increasing UK investment by 114%, and EU investment by 122%. So a slight rebalance towards EU funds in a landscape of overall increased investment (as it says in the article, this means they are maintaining the overall level of investment in the region relative to others).
I read the same thing. Not wanting to rain on Leon's parade I thought it impolite to mention it " For those who can't be bothered to read Leon's Bullshit here's the quote from the article "
Australia’s largest pension scheme plans to invest £23bn in the UK and Europe over the next five years as it joins other global mega funds pushing further into private markets for returns.
AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026. The superannuation fund manager is planning to increase its investment in Europe from £12.6bn to £28bn over the same period",
What part of Leon's quote is "bullshit"? The figure (23bn) is right, and so is the per capita stat.
The "bullshit" is using a meaningless statistic ("per capita" - a measure that has no sense in this context), to try to shoe-horn in a point, when the announcement shows that they are marginally rebalancing their *existing* investment *away* from the UK to the EU (a tiny amouint) while increasing the overall level of investment in both.
We were told by Remainers that inward investment would "collapse" after Brexit
The reality?
"AustralianSuper, which manages A$244bn (£128bn) on behalf of 2.5mn members, expects to more than double its UK assets from £7bn currently to more than £15bn by 2026.
The planned purchases would keep the weighting of UK and European assets as a proportion of the fund’s total steady. .... More than half of the fund is already invested offshore, including in major UK assets like Heathrow airport and London’s King’s Cross redevelopment project, but Moloney sees more international opportunities in private markets.
Moloney said that the UK was an “obvious choice” to deploy more cash, particularly considering the fund was a long-term investor.
“Our experience to date in the UK has been very positive, with investments in assets like Heathrow, Peel Ports and the King's Cross redevelopment,” he added.
“There are deep pools of high-quality talent, a stable and reliable legal and regulatory environment and many like-minded partners with whom to work. There is also a strong cultural fit.”
Wayne Fitzgibbon, partner with Mercer, the professional services firm, said it “made sense” for Australian superannuation funds to expand in the UK, given the government’s efforts to attract more local and foreign capital with its “investment big bang” initiative.
“The type of infrastructure opportunities in UK — particularly social infrastructure and affordable housing — will offer diversification benefits in a global portfolio,” said Fitzgibbon.
As part of its global expansion, AustralianSuper, which manages pensions for one in 10 Australian workers, will double its London office headcount from 50 to 100."
If you think that is "bullshit" then, well, that probably says more about you
Oh, I'm not saying that increased inward investment is "bullshit". It's the spin that this is somehow a Brexit dividend when the reality is that there is a (marginal) rebalance away from the UK in their portfolio. That's the bullshit aspect.
Oh and there's this. Glad we got rid of all that dodgy forrin share trading.
And yet.... remember the predix that the City would collapse post-Brexit? Squillions of jobs fleeing to Paris and Dublin and Wroclaw and Lombard Street reduced to a flea market patrolled by feral wolverines?
"The high number of companies making their stock market debut in 2021 — there were 122 initial public offerings, the highest amount since 2007 — are another example of London's appeal.
""London continues to be an attractive destination for business investment and finance professionals alike," Morgan McKinley's managing director Hakan Enver told AFP. "To date, we are yet to see an exodus due to Brexit, and it's now unlikely that will ever happen.""
Yes, that is the great irony of Brexit. Remainia in the Metropolitan, knowledge led cities continues to prosper, Leaverstan in the neglected towns continues its relative decline.
The cure for the ills of globalisation isn't accelerated globalisation.
One of the hopes for Brexit was that it would result in redistribution (which is, of course, a theme Boris tried to milk further with his 'levelling up' slogan). That this didn't happen is hardly a sign of the benevolence of Brexit; rather it demonstrates that the gods of finance were never going to allow it to happen.
More interesting for me than the poll leads are the relative numbers and direction of travel. It's not just about the Tory fall, Labour have been consistently edging up since last summer, albeit with acceleration recently. This is good for Labour, I think, as it's a bit more positive than just the other side being shit.
But still no signs of life in Scottish Labour though. Every time I suspect I spot a wee uptick it evaporates.
SLab Westminster VI since Anas Sarwar became leader:
I cannot detect any sort of trend there. Flatlining within MoE.
And without very significant increases in Scotland, Starmer can forget Lab Maj.
True, though if Labour win most seats in a hung parliament then Starmer can ignore the SNP too.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament would Starmer need SNP support to govern if Labour +SNP are still more than Tories +DUP
How is Labour going to pass English domestic legislation?
They wouldn't but that just results in a second election where the English would need to make up their minds and where Labour may have a chance of winning a few Scottish seats.
Although any sensible Labour Government stuck with a minority but supported by the SNP would probably be rapidly looking at a form of PR to fix the issue.
I’d be amazed if Starmer has not got his PR plan ready to go. He’s just got to time it right.
PR splits the Labour Party.
Corbynites and Unions would walk out and form their own party, RefUK would also win seats. The SNP would also win only about half of the seats they do now with PR.
Though most of our governments would end up being Starmer or Blairite Labour and LD or Cameroon Tory and LD (albeit 2015 would have been a Tory and UKIP government with PR)
What’s not to like?? If your name’s Keir Starmer!
Corbynites fuck off. Check.
Sane unions stay, mad unions go. Check.
SNP halved. Check.
Centrist government in perpetuity. Check.
Far right screwed. Check.
He’d be a mug not to.
We would generally have centrist governments under PR yes, with the LDs becoming like the FDP in Germany and almost always being in power in coalition governments regardless of whether there was a Tory or Labour led government.
However not always, for example in 2015 we would have had a Conservative and UKIP government under PR, so would still have probably ended up with Brexit anyway (unless Cameron had decided to do a Merkel style grand coalition with Ed Miliband's Labour to avoid dealing with Farage)
I'm not sure of that, as I think you also agreed previously, because the existing parties would fragment and reform into different groupings, although I agree it would generally be centrist but not necessarily always.
Hmm. Look at Israel. Govt frequently at whim of extremes. Law of unintended consequences.
It's the system they use. Ireland's a better example.
The point of PR is that it can be designed to give yourself almost the result you want.
Personally I like the Irish approach of 5 member constituencies because it ensures there is a choice of views with popular parties getting 2 seats but the size of the constituency does determine the final makeup....
4 seat constituencies than the most popular party ends up with 2 seats in most constituencies, 5 seat constituencies and the 2 most popular parties would end up with 2 seats.
The latter creates a Parliament that would feel very different to the former.
Ireland too now under a grand coalition with PR between FF and FG to keep out SF. Under FPTP SF would now be leading the government
On thread - the Daily Mail appear to be reporting that there are no technical bars to Boris facing a VONC within days, rather than reporting any increased likelihood of the 54 letters getting to Graham Brady.
It may not be a technical bar, but appointing a proxy voter has a high psychological bar when the VONC vote is supposed to be completely and utterly private and anonymous.
With no Parliament next week unless 54 letters are received today nothing will happen until the 21st.
This windfall tax policy - is it smart politics by Starmer and Labour?
As the government are jacking up energy bills and forcing consumers to take out a loan to help out the poor energy companies it certainly feels like smart politics.
Wow. I'm sure it's possible to compose a bigger mischaracterisation of the situation, but this is a fine effort.
"forcing consumers to take out a loan" - the literal policy being imposed "to help out the poor energy companies" - a minor paraphrasing of what the PM has just said at the dispatch box.
So the first part of that is untrue - it's no more a loan than a student loan is a loan.
And the second, one man's minor paraphrasing is another's total invention.
Thanks Guto, we appreciate the official spin line. As the PM has just responded to a question about a photo of him at a party by telling the house it never happened, I can understand why his own words can be discarded as you propose.
More interesting for me than the poll leads are the relative numbers and direction of travel. It's not just about the Tory fall, Labour have been consistently edging up since last summer, albeit with acceleration recently. This is good for Labour, I think, as it's a bit more positive than just the other side being shit.
But still no signs of life in Scottish Labour though. Every time I suspect I spot a wee uptick it evaporates.
SLab Westminster VI since Anas Sarwar became leader:
I cannot detect any sort of trend there. Flatlining within MoE.
And without very significant increases in Scotland, Starmer can forget Lab Maj.
True, though if Labour win most seats in a hung parliament then Starmer can ignore the SNP too.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament would Starmer need SNP support to govern if Labour +SNP are still more than Tories +DUP
How is Labour going to pass English domestic legislation?
They wouldn't but that just results in a second election where the English would need to make up their minds and where Labour may have a chance of winning a few Scottish seats.
Although any sensible Labour Government stuck with a minority but supported by the SNP would probably be rapidly looking at a form of PR to fix the issue.
I’d be amazed if Starmer has not got his PR plan ready to go. He’s just got to time it right.
PR splits the Labour Party.
Corbynites and Unions would walk out and form their own party, RefUK would also win seats. The SNP would also win only about half of the seats they do now with PR.
Though most of our governments would end up being Starmer or Blairite Labour and LD or Cameroon Tory and LD (albeit 2015 would have been a Tory and UKIP government with PR)
What’s not to like?? If your name’s Keir Starmer!
Corbynites fuck off. Check.
Sane unions stay, mad unions go. Check.
SNP halved. Check.
Centrist government in perpetuity. Check.
Far right screwed. Check.
He’d be a mug not to.
We would generally have centrist governments under PR yes, with the LDs becoming like the FDP in Germany and almost always being in power in coalition governments regardless of whether there was a Tory or Labour led government.
However not always, for example in 2015 we would have had a Conservative and UKIP government under PR, so would still have probably ended up with Brexit anyway (unless Cameron had decided to do a Merkel style grand coalition with Ed Miliband's Labour to avoid dealing with Farage)
I'm not sure of that, as I think you also agreed previously, because the existing parties would fragment and reform into different groupings, although I agree it would generally be centrist but not necessarily always.
Hmm. Look at Israel. Govt frequently at whim of extremes. Law of unintended consequences.
It's the system they use. Ireland's a better example.
The point of PR is that it can be designed to give yourself almost the result you want.
Personally I like the Irish approach of 5 member constituencies because it ensures there is a choice of views with popular parties getting 2 seats but the size of the constituency does determine the final makeup....
4 seat constituencies than the most popular party ends up with 2 seats in most constituencies, 5 seat constituencies and the 2 most popular parties would end up with 2 seats.
The latter creates a Parliament that would feel very different to the former.
Ireland too now under a grand coalition with PR between FF and FG to keep out SF. Under FPTP SF would now be leading the government
Do you know why SF only have the number of seats they have in the Dáil Éireann?
I am old enough to remember when I was told categorically by several people on here that there were no photos of Johnson at any parties and he never attended them.
If Conservative MPs don’t oust Boris Johnson after this then I don’t think they ever will.
Fuxsake what kind of Conservative are you?
Here is a photo of the PM stood behind a colleague wearing a party garland sat at a table with an open bottle of plonk on it. It is categorically a work meeting of the kind that we were all having at the time.
More interesting for me than the poll leads are the relative numbers and direction of travel. It's not just about the Tory fall, Labour have been consistently edging up since last summer, albeit with acceleration recently. This is good for Labour, I think, as it's a bit more positive than just the other side being shit.
But still no signs of life in Scottish Labour though. Every time I suspect I spot a wee uptick it evaporates.
SLab Westminster VI since Anas Sarwar became leader:
I cannot detect any sort of trend there. Flatlining within MoE.
And without very significant increases in Scotland, Starmer can forget Lab Maj.
True, though if Labour win most seats in a hung parliament then Starmer can ignore the SNP too.
Only if the Tories win most seats in a hung parliament would Starmer need SNP support to govern if Labour +SNP are still more than Tories +DUP
How is Labour going to pass English domestic legislation?
They wouldn't but that just results in a second election where the English would need to make up their minds and where Labour may have a chance of winning a few Scottish seats.
Although any sensible Labour Government stuck with a minority but supported by the SNP would probably be rapidly looking at a form of PR to fix the issue.
I’d be amazed if Starmer has not got his PR plan ready to go. He’s just got to time it right.
PR splits the Labour Party.
Corbynites and Unions would walk out and form their own party, RefUK would also win seats. The SNP would also win only about half of the seats they do now with PR.
Though most of our governments would end up being Starmer or Blairite Labour and LD or Cameroon Tory and LD (albeit 2015 would have been a Tory and UKIP government with PR)
What’s not to like?? If your name’s Keir Starmer!
Corbynites fuck off. Check.
Sane unions stay, mad unions go. Check.
SNP halved. Check.
Centrist government in perpetuity. Check.
Far right screwed. Check.
He’d be a mug not to.
We would generally have centrist governments under PR yes, with the LDs becoming like the FDP in Germany and almost always being in power in coalition governments regardless of whether there was a Tory or Labour led government.
However not always, for example in 2015 we would have had a Conservative and UKIP government under PR, so would still have probably ended up with Brexit anyway (unless Cameron had decided to do a Merkel style grand coalition with Ed Miliband's Labour to avoid dealing with Farage)
I'm not sure of that, as I think you also agreed previously, because the existing parties would fragment and reform into different groupings, although I agree it would generally be centrist but not necessarily always.
Hmm. Look at Israel. Govt frequently at whim of extremes. Law of unintended consequences.
It's the system they use. Ireland's a better example.
The point of PR is that it can be designed to give yourself almost the result you want.
Personally I like the Irish approach of 5 member constituencies because it ensures there is a choice of views with popular parties getting 2 seats but the size of the constituency does determine the final makeup....
4 seat constituencies than the most popular party ends up with 2 seats in most constituencies, 5 seat constituencies and the 2 most popular parties would end up with 2 seats.
The latter creates a Parliament that would feel very different to the former.
Ireland too now under a grand coalition with PR between FF and FG to keep out SF. Under FPTP SF would now be leading the government
Do you know why SF only have the number of seats they have in the Dáil Éireann?
Even if they had stood a full slate of candidates SF would not have won more seats than FF and FG combined under STV PR.
However SF may well have won more seats than FF and FG combined under FPTP in 2021
Frankly it is now so well established in the populace that Boris partied it is entirely upto his mps
And Boris has just said it has been referred to the Met
In response to the first question he denied there was anything to refer. He's making it up as he goes along because as has been reported he doesn't think he has done anything wrong so why would he care about the detail?
This windfall tax policy - is it smart politics by Starmer and Labour?
As the government are jacking up energy bills and forcing consumers to take out a loan to help out the poor energy companies it certainly feels like smart politics.
Wow. I'm sure it's possible to compose a bigger mischaracterisation of the situation, but this is a fine effort.
"forcing consumers to take out a loan" - the literal policy being imposed "to help out the poor energy companies" - a minor paraphrasing of what the PM has just said at the dispatch box.
So the first part of that is untrue - it's no more a loan than a student loan is a loan.
And the second, one man's minor paraphrasing is another's total invention.
Thanks Guto, we appreciate the official spin line. As the PM has just responded to a question about a photo of him at a party by telling the house it never happened, I can understand why his own words can be discarded as you propose.
I have no sympathy with Boris but he did not say it never happened and indeed has just said it is part of the Met investigation
Comments
In that unlikely circumstance it would have been absurd and undemocratic to continue with Brexit.
My objection to a second referendum was purely that this evidently hadn't happened. The argument hadn't been won.
And we saw this very clearly with the GE2019 result.
In December 2019, the people gave their own opinion.
https://www.thetradenews.com/european-venues-maintain-grip-on-eea-stocks-post-brexit-report-finds/
We may not have succeeded, of course, but we never even tried. We were paralysed by a government that was deeply divided about the EU and didn't want to talk about it any more than they had to and then a government which thought being at the centre was the better option.
When Cameron tried to get us back to something nearer Maastricht he was told that ship had sailed from Lisbon and it was Merkle's way or the heighway. Probably not her biggest misjudgment but its up there.
In my opinion, and I am right, if it started with 6 options for type of arrangement and new deal, whittled down in a run off between two, the campaign would have been x100 more educational, and our country in a much better place today.
I think it helps if people play sport, or do other activities with non-academics. Drink with plumbers, and builders and traffic wardens, as well as just your fellow academic friends. It gives you a better shot at understanding a national vote.
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-uk-remains-on-top-in-a-record-year-5545417/
"2021 was a record year of investment and growth for the European tech and venture ecosystem, and for the UK in particular. Building on the last five years of consecutive growth, the total amount of capital invested into European tech reached a staggering US$100B, according to Atomico’s 2021 State of European Tech (SoET) report. Our London office alone contributed to US$12B of that market.
"Data from the SoET report shows the strength of the UK as a driving force behind this thriving venture ecosystem."
I've just done a quick google about the London economy. Quietly, behind Covid and associated chaos, it is picking up speed in multiple ways
Property:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-property-prices-covid-recovery-pandemic-uk-halifax-benham-reeves-b981146.html
Offices:
"£60bn investment in five years, the highest total investment for 20 years"
https://propertyeu.info/Nieuws/Global-investors--60b-targeted-at-London-offices-to-drive-market-recovery/101ccf39-9cf2-475f-a24c-fb2ce1a6a06d
Good news for London property owners
London is BACK! AGAIN!
I’ve just put a pony on Mark Harper as next Tory leader.
Analysis. He clearly already has the nod as the backbench candidate of the right (those people who bragged couple of weeks back they installed Boris Johnson) this gives him foundation of a lot of MP support at the start to boost his profile and ensure he stays in safely for a few rounds. Meanwhile, he comes across very well, people who haven’t listened to him much before will be impressed by his communication skills and politeness, yet firm in conviction like Lady Thatcher, as he uses the oxygen of publicity of the election platforms. If he gets to the last two I think he beats everyone except Sunak, because his platform is so perfect in tune with the Conservative membership and their favourite newspapers.
https://twitter.com/benglaze/status/1491344656504094720?s=21
https://twitter.com/IlvesToomas/status/1491306500366946304?s=20&t=26Jp0-xJdcNbDElC7zQUGw
"The high number of companies making their stock market debut in 2021 — there were 122 initial public offerings, the highest amount since 2007 — are another example of London's appeal.
""London continues to be an attractive destination for business investment and finance professionals alike," Morgan McKinley's managing director Hakan Enver told AFP. "To date, we are yet to see an exodus due to Brexit, and it's now unlikely that will ever happen.""
https://www.euronews.com/2022/01/12/a-year-since-brexit-london-s-financial-crown-shaken-by-eu-competition-but-still-intact
( I don't think that's made clear.)
"Levelling up" is going to be hard for anyone, and I do believe this government - for all its many terrible flaws - is having a sincere go at it
Scotland's politicians, on the other hand.....
So we could hold a referendum to head back in now, but not before 1st Jan 2022 as we hadn't properly left before then.
Cue an awful lot of Russians getting anything that moves back into Russia. Planes, boats, cars, artworks…
At present, aggression is the only option that is not certain to leave Russia in a worse diplomatic position than before its build-up.
If you have held a second vote in (say) 2018, the date of the article, the electorate would've been different. People who died between the two would not be able to vote (obviously) and 16 and 17 year olds who couldn't vote in 2016 would in 2018. Unless you planned to disenfranchise them?
I suppose the best way to demonstrate the utter comtempt of your position is to suggest this.
I didn't like the results of the 1979 general election. Instead therefore, I propose to hold a second general election in 1982, somehow using the same electorate as in 1979. To avoid changes therefore, I will disenfranchise anyone who might turn 18 between now and 1982. Anyone who dies in the meantime will be required to fill in form BVT198 which will set out how they would vote in this future general election. You're not allowed to die without completing this form. Nor are you allowed to emigrate from the UK unless you agree to vote by post in the 1982 election AND any immigrants are not allowed to achieve British citizenship in order to be able to vote in this 1982 election.
In the meantime however, to avoid implementing the result of the 1979 election until the 1982 election clarifies matters, Jim Callaghan will stay as Prime Minister with the Labour party in power. To avoid Labour losing votes in the House, I'll dismiss half the Conservative MPs.
But don't worry, the above is all perfectly democratic.
The original script was apparently quite dark. 10,000 years was supposed to have really, really messed him up.
Practical action isn't abundant.
Corbynites fuck off. Check.
Sane unions stay, mad unions go. Check.
SNP halved. Check.
Centrist government in perpetuity. Check.
Far right screwed. Check.
He’d be a mug not to.
Open the bear trap...
However not always, for example in 2015 we would have had a Conservative and UKIP government under PR, so would still have probably ended up with Brexit anyway (unless Cameron had decided to do a Merkel style grand coalition with Ed Miliband's Labour to avoid dealing with Farage)
Plus a ton of pent-up global demand, not least Hong Kong, is being unleashed
In a turbulent world, a London property still looks a very safe haven. Brexit has been and gone. Corbyn is a memory. Etc
This forum, for example, is over-representative of those in white-collar and technical professions, those with university education, those who own property, higher-rate taxpayers. More barristers and bankers, than barmen and butchers.
Other forums, clubs and pubs will have a different balance, and understanding the balance of any given community is important. It’s easy to mistakenly extrapolate your forum to wider society.
Nicely done!
That wasn't the case in 1975.
Almost no-one asked Leave what they meant by Leave, and when they did the answers were mixed.
I know this hasn't been as punchy a session as some previous ones have been, but the cost of living crisis is the long term issue, and the government are forcing people to take loans to support the energy companies, which isn't an obviously populist policy.
PR hasn't been good for Liberal parties in Europe recently apart from the Netherlands, Germany and arguably Austria (considering the D66, the FDP who are both in gvt and NEOS who are doing OK).
That said I think the chances of any kind of grand coalition have collapsed now that they've fallen out of favour in Europe too.
Rather than taxing them to death, encourage the O&G companies to get fracking and building more gas import terminals, so the UK gas price doesn’t get set by the big angry bear in Moscow.
The cure for the ills of globalisation isn't accelerated globalisation.
Man does up top button!
The Lib Dems have already found out what happens when you try that and are in no hurry to repeat the experience.
And the problem here is that with North Sea entering a decline and with oil prices low the rate of tax they were paying on oil was set to zero to allow them to recover the decommissioning costs. But that means now prices are high we the Government has a problem....
What we need to do is revisit that rate and replace it with a taper based on market prices and production costs.
And very clever and effective from Ed Davey today was it not, really got Boris in a tangle.
"to help out the poor energy companies" - a minor paraphrasing of what the PM has just said at the dispatch box.
If the Tories were led by a rightwinger though they would deal with the UKIP/RefUK party, as the PP in Spain deals with Vox and Berlusconi's Forza Italia in Italy deals with Lega Nord and Brothers of Italy under PR
Personally I like the Irish approach of 5 member constituencies because it ensures there is a choice of views with popular parties getting 2 seats but the size of the constituency does determine the final makeup....
4 seat constituencies than the most popular party ends up with 2 seats in most constituencies, 5 seat constituencies and the 2 most popular parties would end up with 2 seats.
The latter creates a Parliament that would feel very different to the former.
And the second, one man's minor paraphrasing is another's total invention.
https://twitter.com/Dominic2306/status/1491388967798906881
With no Parliament next week unless 54 letters are received today nothing will happen until the 21st.
Most significant thing about this PMQs is how Starmer keeps focusing his fire on Rishi. Shows which of the leadership contenders Labour most fear.
Erm, she does understand that the red tape was imposed by us as part of our post-Brexit settlement?
And Boris has just said it has been referred to the Met
Here is a photo of the PM stood behind a colleague wearing a party garland sat at a table with an open bottle of plonk on it. It is categorically a work meeting of the kind that we were all having at the time.
However SF may well have won more seats than FF and FG combined under FPTP in 2021
We didn't impose it, the red tape is a consequence of decisions we've made that left the EU with no choice but to impose it...