Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Why the Conservatives might do worse than the polls suggest – politicalbetting.com

124»

Comments

  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,683
    edited August 2023

    It's a hot sunny day in Seattle . . . except the sunshine is obscured somewhat by the wildfire smoke that is creating affect similar to old-fashioned smog.

    Meaning that yours truly is NOT eager to spend much time outside, even though it's starting to get a bit toasty in my humble abode. Seeing as how the air quality in my hood is rated "unhealthy for sensitive groups". And the Great Outdoors of the Great Pacific Northwest smells like your grandma's old fireplace . . . or your granddad's old ashtray . . . or possibly visa versa.

    British exceptionalism has been in full flow this summer.

    As everywhere else in this hemisphere burns and/or sees record heatwaves (the Japanese one is now the world’s longest running heatwave, per the WMO definition, beating China last year), this Island has been fairly average. Sunny spells, rain, moderately lukewarm.

    Well and a record breaking June but that was ages ago.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,499

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Why I am a sadder and wiser engine is that I have realised the unspeakable truth - that we can't be trusted to recognise just how shit this country is. Whilst a lot of people voted Brexit because things are shit and they were being promised the moon on a stick, that means they think we just say WE ARE BRITAIN and the forrin do as they are told and we won two world wars and one world cup anyway.

    Its crap. Until the English let go of the empire, we will never be able to start healing ourselves because we can't accept that we are a fading former imperial power who are now being surpassed by countries like Poland. We would now be better going all in - the Euro, Schengen, the whole smash.
    And some could say that’s all about joining the next Empire. Why?
    Empire? At most it is a confederation. Co-operation and collaboration are the ways to get ahead in the economic place we are in. If we haven't yet learned that lesson, the Good News is that we will have more years to slide further behind until we're in a position to change that.
    Sounds like the pitch for the Austro-Hungarian Empire. How many dreadnoughts do we get?
  • Options

    “Flexcit” was the only Brexit that ever made sense.
    Move over time from EEA toward something else.

    It had the “disadvantage” that it was a soft Brexit (in the old sense, ie it retained single market access), and that it didn’t have a clear timetable on it, thus open to criticism that was vulnerable to politically-driven stasis.

    This was the one that Alastair Meeks was seriously considering.

    He described it as a 'conscious uncoupling' from the EU via the EEC.
    It is the one I was pushing for and wrote articles in support of both before and after the vote.

    My personal view is that what we have now is better than EU membership but worse than EEA membership (or something like it). I am still of the view that we will eventually move back to an EEA style relationship but that we will never rejoin the EU as a full member. The longer we are out the more that becomes the case as the EU moves further and further from just a trading bloc
    But if it was a in (an EU even more further up a mythical state jacksie from just a trading bloc we left) or stay out referendum, can we be sure what the UK electorate of 2037 would actually vote? The actual campaign of 2037 would just be bamboozling ******s - in means prevent world war 3 and we all get better off - no help to voters.

    How many voters in area’s run down in 2016 and still run down and even poorer in 2037 will it take to think they have absolutely nothing to lose voting in, to create a narrow 52/48 in win?
    The simple solution is not to ask them. People are generally ignorant of how things work, and keep being broadcast what amazing new trade benefits are coming thanks to Brexit. The Express today ran a story about someone catching a Tuna and selling it for £2k as a Brexit benefit.

    People want trade deals. So give them trade deals. And the quickest way to get the best trade deals is rejoin the EEA. But politically that is difficult, so we will do a bilateral deal not to join but to extend the EEA trade deals into GB.
  • Options

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Why I am a sadder and wiser engine is that I have realised the unspeakable truth - that we can't be trusted to recognise just how shit this country is. Whilst a lot of people voted Brexit because things are shit and they were being promised the moon on a stick, that means they think we just say WE ARE BRITAIN and the forrin do as they are told and we won two world wars and one world cup anyway.

    Its crap. Until the English let go of the empire, we will never be able to start healing ourselves because we can't accept that we are a fading former imperial power who are now being surpassed by countries like Poland. We would now be better going all in - the Euro, Schengen, the whole smash.
    And some could say that’s all about joining the next Empire. Why?
    Empire? At most it is a confederation. Co-operation and collaboration are the ways to get ahead in the economic place we are in. If we haven't yet learned that lesson, the Good News is that we will have more years to slide further behind until we're in a position to change that.
    Sounds like the pitch for the Austro-Hungarian Empire. How many dreadnoughts do we get?
    Two. Though one of them won't have any aircraft of our own on it. And the other won't have any aircraft of any kind.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,893
    ohnotnow said:

    kle4 said:

    I remember when reading 'Vanished Kingdoms' by Norman Davies being struck by his take on the Soviet Union being impressively blunt, including fairly casual dismissal of the idea it all just went wrong after its start.

    Many factors contributed to the Soviet Union's downfall. They include defeat in Afghanistan, an unsustainable arms race, financial bankruptcy, laggardly technology, sclerotic political structures, a discredited ideology, a generation gap between rulers and ruled, and much else besides; discussion of them fills any number of weighty tomes, but none in itself gives a sufficient explanation.

    The essence lies deeper, and is not complicated. The Soviet System was built on extreme force and extreme fraud. Practically everything that Lenin and the Leninists did was accompanied by killing; practically everything they said was based on half-baked theories, a total lack of integrity and huge barefaced lies.

    If you've got 50 minutes - Adam Curtis's "'The Engineers' Plot'" is worth a watch.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora's_Box_(British_TV_series)#Part_1._'The_Engineers'_Plot'

    I tried but I'm working, so it's listen-only mode and it has passages in Russian, so... :(
  • Options
    FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,010
    TimS said:

    It's a hot sunny day in Seattle . . . except the sunshine is obscured somewhat by the wildfire smoke that is creating affect similar to old-fashioned smog.

    Meaning that yours truly is NOT eager to spend much time outside, even though it's starting to get a bit toasty in my humble abode. Seeing as how the air quality in my hood is rated "unhealthy for sensitive groups". And the Great Outdoors of the Great Pacific Northwest smells like your grandma's old fireplace . . . or your granddad's old ashtray . . . or possibly visa versa.

    British exceptionalism has been in full flow this summer.

    As everywhere else in this hemisphere burns and/or sees record heatwaves (the Japanese one is now the world’s longest running heatwave, per the WMO definition, beating China last year), this Island has been fairly average. Sunny spells, rain, moderately lukewarm.

    Well and a record breaking June but that was ages ago.
    Until we ditch the exceptionalism, we will be unable to progress.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,460

    “Flexcit” was the only Brexit that ever made sense.
    Move over time from EEA toward something else.

    It had the “disadvantage” that it was a soft Brexit (in the old sense, ie it retained single market access), and that it didn’t have a clear timetable on it, thus open to criticism that was vulnerable to politically-driven stasis.

    This was the one that Alastair Meeks was seriously considering.

    He described it as a 'conscious uncoupling' from the EU via the EEC.
    It is the one I was pushing for and wrote articles in support of both before and after the vote.

    My personal view is that what we have now is better than EU membership but worse than EEA membership (or something like it). I am still of the view that we will eventually move back to an EEA style relationship but that we will never rejoin the EU as a full member. The longer we are out the more that becomes the case as the EU moves further and further from just a trading bloc
    But if it was a in (an EU even more further up a mythical state jacksie from just a trading bloc we left) or stay out referendum, can we be sure what the UK electorate of 2037 would actually vote? The actual campaign of 2037 would just be bamboozling ******s - in means prevent world war 3 and we all get better off - no help to voters.

    How many voters in area’s run down in 2016 and still run down and even poorer in 2037 will it take to think they have absolutely nothing to lose voting in, to create a narrow 52/48 in win?
    The simple solution is not to ask them. People are generally ignorant of how things work, and keep being broadcast what amazing new trade benefits are coming thanks to Brexit. The Express today ran a story about someone catching a Tuna and selling it for £2k as a Brexit benefit.

    People want trade deals. So give them trade deals. And the quickest way to get the best trade deals is rejoin the EEA. But politically that is difficult, so we will do a bilateral deal not to join but to extend the EEA trade deals into GB.
    Just to clarify, you are saying don’t hold in/out EU referendums to decide this as voters are too ignorant to how things work?

    Just put your intentions clearly in your General Election manifesto’s instead?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,025
    From an economic perspective, I've always found the arguments for the EU either being a massive boon or a terrible bane rather weak.

    There have been EU countries that have performed pretty well in the last 20 years, such as Poland or Spain. And there have been ones that have done very badly, such as Italy or Greece.

    Most of the determinants of economic success are either national (such as education systems or flexible labour markets), or are the result of global trends (energy and commodity prices, for example).

  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,482
    ...

    ...

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Why I am a sadder and wiser engine is that I have realised the unspeakable truth - that we can't be trusted to recognise just how shit this country is. Whilst a lot of people voted Brexit because things are shit and they were being promised the moon on a stick, that means they think we just say WE ARE BRITAIN and the forrin do as they are told and we won two world wars and one world cup anyway.

    Its crap. Until the English let go of the empire, we will never be able to start healing ourselves because we can't accept that we are a fading former imperial power who are now being surpassed by countries like Poland. We would now be better going all in - the Euro, Schengen, the whole smash.
    Craven self-loathing provides no more of an accurate perspective of where we are than flag waving boosterism. We are a medium-sized nation with a number of natural advantages. There's no information-backed reason that we cannot do extremely well as an independent sovereign nation - just a feeling of 'waaaahhhh', typified by your post above.
    No information backed reason about from our current reality. But if you ignore that, sure. We're doing great.
    I didn't say we're doing great. I said there's no fact-based reason why we can't do great. We have a particularly pernicious and inadequate political and administrative class at the moment. That was the case when we were in the EU, and it's still the case now. Personally, I think it's taking a lot of hard work on several peoples' part to make us perform as badly as we are.
  • Options

    “Flexcit” was the only Brexit that ever made sense.
    Move over time from EEA toward something else.

    It had the “disadvantage” that it was a soft Brexit (in the old sense, ie it retained single market access), and that it didn’t have a clear timetable on it, thus open to criticism that was vulnerable to politically-driven stasis.

    This was the one that Alastair Meeks was seriously considering.

    He described it as a 'conscious uncoupling' from the EU via the EEC.
    It is the one I was pushing for and wrote articles in support of both before and after the vote.

    My personal view is that what we have now is better than EU membership but worse than EEA membership (or something like it). I am still of the view that we will eventually move back to an EEA style relationship but that we will never rejoin the EU as a full member. The longer we are out the more that becomes the case as the EU moves further and further from just a trading bloc
    But if it was a in (an EU even more further up a mythical state jacksie from just a trading bloc we left) or stay out referendum, can we be sure what the UK electorate of 2037 would actually vote? The actual campaign of 2037 would just be bamboozling ******s - in means prevent world war 3 and we all get better off - no help to voters.

    How many voters in area’s run down in 2016 and still run down and even poorer in 2037 will it take to think they have absolutely nothing to lose voting in, to create a narrow 52/48 in win?
    The simple solution is not to ask them. People are generally ignorant of how things work, and keep being broadcast what amazing new trade benefits are coming thanks to Brexit. The Express today ran a story about someone catching a Tuna and selling it for £2k as a Brexit benefit.

    People want trade deals. So give them trade deals. And the quickest way to get the best trade deals is rejoin the EEA. But politically that is difficult, so we will do a bilateral deal not to join but to extend the EEA trade deals into GB.
    Just to clarify, you are saying don’t hold in/out EU referendums to decide this as voters are too ignorant to how things work?

    Just put your intentions clearly in your General Election manifesto’s instead?
    Who said anything about the EU?

    I said that we should formalise our current alignment with the EEA so that we can benefit from their existing trade deals. The Trussbot signed continuation deals for a few of them, so on those we are already aligned.

    I would rejoin and go all in. That won't happen. So that isn't what I am talking about now. Its what PM Starmer may do to chase down his pledges. Not rejoin. Just realign to unlock all that bottled up economic growth we've killed.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,096

    “Flexcit” was the only Brexit that ever made sense.
    Move over time from EEA toward something else.

    It had the “disadvantage” that it was a soft Brexit (in the old sense, ie it retained single market access), and that it didn’t have a clear timetable on it, thus open to criticism that was vulnerable to politically-driven stasis.

    This was the one that Alastair Meeks was seriously considering.

    He described it as a 'conscious uncoupling' from the EU via the EEC.
    It is the one I was pushing for and wrote articles in support of both before and after the vote.

    My personal view is that what we have now is better than EU membership but worse than EEA membership (or something like it). I am still of the view that we will eventually move back to an EEA style relationship but that we will never rejoin the EU as a full member. The longer we are out the more that becomes the case as the EU moves further and further from just a trading bloc
    But if it was a in (an EU even more further up a mythical state jacksie from just a trading bloc we left) or stay out referendum, can we be sure what the UK electorate of 2037 would actually vote? The actual campaign of 2037 would just be bamboozling ******s - in means prevent world war 3 and we all get better off - no help to voters.

    How many voters in area’s run down in 2016 and still run down and even poorer in 2037 will it take to think they have absolutely nothing to lose voting in, to create a narrow 52/48 in win?
    The simple solution is not to ask them. People are generally ignorant of how things work, and keep being broadcast what amazing new trade benefits are coming thanks to Brexit. The Express today ran a story about someone catching a Tuna and selling it for £2k as a Brexit benefit.

    People want trade deals. So give them trade deals. And the quickest way to get the best trade deals is rejoin the EEA. But politically that is difficult, so we will do a bilateral deal not to join but to extend the EEA trade deals into GB.
    Just to clarify, you are saying don’t hold in/out EU referendums to decide this as voters are too ignorant to how things work?

    Just put your intentions clearly in your General Election manifesto’s instead?
    Who said anything about the EU?

    I said that we should formalise our current alignment with the EEA so that we can benefit from their existing trade deals. The Trussbot signed continuation deals for a few of them, so on those we are already aligned.

    I would rejoin and go all in. That won't happen. So that isn't what I am talking about now. Its what PM Starmer may do to chase down his pledges. Not rejoin. Just realign to unlock all that bottled up economic growth we've killed.
    Alignment with the EEA has nothing to do with trade deals. That would be the customs union.
  • Options
    Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,969
    edited August 2023

    “Flexcit” was the only Brexit that ever made sense.
    Move over time from EEA toward something else.

    It had the “disadvantage” that it was a soft Brexit (in the old sense, ie it retained single market access), and that it didn’t have a clear timetable on it, thus open to criticism that was vulnerable to politically-driven stasis.

    This was the one that Alastair Meeks was seriously considering.

    He described it as a 'conscious uncoupling' from the EU via the EEC.
    It is the one I was pushing for and wrote articles in support of both before and after the vote.

    My personal view is that what we have now is better than EU membership but worse than EEA membership (or something like it). I am still of the view that we will eventually move back to an EEA style relationship but that we will never rejoin the EU as a full member. The longer we are out the more that becomes the case as the EU moves further and further from just a trading bloc
    But if it was a in (an EU even more further up a mythical state jacksie from just a trading bloc we left) or stay out referendum, can we be sure what the UK electorate of 2037 would actually vote? The actual campaign of 2037 would just be bamboozling ******s - “in” means prevent world war 3 and we all get better off through more trade and less restrictions - a debate no help to voters.

    How many voters in area’s run down in 2016 and still run down and even poorer in 2037 will it take to think they have absolutely nothing to lose voting in, to create a narrow 52/48 in win?
    I have no idea if they would vote nor can I be absolutely certain how they would vote. It would depend entirely on the circumstances at the time. My personal view is that the circumstances will never again be right for us to join and that doing so would be bad for the country. But obviously others will feel differently.

    What I do think is sure is that as long as the EEA style relationship is there, the chances of us ever rejoining fully become vanishingly small.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,460

    Just found it

    Lab 44 per cent (no change) compared with the Tories’ 29 per cent (up two points), a 15-point lead.

    Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats slid back to 10 per cent, down from 14 per cent last month.

    The monthly BMG for the “i” metronomicaly has Tories 27-29 Percent, higher than what poll average is for cons, regularly find more cons than many other pollsters Opinium, YouGov, Ipsos. But they are still saying Penny Mourdant will lose.

    General Elections so often throw out a leadership hopeful, Portillo went on a 17% swing, the same as it will take to remove Penny. As soon as Portillo heard the exit poll swing he knew he had lost his seat.

    Mourdant is surely vulnerable to a LLG effort to get her out? She’ll fear the worst on these reported national swings?

    Is this a bet to get on today?
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,482

    ...

    ...

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Why I am a sadder and wiser engine is that I have realised the unspeakable truth - that we can't be trusted to recognise just how shit this country is. Whilst a lot of people voted Brexit because things are shit and they were being promised the moon on a stick, that means they think we just say WE ARE BRITAIN and the forrin do as they are told and we won two world wars and one world cup anyway.

    Its crap. Until the English let go of the empire, we will never be able to start healing ourselves because we can't accept that we are a fading former imperial power who are now being surpassed by countries like Poland. We would now be better going all in - the Euro, Schengen, the whole smash.
    Craven self-loathing provides no more of an accurate perspective of where we are than flag waving boosterism. We are a medium-sized nation with a number of natural advantages. There's no information-backed reason that we cannot do extremely well as an independent sovereign nation - just a feeling of 'waaaahhhh', typified by your post above.
    No information backed reason about from our current reality. But if you ignore that, sure. We're doing great.
    I didn't say we're doing great. I said there's no fact-based reason why we can't do great. We have a particularly pernicious and inadequate political and administrative class at the moment. That was the case when we were in the EU, and it's still the case now. Personally, I think it's taking a lot of hard work on several peoples' part to make us perform as badly as we are.
    Typifying my point:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/162nvq2/home_office_exasylum_boss_accused_of_being_chief/?rdt=64432

    Former Home Office Head of Asylum revolves into a job with Amnesty International, a pressure group seeking to overturn the Government's efforts to stop small boats.

    One source described Ms Haddad as “very difficult” and the “chief blocker” of ministers’ policies during her time at the Home Office. A Home Office source claimed that, during her time at the top of the department, the senior civil servant was “hostile” to the Government’s agenda on asylum, including a plan to move migrants out of taxpayer-funded hotel rooms and into large-scale accommodation.

    The Home Office source said that Ms Haddad also oversaw the introduction of “lenient” guidance in which asylum caseworkers were told they could not reject the testimony of a migrant caught lying.


    We don't just have an issue with incompetent timeservers, we have activists who feel it's their role to undermine Government policy if they don't like it. It seems hardly surprising under these circumstances that we haven't made more progress with disentanglement from the EU.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,857
    edited August 2023

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Why I am a sadder and wiser engine is that I have realised the unspeakable truth - that we can't be trusted to recognise just how shit this country is. Whilst a lot of people voted Brexit because things are shit and they were being promised the moon on a stick, that means they think we just say WE ARE BRITAIN and the forrin do as they are told and we won two world wars and one world cup anyway.

    Its crap. Until the English let go of the empire, we will never be able to start healing ourselves because we can't accept that we are a fading former imperial power who are now being surpassed by countries like Poland. We would now be better going all in - the Euro, Schengen, the whole smash.
    I genuinely don't think Imperial hangups is the problem. I think the majority of people and politicians are content to be a mid tier power, and blaming it on nostalgia for a golden age (if not the actual elements from that time, then the power and prestige) misses that a lot of people in this country don't seem to want to take on that kind of global power role, they just want things to be 'better' in unspecific ways. I also don't think there is an inherent problem in wanting to do things differently and go our own way, any country can make that choice, and they can believe it will make things better and face the consequences if wrong.

    I do think we are caught in a malaise where we are afraid to tackle various problems, or just give up as they are too baked in or perceived as too big to solve, but I really don't see the connection to 'letting go of Empire' in that respect - which is restricted, in its open style as you've described, to really really old people and weirdo fantasists who at best get winked at by would be populists, rather than being mainstream. I don't see it driving things. I think exceptionalism is overplayed, but may be more at play, but that's not quite the same thing as bringing Empire into it.

    Edit: I think the country is tired, its bogged down, it is a bit confused about what it wants to be, but not due to confusion about no longer being a world level power - and we're still a bigger power than many, just not as many as we used to be by any means - I think the country gets that. We just aren't sure of what to do with that position now, which again is not the same thing as not having let go of the change in tier level.

  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,720
    edited August 2023
    Blimey, there's a rush of 'I voted Leave but now think it was a mistake' on here tonight.

    Kudos to you guys for changing your minds. Respect.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,074

    “Flexcit” was the only Brexit that ever made sense.
    Move over time from EEA toward something else.

    It had the “disadvantage” that it was a soft Brexit (in the old sense, ie it retained single market access), and that it didn’t have a clear timetable on it, thus open to criticism that was vulnerable to politically-driven stasis.

    May’s Brexit was a kind of attempt to build a “hard” Flexcit, as she judged that immigration was the core reason behind Brexit and that any deal which retained FOM lacked legitimacy.

    That was a terrible error, in my opinion, although you can understand the train of thought.

    What’s done is done.
    Britain will spend the next generation fixing it.

    The other issue was the lack of creative thinking on the EU side. They basically said “there are 3 possible models. Pick one. No “cherry picking”

    Of course they are entitled to do that but it meant that no optimal outcome was possible.

    Essentially the position should have started on the basis of (a) the UK is fully out with no connections (b) a long transition period (say 5 years) to allow for planning and (c) sensible discussions between 2 future partners to optimise the outcome

    However because the UK remainers were fighting to overturn the result, the UK government was a bit crap and divided and a significant proportion of Brussels was in punishment mode that wasn’t possible.


  • Options
    This was the one that Alastair Meeks was seriously considering.

    He described it as a 'conscious uncoupling' from the EU via the EEC.

    It is the one I was pushing for and wrote articles in support of both before and after the vote.

    My personal view is that what we have now is better than EU membership but worse than EEA membership (or something like it). I am still of the view that we will eventually move back to an EEA style relationship but that we will never rejoin the EU as a full member. The longer we are out the more that becomes the case as the EU moves further and further from just a trading bloc

    But if it was a in (an EU even more further up a mythical state jacksie from just a trading bloc we left) or stay out referendum, can we be sure what the UK electorate of 2037 would actually vote? The actual campaign of 2037 would just be bamboozling ******s - in means prevent world war 3 and we all get better off - no help to voters.

    How many voters in area’s run down in 2016 and still run down and even poorer in 2037 will it take to think they have absolutely nothing to lose voting in, to create a narrow 52/48 in win?

    The simple solution is not to ask them. People are generally ignorant of how things work, and keep being broadcast what amazing new trade benefits are coming thanks to Brexit. The Express today ran a story about someone catching a Tuna and selling it for £2k as a Brexit benefit.

    People want trade deals. So give them trade deals. And the quickest way to get the best trade deals is rejoin the EEA. But politically that is difficult, so we will do a bilateral deal not to join but to extend the EEA trade deals into GB.

    Just to clarify, you are saying don’t hold in/out EU referendums to decide this as voters are too ignorant to how things work?

    Just put your intentions clearly in your General Election manifesto’s instead?

    Who said anything about the EU?

    I said that we should formalise our current alignment with the EEA so that we can benefit from their existing trade deals. The Trussbot signed continuation deals for a few of them, so on those we are already aligned.

    I would rejoin and go all in. That won't happen. So that isn't what I am talking about now. Its what PM Starmer may do to chase down his pledges. Not rejoin. Not

    Just found it

    Lab 44 per cent (no change) compared with the Tories’ 29 per cent (up two points), a 15-point lead.

    Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats slid back to 10 per cent, down from 14 per cent last month.

    The monthly BMG for the “i” metronomicaly has Tories 27-29 Percent, higher than what poll average is for cons, regularly find more cons than many other pollsters Opinium, YouGov, Ipsos. But they are still saying Penny Mourdant will lose.

    General Elections so often throw out a leadership hopeful, Portillo went on a 17% swing, the same as it will take to remove Penny. As soon as Portillo heard the exit poll swing he knew he had lost his seat.

    Mourdant is surely vulnerable to a LLG effort to get her out? She’ll fear the worst on these reported national swings?

    Is this a bet to get on today?
    I have been invited to a Stockton South Labour dinner in a few weeks, before the CLP is abolished. Will be fun to see what the mood is with the activists. They definitely should vote Labour to get a Labour government. People like me if we vote Labour will be voting for a Tory government.

    A few of them get it - absolutism means Tory government. Will be fun to see if more of them now understand this...
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,683
    rcs1000 said:

    From an economic perspective, I've always found the arguments for the EU either being a massive boon or a terrible bane rather weak.

    There have been EU countries that have performed pretty well in the last 20 years, such as Poland or Spain. And there have been ones that have done very badly, such as Italy or Greece.

    Most of the determinants of economic success are either national (such as education systems or flexible labour markets), or are the result of global trends (energy and commodity prices, for example).

    My view too. EU membership is helpful but, for a rich country, not transformational. Brexit is damaging but not disastrous.

    I think for poorer new accession states the equation is different. It can indeed be transformational, on many levels.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 54,025
    The biggest impediment to British economic success is that we seem to see everything in terms of our relationship with the EU, rather than in making the necessary reforms at home.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,460

    “Flexcit” was the only Brexit that ever made sense.
    Move over time from EEA toward something else.

    It had the “disadvantage” that it was a soft Brexit (in the old sense, ie it retained single market access), and that it didn’t have a clear timetable on it, thus open to criticism that was vulnerable to politically-driven stasis.

    This was the one that Alastair Meeks was seriously considering.

    He described it as a 'conscious uncoupling' from the EU via the EEC.
    It is the one I was pushing for and wrote articles in support of both before and after the vote.

    My personal view is that what we have now is better than EU membership but worse than EEA membership (or something like it). I am still of the view that we will eventually move back to an EEA style relationship but that we will never rejoin the EU as a full member. The longer we are out the more that becomes the case as the EU moves further and further from just a trading bloc
    But if it was a in (an EU even more further up a mythical state jacksie from just a trading bloc we left) or stay out referendum, can we be sure what the UK electorate of 2037 would actually vote? The actual campaign of 2037 would just be bamboozling ******s - in means prevent world war 3 and we all get better off - no help to voters.

    How many voters in area’s run down in 2016 and still run down and even poorer in 2037 will it take to think they have absolutely nothing to lose voting in, to create a narrow 52/48 in win?
    The simple solution is not to ask them. People are generally ignorant of how things work, and keep being broadcast what amazing new trade benefits are coming thanks to Brexit. The Express today ran a story about someone catching a Tuna and selling it for £2k as a Brexit benefit.

    People want trade deals. So give them trade deals. And the quickest way to get the best trade deals is rejoin the EEA. But politically that is difficult, so we will do a bilateral deal not to join but to extend the EEA trade deals into GB.
    Just to clarify, you are saying don’t hold in/out EU referendums to decide this as voters are too ignorant to how things work?

    Just put your intentions clearly in your General Election manifesto’s instead?
    Who said anything about the EU?

    I said that we should formalise our current alignment with the EEA so that we can benefit from their existing trade deals. The Trussbot signed continuation deals for a few of them, so on those we are already aligned.

    I would rejoin and go all in. That won't happen. So that isn't what I am talking about now. Its what PM Starmer may do to chase down his pledges. Not rejoin. Just realign to unlock all that bottled up economic growth we've killed.
    “i would rejoin and go all in”

    Just 7 years ago you voted to unjoin and go all out?

    Are you an impulsive type of personality?
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,482
    ...

    “Flexcit” was the only Brexit that ever made sense.
    Move over time from EEA toward something else.

    It had the “disadvantage” that it was a soft Brexit (in the old sense, ie it retained single market access), and that it didn’t have a clear timetable on it, thus open to criticism that was vulnerable to politically-driven stasis.

    This was the one that Alastair Meeks was seriously considering.

    He described it as a 'conscious uncoupling' from the EU via the EEC.
    It is the one I was pushing for and wrote articles in support of both before and after the vote.

    My personal view is that what we have now is better than EU membership but worse than EEA membership (or something like it). I am still of the view that we will eventually move back to an EEA style relationship but that we will never rejoin the EU as a full member. The longer we are out the more that becomes the case as the EU moves further and further from just a trading bloc
    But if it was a in (an EU even more further up a mythical state jacksie from just a trading bloc we left) or stay out referendum, can we be sure what the UK electorate of 2037 would actually vote? The actual campaign of 2037 would just be bamboozling ******s - in means prevent world war 3 and we all get better off - no help to voters.

    How many voters in area’s run down in 2016 and still run down and even poorer in 2037 will it take to think they have absolutely nothing to lose voting in, to create a narrow 52/48 in win?
    The simple solution is not to ask them. People are generally ignorant of how things work, and keep being broadcast what amazing new trade benefits are coming thanks to Brexit. The Express today ran a story about someone catching a Tuna and selling it for £2k as a Brexit benefit.

    People want trade deals. So give them trade deals. And the quickest way to get the best trade deals is rejoin the EEA. But politically that is difficult, so we will do a bilateral deal not to join but to extend the EEA trade deals into GB.
    Just to clarify, you are saying don’t hold in/out EU referendums to decide this as voters are too ignorant to how things work?

    Just put your intentions clearly in your General Election manifesto’s instead?
    Who said anything about the EU?

    I said that we should formalise our current alignment with the EEA so that we can benefit from their existing trade deals. The Trussbot signed continuation deals for a few of them, so on those we are already aligned.

    I would rejoin and go all in. That won't happen. So that isn't what I am talking about now. Its what PM Starmer may do to chase down his pledges. Not rejoin. Just realign to unlock all that bottled up economic growth we've killed.
    But your instinct to rejoin is entirely based on an overwrought council of despair that you've convinced yourself is hard-headed realism. It's not. Nor can rejoining actually solve any of our issues, any more than joining in the first place did.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,273
    Lab have come into 4 from 6 for Mid-Beds this evening.

  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,013

    ...

    ...

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Why I am a sadder and wiser engine is that I have realised the unspeakable truth - that we can't be trusted to recognise just how shit this country is. Whilst a lot of people voted Brexit because things are shit and they were being promised the moon on a stick, that means they think we just say WE ARE BRITAIN and the forrin do as they are told and we won two world wars and one world cup anyway.

    Its crap. Until the English let go of the empire, we will never be able to start healing ourselves because we can't accept that we are a fading former imperial power who are now being surpassed by countries like Poland. We would now be better going all in - the Euro, Schengen, the whole smash.
    Craven self-loathing provides no more of an accurate perspective of where we are than flag waving boosterism. We are a medium-sized nation with a number of natural advantages. There's no information-backed reason that we cannot do extremely well as an independent sovereign nation - just a feeling of 'waaaahhhh', typified by your post above.
    No information backed reason about from our current reality. But if you ignore that, sure. We're doing great.
    I didn't say we're doing great. I said there's no fact-based reason why we can't do great. We have a particularly pernicious and inadequate political and administrative class at the moment. That was the case when we were in the EU, and it's still the case now. Personally, I think it's taking a lot of hard work on several peoples' part to make us perform as badly as we are.
    Typifying my point:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/162nvq2/home_office_exasylum_boss_accused_of_being_chief/?rdt=64432

    Former Home Office Head of Asylum revolves into a job with Amnesty International, a pressure group seeking to overturn the Government's efforts to stop small boats.

    One source described Ms Haddad as “very difficult” and the “chief blocker” of ministers’ policies during her time at the Home Office. A Home Office source claimed that, during her time at the top of the department, the senior civil servant was “hostile” to the Government’s agenda on asylum, including a plan to move migrants out of taxpayer-funded hotel rooms and into large-scale accommodation.

    The Home Office source said that Ms Haddad also oversaw the introduction of “lenient” guidance in which asylum caseworkers were told they could not reject the testimony of a migrant caught lying.


    We don't just have an issue with incompetent timeservers, we have activists who feel it's their role to undermine Government policy if they don't like it. It seems hardly surprising under these circumstances that we haven't made more progress with disentanglement from the EU.
    Do you think people who don't agree with the right-wing of the Tory Party belong in the civil service?
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,460

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Prepare for a haunting from Tony Benn. 👻
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,482
    ...
    EPG said:

    ...

    ...

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Why I am a sadder and wiser engine is that I have realised the unspeakable truth - that we can't be trusted to recognise just how shit this country is. Whilst a lot of people voted Brexit because things are shit and they were being promised the moon on a stick, that means they think we just say WE ARE BRITAIN and the forrin do as they are told and we won two world wars and one world cup anyway.

    Its crap. Until the English let go of the empire, we will never be able to start healing ourselves because we can't accept that we are a fading former imperial power who are now being surpassed by countries like Poland. We would now be better going all in - the Euro, Schengen, the whole smash.
    Craven self-loathing provides no more of an accurate perspective of where we are than flag waving boosterism. We are a medium-sized nation with a number of natural advantages. There's no information-backed reason that we cannot do extremely well as an independent sovereign nation - just a feeling of 'waaaahhhh', typified by your post above.
    No information backed reason about from our current reality. But if you ignore that, sure. We're doing great.
    I didn't say we're doing great. I said there's no fact-based reason why we can't do great. We have a particularly pernicious and inadequate political and administrative class at the moment. That was the case when we were in the EU, and it's still the case now. Personally, I think it's taking a lot of hard work on several peoples' part to make us perform as badly as we are.
    Typifying my point:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/162nvq2/home_office_exasylum_boss_accused_of_being_chief/?rdt=64432

    Former Home Office Head of Asylum revolves into a job with Amnesty International, a pressure group seeking to overturn the Government's efforts to stop small boats.

    One source described Ms Haddad as “very difficult” and the “chief blocker” of ministers’ policies during her time at the Home Office. A Home Office source claimed that, during her time at the top of the department, the senior civil servant was “hostile” to the Government’s agenda on asylum, including a plan to move migrants out of taxpayer-funded hotel rooms and into large-scale accommodation.

    The Home Office source said that Ms Haddad also oversaw the introduction of “lenient” guidance in which asylum caseworkers were told they could not reject the testimony of a migrant caught lying.


    We don't just have an issue with incompetent timeservers, we have activists who feel it's their role to undermine Government policy if they don't like it. It seems hardly surprising under these circumstances that we haven't made more progress with disentanglement from the EU.
    Do you think people who don't agree with the right-wing of the Tory Party belong in the civil service?
    I think civil servants who actively oppose the legal policies of an elected Government don't belong in the civil service. I would hope you agree.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,074

    Cookie said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    In a nutshell Labour posturing made Boris do a big bad Brexit, it was all Labour's fault.

    Astonishing.

    Was it only Brexit that was Labour's fault, or everything Johnson did wrong in government? Or maybe everything he ever did wrong in his life?
    That was not my view but my summary of MoonRabbit's narrative. A failure of punctuation.
    Right. Thanks for clarifying. I should just stop reading the stuff here probably.
    Just stop reading my s***e and you'll be fine.
    Boris and the ERG got the Brexit they wanted. Bully for them. They didn't do it cos Labour made them, they did it because Labour gave them the chance.

    Had Labour - or sufficient Labour MPs - wanted to force a soft Brexit, they could have done. But they chose not to. They gambled that dicking about for long enough would see something turn up.

    Personally, I'm moderately happy about it. My view is the Brexit we got is better than what May negotiated or what a Labour Brexit might have been. But the opportunity for a soft Brexit or a BRINO was there, if Remainer MPs hadn't been so pig headed.
    I'm happy in the sense that we got the Brexit the Tories and Johnson wanted and the public are deciding it was a bad idea. Not
    Labour's Brexit, not Labour's negotiation, not Labour's policy. This is a Tory project through and through and like Iraq this will stick to the Tories for good.
    You do know that Blair wasn’t a Tory, right ;)

  • Options
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Why I am a sadder and wiser engine is that I have realised the unspeakable truth - that we can't be trusted to recognise just how shit this country is. Whilst a lot of people voted Brexit because things are shit and they were being promised the moon on a stick, that means they think we just say WE ARE BRITAIN and the forrin do as they are told and we won two world wars and one world cup anyway.

    Its crap. Until the English let go of the empire, we will never be able to start healing ourselves because we can't accept that we are a fading former imperial power who are now being surpassed by countries like Poland. We would now be better going all in - the Euro, Schengen, the whole smash.
    I genuinely don't think Imperial hangups is the problem. I think the majority of people and politicians are content to be a mid tier power, and blaming it on nostalgia for a golden age (if not the actual elements from that time, then the power and prestige) misses that a lot of people in this country don't seem to want to take on that kind of global power role, they just want things to be 'better' in unspecific ways. I also don't think there is an inherent problem in wanting to do things differently and go our own way, any country can make that choice, and they can believe it will make things better and face the consequences if wrong.

    I do think we are caught in a malaise where we are afraid to tackle various problems, or just give up as they are too baked in or perceived as too big to solve, but I really don't see the connection to 'letting go of Empire' in that respect - which is restricted, in its open style as you've described, to really really old people and weirdo fantasists who at best get winked at by would be populists, rather than being mainstream. I don't see it driving things. I think exceptionalism is overplayed, but may be more at play, but that's not quite the same thing as bringing Empire into it.

    Edit: I think the country is tired, its bogged down, it is a bit confused about what it wants to be, but not due to confusion about no longer being a world level power - and we're still a bigger power than many, just not as many as we used to be by any means - I think the country gets that. We just aren't sure of what to do with that position now, which again is not the same thing as not having let go of the change in tier level.

    Thats basically my point. We're a global power, but so many other former global powers are better than us when it comes to infrastructure, social inclusion, education etc etc etc. We think we are better than them, but in reality for so many people its the other way round.

    We are confused as you say - we know things are broken. But we seem unable to point to what is broken and why. Which gives us no chance of fixing anything. At least the French know exactly their place in the world and what is important to them - and they riot when they don't get it. What do we do? Billions stolen, crapola social security and failing services, and we just sit and take it.
  • Options

    “Flexcit” was the only Brexit that ever made sense.
    Move over time from EEA toward something else.

    It had the “disadvantage” that it was a soft Brexit (in the old sense, ie it retained single market access), and that it didn’t have a clear timetable on it, thus open to criticism that was vulnerable to politically-driven stasis.

    This was the one that Alastair Meeks was seriously considering.

    He described it as a 'conscious uncoupling' from the EU via the EEC.
    It is the one I was pushing for and wrote articles in support of both before and after the vote.

    My personal view is that what we have now is better than EU membership but worse than EEA membership (or something like it). I am still of the view that we will eventually move back to an EEA style relationship but that we will never rejoin the EU as a full member. The longer we are out the more that becomes the case as the EU moves further and further from just a trading bloc
    But if it was a in (an EU even more further up a mythical state jacksie from just a trading bloc we left) or stay out referendum, can we be sure what the UK electorate of 2037 would actually vote? The actual campaign of 2037 would just be bamboozling ******s - in means prevent world war 3 and we all get better off - no help to voters.

    How many voters in area’s run down in 2016 and still run down and even poorer in 2037 will it take to think they have absolutely nothing to lose voting in, to create a narrow 52/48 in win?
    The simple solution is not to ask them. People are generally ignorant of how things work, and keep being broadcast what amazing new trade benefits are coming thanks to Brexit. The Express today ran a story about someone catching a Tuna and selling it for £2k as a Brexit benefit.

    People want trade deals. So give them trade deals. And the quickest way to get the best trade deals is rejoin the EEA. But politically that is difficult, so we will do a bilateral deal not to join but to extend the EEA trade deals into GB.
    Just to clarify, you are saying don’t hold in/out EU referendums to decide this as voters are too ignorant to how things work?

    Just put your intentions clearly in your General Election manifesto’s instead?
    Who said anything about the EU?

    I said that we should formalise our current alignment with the EEA so that we can benefit from their existing trade deals. The Trussbot signed continuation deals for a few of them, so on those we are already aligned.

    I would rejoin and go all in. That won't happen. So that isn't what I am talking about now. Its what PM Starmer may do to chase down his pledges. Not rejoin. Just realign to unlock all that bottled up economic growth we've killed.
    “i would rejoin and go all in”

    Just 7 years ago you voted to unjoin and go all out?

    Are you an impulsive type of personality?
    My perspective has changed. And what I would do isn't an option so its not something I am about to do, is it?
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,273
    carnforth said:

    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    TimS said:

    carnforth said:

    TimS said:

    kle4 said:

    I remember when reading 'Vanished Kingdoms' by Norman Davies being struck by his take on the Soviet Union being impressively blunt, including fairly casual dismissal of the idea it all just went wrong after its start.

    Many factors contributed to the Soviet Union's downfall. They include defeat in Afghanistan, an unsustainable arms race, financial bankruptcy, laggardly technology, sclerotic political structures, a discredited ideology, a generation gap between rulers and ruled, and much else besides; discussion of them fills any number of weighty tomes, but none in itself gives a sufficient explanation.

    The essence lies deeper, and is not complicated. The Soviet System was built on extreme force and extreme fraud. Practically everything that Lenin and the Leninists did was accompanied by killing; practically everything they said was based on half-baked theories, a total lack of integrity and huge barefaced lies.

    Its a good point.

    What's all the more remarkable, is that having seen the decline of the USSR, Europe has chosen to embrace its sclerotic political structures which has led to European economic decline.

    That is not to say 'EUSSR', the EU does not have the killings etc associated with the USSR, but it is its own failed ideology of sclerotic political structures all the same.

    The UK my have its own issues, but can now debate them in a sovereign Parliament and forge our own path. Sunak is not doing a good job, so maybe the opposition will do better if elected? And if not then a few years later we can keep kicking out our government until we get one that does a good job.

    Better than being mired in decline with a sclerotic political structure that is incapable of facing democratic reform.
    You used sclerotic several times in that post, but simply saying it doesn’t make it so.

    The diversity of economic outcomes across the EU 27, from dynamism and growth to [sclerotic] decline shows the members are perfectly capable of forging their own paths.

    What the EU gives them is common consumer standards, virtually frictionless trade, regional scale levelling up with vast infrastructure investment in the poorer regions, greater geopolitical agency than possible alone - see sanctions on Russia - and a suite of favourable trade deals around the world.
    Other than what were almost third world nations post-Soviet Union catching up though as they embraced the West, there has been no dynamism and growth within the EU though, only decline. Even Germany has declined and only succeeded if you compare it to other EU nations, not compared to the rest of the world.

    Prior to the EEC becoming the EU, western Europe was the world's leading economic region. Western Europe was combined a bloc that was bigger than America, as Thatcher famously said.

    Fast forward three decades, and Thatcher's promised dynamic single market has instead become a failed, sclerotic, region of decline.

    Pro-EU people still love to claim the EU is the 'world's biggest market' (which was true when it was founded) despite the fact that America alone let alone NAFTA is streets ahead of Europe now, and the EU is now dropping down into 4th place.

    The EU has failed in its promise. The fact that you don't like Brexiteers, doesn't make the EU's economic decline and failure any more real.

    In 1992 (so post-reunification) Germany had a GDP per capita higher than Americas, and 50% higher than Australia's.
    Fast forward three decades under EU sclerosis, and American GDP per capita isn't behind Germany's anymore, its 40% higher.
    Fast forward three decades under EU sclerosis and Germany isn't 50% ahead of Australia anymore on GDP per capita, Australia are 20% ahead of Germany instead.

    And considering Germany had the opportunity to bring Eastern Germany up to western standards, that decline is all the more stark. But its happened in every developed western European nations under eurosclerosis.
    Ireland now has GDP per capita around twice the UK, having lagged behind at the time of entry to the EEC. Spain’s GDP per capita, even after a lost decade post financial crisis, is many orders of magnitude greater than it was on accession. The “almost third world nations” are in some cases close to overtaking us on GDP per capita. One only has to compare the EU members in the former Yugoslavia with those that remain outside to see EU sclerosis is not the issue.
    Oh dear oh dear:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun_economics

    (Irelands's economic growth is nonetheless impressive, but the average irishman has no more income than the average briton)
    There’s actually a bit of mythology on top of the mythology there.

    The median household income (excluding corporate profits) in Ireland is also way above that in the UK. The only measure where they have performed similarly is consumer spending. There is definitely distortion - I know, my job largely involves helping multinationals decide where to put stuff - but it doesn’t eliminate the outperformance vs the UK or other major economies,

    The UK’s economy is also distorted by foreign (largely US) inflows of capital and corporate profits. Nobody has measured it, though the treasury are going through an exercise at the moment attempting to, but it probably explains why our GDP per capita is at or slightly above France but our median household income is way way below.
    So what explains the difference in household income vs spending. Do they have a markedly higher savings rate, or is the factor unknown?
    Here you go:


    I am suitably chastised :-)


    'Vanished Kingdoms' by Norman Davies was an excellent book.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,499
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Why I am a sadder and wiser engine is that I have realised the unspeakable truth - that we can't be trusted to recognise just how shit this country is. Whilst a lot of people voted Brexit because things are shit and they were being promised the moon on a stick, that means they think we just say WE ARE BRITAIN and the forrin do as they are told and we won two world wars and one world cup anyway.

    Its crap. Until the English let go of the empire, we will never be able to start healing ourselves because we can't accept that we are a fading former imperial power who are now being surpassed by countries like Poland. We would now be better going all in - the Euro, Schengen, the whole smash.
    I genuinely don't think Imperial hangups is the problem. I think the majority of people and politicians are content to be a mid tier power, and blaming it on nostalgia for a golden age (if not the actual elements from that time, then the power and prestige) misses that a lot of people in this country don't seem to want to take on that kind of global power role, they just want things to be 'better' in unspecific ways. I also don't think there is an inherent problem in wanting to do things differently and go our own way, any country can make that choice, and they can believe it will make things better and face the consequences if wrong.

    I do think we are caught in a malaise where we are afraid to tackle various problems, or just give up as they are too baked in or perceived as too big to solve, but I really don't see the connection to 'letting go of Empire' in that respect - which is restricted, in its open style as you've described, to really really old people and weirdo fantasists who at best get winked at by would be populists, rather than being mainstream. I don't see it driving things. I think exceptionalism is overplayed, but may be more at play, but that's not quite the same thing as bringing Empire into it.

    I think the country is tired, its bogged down, it is a bit confused about what it wants to be, but due to confusion about no longer being a world level power - and we're still a bigger power than many, just not as many as we used to be by any means - I think the country gets that. We just aren't sure of what to do with that position now, which again is not the same thing as not having let go of the change in tier level.

    It is also the case that rejoining the EU is seen as a solution to various issues. By magic. Bit like Kings Evil

    The housing crisis will continue until someone builds some houses. It is quite clear that just as many Remainers are firmly in the No Development camp as Back To The Past Leavers.

    The productivity issue will not change in or out - until we prioritise investment.

    The long running problems in this country are due to the political and social resistance to the answers.

    Just for comedy - take my idea of reinforced fines for employing undocumented workers , a whistleblowers fee and indefinite leave to remain for the whistleblower. Try it out on an elected politician. The horrified answers you will receive say much.
  • Options
    ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 2,953
    rcs1000 said:

    The biggest impediment to British economic success is that we seem to see everything in terms of our relationship with the EU, rather than in making the necessary reforms at home.

    I'm not sure it's specifically the EU. It's just we lack the 'hutzpah' to make any changes and point at THE THING for our failings. If it wasn't the EU, it's be... Ireland? Iceland? Asia? Whatever.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,460
    edited August 2023

    This was the one that Alastair Meeks was seriously considering.

    He described it as a 'conscious uncoupling' from the EU via the EEC.

    It is the one I was pushing for and wrote articles in support of both before and after the vote.

    My personal view is that what we have now is better than EU membership but worse than EEA membership (or something like it). I am still of the view that we will eventually move back to an EEA style relationship but that we will never rejoin the EU as a full member. The longer we are out the more that becomes the case as the EU moves further and further from just a trading bloc

    But if it was a in (an EU even more further up a mythical state jacksie from just a trading bloc we left) or stay out referendum, can we be sure what the UK electorate of 2037 would actually vote? The actual campaign of 2037 would just be bamboozling ******s - in means prevent world war 3 and we all get better off - no help to voters.

    How many voters in area’s run down in 2016 and still run down and even poorer in 2037 will it take to think they have absolutely nothing to lose voting in, to create a narrow 52/48 in win?

    The simple solution is not to ask them. People are generally ignorant of how things work, and keep being broadcast what amazing new trade benefits are coming thanks to Brexit. The Express today ran a story about someone catching a Tuna and selling it for £2k as a Brexit benefit.

    People want trade deals. So give them trade deals. And the quickest way to get the best trade deals is rejoin the EEA. But politically that is difficult, so we will do a bilateral deal not to join but to extend the EEA trade deals into GB.

    Just to clarify, you are saying don’t hold in/out EU referendums to decide this as voters are too ignorant to how things work?

    Just put your intentions clearly in your General Election manifesto’s instead?

    Who said anything about the EU?

    I said that we should formalise our current alignment with the EEA so that we can benefit from their existing trade deals. The Trussbot signed continuation deals for a few of them, so on those we are already aligned.

    I would rejoin and go all in. That won't happen. So that isn't what I am talking about now. Its what PM Starmer may do to chase down his pledges. Not rejoin. Not

    Just found it

    Lab 44 per cent (no change) compared with the Tories’ 29 per cent (up two points), a 15-point lead.

    Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats slid back to 10 per cent, down from 14 per cent last month.

    The monthly BMG for the “i” metronomicaly has Tories 27-29 Percent, higher than what poll average is for cons, regularly find more cons than many other pollsters Opinium, YouGov, Ipsos. But they are still saying Penny Mourdant will lose.

    General Elections so often throw out a leadership hopeful, Portillo went on a 17% swing, the same as it will take to remove Penny. As soon as Portillo heard the exit poll swing he knew he had lost his seat.

    Mourdant is surely vulnerable to a LLG effort to get her out? She’ll fear the worst on these reported national swings?

    Is this a bet to get on today?
    I have been invited to a Stockton South Labour dinner in a few weeks, before the CLP is abolished. Will be fun to see what the mood is with the activists. They definitely should vote Labour to get a Labour government. People like me if we vote Labour will be voting for a Tory government.

    A few of them get it - absolutism means Tory government. Will be fun to see if more of them now understand this...

    Manual Block Quote.

    MoonRabbit bit >

    “absolutism means Tory government”

    Philosophically it doesn’t. Absolutism timed with a Truss Debacle can be absolutism winning an election.

    Swiftly followed by an Absolutism Debacle.
  • Options

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Prepare for a haunting from Tony Benn. 👻
    If we had had a vote on the Constitution, then it would have lost quite heavily. This would have created short term issues for Blair but would have acted as an escape valve (some people voted leave as they felt it was our only chance). It would also have made the EU less complacent.
  • Options
    ohnotnow said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The biggest impediment to British economic success is that we seem to see everything in terms of our relationship with the EU, rather than in making the necessary reforms at home.

    I'm not sure it's specifically the EU. It's just we lack the 'hutzpah' to make any changes and point at THE THING for our failings. If it wasn't the EU, it's be... Ireland? Iceland? Asia? Whatever.
    The baffling thing which may or may not be the Big Thing is that we've stopped investing. We don't think about the long term, we just want to profit now and sell it off.

    Our crumbling services and infrastructure, our terrible productivity, our ludicrous pooling of money with a select few - it all relates back to our lack of an industrial strategy.

    Sure, we had a decade of godawful industrial leadership mirrored by communist union leaders trying to destroy what we still had. But then we opted to scrap industry and largely just do services. Which are transient and able to move elsewhere on the globe.

    If we start investing then we have to build houses and hospitals and motorways and fibre broadband and power networks. The one thing forces the fix on the others.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,273
    edited August 2023
    Nad was a "pretty useless culture sec who finally created her own theatre of the absurd" - Bob Neil. MP.
    (Express)


    Blue on blue.

  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,460

    “Flexcit” was the only Brexit that ever made sense.
    Move over time from EEA toward something else.

    It had the “disadvantage” that it was a soft Brexit (in the old sense, ie it retained single market access), and that it didn’t have a clear timetable on it, thus open to criticism that was vulnerable to politically-driven stasis.

    This was the one that Alastair Meeks was seriously considering.

    He described it as a 'conscious uncoupling' from the EU via the EEC.
    It is the one I was pushing for and wrote articles in support of both before and after the vote.

    My personal view is that what we have now is better than EU membership but worse than EEA membership (or something like it). I am still of the view that we will eventually move back to an EEA style relationship but that we will never rejoin the EU as a full member. The longer we are out the more that becomes the case as the EU moves further and further from just a trading bloc
    But if it was a in (an EU even more further up a mythical state jacksie from just a trading bloc we left) or stay out referendum, can we be sure what the UK electorate of 2037 would actually vote? The actual campaign of 2037 would just be bamboozling ******s - in means prevent world war 3 and we all get better off - no help to voters.

    How many voters in area’s run down in 2016 and still run down and even poorer in 2037 will it take to think they have absolutely nothing to lose voting in, to create a narrow 52/48 in win?
    The simple solution is not to ask them. People are generally ignorant of how things work, and keep being broadcast what amazing new trade benefits are coming thanks to Brexit. The Express today ran a story about someone catching a Tuna and selling it for £2k as a Brexit benefit.

    People want trade deals. So give them trade deals. And the quickest way to get the best trade deals is rejoin the EEA. But politically that is difficult, so we will do a bilateral deal not to join but to extend the EEA trade deals into GB.
    Just to clarify, you are saying don’t hold in/out EU referendums to decide this as voters are too ignorant to how things work?

    Just put your intentions clearly in your General Election manifesto’s instead?
    Who said anything about the EU?

    I said that we should formalise our current alignment with the EEA so that we can benefit from their existing trade deals. The Trussbot signed continuation deals for a few of them, so on those we are already aligned.

    I would rejoin and go all in. That won't happen. So that isn't what I am talking about now. Its what PM Starmer may do to chase down his pledges. Not rejoin. Just realign to unlock all that bottled up economic growth we've killed.
    “i would rejoin and go all in”

    Just 7 years ago you voted to unjoin and go all out?

    Are you an impulsive type of personality?
    My perspective has changed. And what I would do isn't an option so its not something I am about to do, is it?
    You don’t have to decide right now, obviously, but do you have a firm mind on which pair of slippers to slip on tomorrow?

    And you have the freedom to change your mind by tomorrow.
  • Options

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Why I am a sadder and wiser engine is that I have realised the unspeakable truth - that we can't be trusted to recognise just how shit this country is. Whilst a lot of people voted Brexit because things are shit and they were being promised the moon on a stick, that means they think we just say WE ARE BRITAIN and the forrin do as they are told and we won two world wars and one world cup anyway.

    Its crap. Until the English let go of the empire, we will never be able to start healing ourselves because we can't accept that we are a fading former imperial power who are now being surpassed by countries like Poland. We would now be better going all in - the Euro, Schengen, the whole smash.
    I genuinely don't think Imperial hangups is the problem. I think the majority of people and politicians are content to be a mid tier power, and blaming it on nostalgia for a golden age (if not the actual elements from that time, then the power and prestige) misses that a lot of people in this country don't seem to want to take on that kind of global power role, they just want things to be 'better' in unspecific ways. I also don't think there is an inherent problem in wanting to do things differently and go our own way, any country can make that choice, and they can believe it will make things better and face the consequences if wrong.

    I do think we are caught in a malaise where we are afraid to tackle various problems, or just give up as they are too baked in or perceived as too big to solve, but I really don't see the connection to 'letting go of Empire' in that respect - which is restricted, in its open style as you've described, to really really old people and weirdo fantasists who at best get winked at by would be populists, rather than being mainstream. I don't see it driving things. I think exceptionalism is overplayed, but may be more at play, but that's not quite the same thing as bringing Empire into it.

    Edit: I think the country is tired, its bogged down, it is a bit confused about what it wants to be, but not due to confusion about no longer being a world level power - and we're still a bigger power than many, just not as many as we used to be by any means - I think the country gets that. We just aren't sure of what to do with that position now, which again is not the same thing as not having let go of the change in tier level.

    Thats basically my point. We're a global power, but so many other former global powers are better than us when it comes to infrastructure, social inclusion, education etc etc etc. We think we are better than them, but in reality for so many people its the other way round.

    We are confused as you say - we know things are broken. But we seem unable to point to what is broken and why. Which gives us no chance of fixing anything. At least the French know exactly their place in the world and what is important to them - and they riot when they don't get it. What do we do? Billions stolen, crapola social security and failing services, and we just sit and take it.
    I blame prosperity consciousness. One thing that annoys me intensely on the news is the constant use of the phrase "rich country". We are constantly told how rich we are. The reality is that we have a high standard of living with a massive pile of debt. We are like Lord Grantham in Downton and we all know what happened to the aristocracy after WW1
  • Options
    Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 2,512
    MoonRabbit - It's good to see you back. (I was worried that, being a rabbit, you might have decided to avoid Dr. Foxy. But as far as I know, he hasn't harmed any actual rabbits.)
  • Options
    SteveSSteveS Posts: 50

    ...

    ...

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Why I am a sadder and wiser engine is that I have realised the unspeakable truth - that we can't be trusted to recognise just how shit this country is. Whilst a lot of people voted Brexit because things are shit and they were being promised the moon on a stick, that means they think we just say WE ARE BRITAIN and the forrin do as they are told and we won two world wars and one world cup anyway.

    Its crap. Until the English let go of the empire, we will never be able to start healing ourselves because we can't accept that we are a fading former imperial power who are now being surpassed by countries like Poland. We would now be better going all in - the Euro, Schengen, the whole smash.
    Craven self-loathing provides no more of an accurate perspective of where we are than flag waving boosterism. We are a medium-sized nation with a number of natural advantages. There's no information-backed reason that we cannot do extremely well as an independent sovereign nation - just a feeling of 'waaaahhhh', typified by your post above.
    No information backed reason about from our current reality. But if you ignore that, sure. We're doing great.
    I didn't say we're doing great. I said there's no fact-based reason why we can't do great. We have a particularly pernicious and inadequate political and administrative class at the moment. That was the case when we were in the EU, and it's still the case now. Personally, I think it's taking a lot of hard work on several peoples' part to make us perform as badly as we are.
    Typifying my point:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/162nvq2/home_office_exasylum_boss_accused_of_being_chief/?rdt=64432

    Former Home Office Head of Asylum revolves into a job with Amnesty International, a pressure group seeking to overturn the Government's efforts to stop small boats.

    One source described Ms Haddad as “very difficult” and the “chief blocker” of ministers’ policies during her time at the Home Office. A Home Office source claimed that, during her time at the top of the department, the senior civil servant was “hostile” to the Government’s agenda on asylum, including a plan to move migrants out of taxpayer-funded hotel rooms and into large-scale accommodation.

    The Home Office source said that Ms Haddad also oversaw the introduction of “lenient” guidance in which asylum caseworkers were told they could not reject the testimony of a migrant caught lying.


    We don't just have an issue with incompetent timeservers, we have activists who feel it's their role to undermine Government policy if they don't like it. It seems hardly surprising under these circumstances that we haven't made more progress with disentanglement from the EU.
    I’d love to know who the Home Office source is. They could be right, or it could be that the civil servant is a convenient scapegoat for the source’s own incompetence. Who knows?

    But anyway, I thought Saj’s brother is a DG at the HO? So the leadership team is not entirely left leaning…

    S
  • Options
    MuesliMuesli Posts: 91
    kle4 said:

    Theresa May’s political judgement was terrible, both on her own benches and out across to the opposition.

    That's why she failed. There was a place to deliver a soft Brexit but it demanded strong political skills, which she didn't have.

    The situation probably called for a truly extraordinary political figure. Strong vision to drive things yet capable of flexibility given the divisiveness that had to be dealt with, charismatic enough to convince the party, parliament and public of things, and smart enough to see the most suitable path.

    She was not up to it. I'm not sure who might have been, but it's not like many were even putting themselves forward for the task.
    The alternative that presented itself, via the Tory leadership contest and Michael Gove’s hatchet job on Boris Johnson, was Old Ma Leadsom. An extraordinary political figure, yes, but probably not in the sense that you meant.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,460

    “Flexcit” was the only Brexit that ever made sense.
    Move over time from EEA toward something else.

    It had the “disadvantage” that it was a soft Brexit (in the old sense, ie it retained single market access), and that it didn’t have a clear timetable on it, thus open to criticism that was vulnerable to politically-driven stasis.

    This was the one that Alastair Meeks was seriously considering.

    He described it as a 'conscious uncoupling' from the EU via the EEC.
    It is the one I was pushing for and wrote articles in support of both before and after the vote.

    My personal view is that what we have now is better than EU membership but worse than EEA membership (or something like it). I am still of the view that we will eventually move back to an EEA style relationship but that we will never rejoin the EU as a full member. The longer we are out the more that becomes the case as the EU moves further and further from just a trading bloc
    But if it was a in (an EU even more further up a mythical state jacksie from just a trading bloc we left) or stay out referendum, can we be sure what the UK electorate of 2037 would actually vote? The actual campaign of 2037 would just be bamboozling ******s - in means prevent world war 3 and we all get better off - no help to voters.

    How many voters in area’s run down in 2016 and still run down and even poorer in 2037 will it take to think they have absolutely nothing to lose voting in, to create a narrow 52/48 in win?
    The simple solution is not to ask them. People are generally ignorant of how things work, and keep being broadcast what amazing new trade benefits are coming thanks to Brexit. The Express today ran a story about someone catching a Tuna and selling it for £2k as a Brexit benefit.

    People want trade deals. So give them trade deals. And the quickest way to get the best trade deals is rejoin the EEA. But politically that is difficult, so we will do a bilateral deal not to join but to extend the EEA trade deals into GB.
    Just to clarify, you are saying don’t hold in/out EU referendums to decide this as voters are too ignorant to how things work?

    Just put your intentions clearly in your General Election manifesto’s instead?
    Who said anything about the EU?

    I said that we should formalise our current alignment with the EEA so that we can benefit from their existing trade deals. The Trussbot signed continuation deals for a few of them, so on those we are already aligned.

    I would rejoin and go all in. That won't happen. So that isn't what I am talking about now. Its what PM Starmer may do to chase down his pledges. Not rejoin. Just realign to unlock all that bottled up economic growth we've killed.
    “i would rejoin and go all in”

    Just 7 years ago you voted to unjoin and go all out?

    Are you an impulsive type of personality?
    My perspective has changed. And what I would do isn't an option so its not something I am about to do, is it?
    You don’t have to decide right now, obviously, but do you have a firm mind on which pair of slippers to slip on tomorrow?

    And you have the freedom to change your mind by tomorrow.
    In a decade I have backed Ed "hell yeah" Milliband, backed Corbyn as a wild card, denounced Jezbollah, voted (thanks to a late pivot) to leave and then immediately regretted it, defected to the LibDems after 25 years, quit the LibDems and tried to rejoin Labour whilst having a full on mental health breakdown during Covid - before rejoining the LDs. And threatened resignation again having realised I likely couldn't vote LibDem in the GE to vote ABC.

    I am not the person you want to look at if looking for consistency. Politically we have been through a maelstrom, and I have been swept around as so many people have. I'd rather confess and say "I changed my mind" or "I got it wrong" than cling to a dogmatic position regardless or sanity or morality.
    I suggest a pair of flip flops tomorrow, covers all your bases, indoors and outdoors.
  • Options
    MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,460

    This was the one that Alastair Meeks was seriously considering.

    He described it as a 'conscious uncoupling' from the EU via the EEC.

    It is the one I was pushing for and wrote articles in support of both before and after the vote.

    My personal view is that what we have now is better than EU membership but worse than EEA membership (or something like it). I am still of the view that we will eventually move back to an EEA style relationship but that we will never rejoin the EU as a full member. The longer we are out the more that becomes the case as the EU moves further and further from just a trading bloc
    But if it was a in (an EU even more further up a mythical state jacksie from just a trading bloc we left) or stay out referendum, can we be sure what the UK electorate of 2037 would actually vote? The actual campaign of 2037 would just be bamboozling ******s - in means prevent world war 3 and we all get better off - no help to voters.

    How many voters in area’s run down in 2016 and still run down and even poorer in 2037 will it take to think they have absolutely nothing to lose voting in, to create a narrow 52/48 in win?

    The simple solution is not to ask them. People are generally ignorant of how things work, and keep being broadcast what amazing new trade benefits are coming thanks to Brexit. The Express today ran a story about someone catching a Tuna and selling it for £2k as a Brexit benefit.

    People want trade deals. So give them trade deals. And the quickest way to get the best trade deals is rejoin the EEA. But politically that is difficult, so we will do a bilateral deal not to join but to extend the EEA trade deals into GB.

    Just to clarify, you are saying don’t hold in/out EU referendums to decide this as voters are too ignorant to how things work?

    Just put your intentions clearly in your General Election manifesto’s instead?

    Who said anything about the EU?

    I said that we should formalise our current alignment with the EEA so that we can benefit from their existing trade deals. The Trussbot signed continuation deals for a few of them, so on those we are already aligned.

    I would rejoin and go all in. That won't happen. So that isn't what I am talking about now. Its what PM Starmer may do to chase down his pledges. Not rejoin. Not

    Just found it

    Lab 44 per cent (no change) compared with the Tories’ 29 per cent (up two points), a 15-point lead.

    Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats slid back to 10 per cent, down from 14 per cent last month.

    The monthly BMG for the “i” metronomicaly has Tories 27-29 Percent, higher than what poll average is for cons, regularly find more cons than many other pollsters Opinium, YouGov, Ipsos. But they are still saying Penny Mourdant will lose.

    General Elections so often throw out a leadership hopeful, Portillo went on a 17% swing, the same as it will take to remove Penny. As soon as Portillo heard the exit poll swing he knew he had lost his seat.

    Mourdant is surely vulnerable to a LLG effort to get her out? She’ll fear the worst on these reported national swings?

    Is this a bet to get on today?
    I have been invited to a Stockton South Labour dinner in a few weeks, before the CLP is abolished. Will be fun to see what the mood is with the activists. They definitely should vote Labour to get a Labour government. People like me if we vote Labour will be voting for a Tory government.

    A few of them get it - absolutism means Tory government. Will be fun to see if more of them now understand this...

    Manual Block Quote.

    MoonRabbit bit >

    “absolutism means Tory government”

    Philosophically it doesn’t. Absolutism timed with a Truss Debacle can be absolutism winning an election.

    Swiftly followed by an Absolutism Debacle.

    Looks like it was me who killed this block quoting sequence, putting all the right words in all the wrong mouths and vice versa.

    See - told you I’m dangerous on social media.
  • Options

    “Flexcit” was the only Brexit that ever made sense.
    Move over time from EEA toward something else.

    It had the “disadvantage” that it was a soft Brexit (in the old sense, ie it retained single market access), and that it didn’t have a clear timetable on it, thus open to criticism that was vulnerable to politically-driven stasis.

    This was the one that Alastair Meeks was seriously considering.

    He described it as a 'conscious uncoupling' from the EU via the EEC.
    It is the one I was pushing for and wrote articles in support of both before and after the vote.

    My personal view is that what we have now is better than EU membership but worse than EEA membership (or something like it). I am still of the view that we will eventually move back to an EEA style relationship but that we will never rejoin the EU as a full member. The longer we are out the more that becomes the case as the EU moves further and further from just a trading bloc
    But if it was a in (an EU even more further up a mythical state jacksie from just a trading bloc we left) or stay out referendum, can we be sure what the UK electorate of 2037 would actually vote? The actual campaign of 2037 would just be bamboozling ******s - in means prevent world war 3 and we all get better off - no help to voters.

    How many voters in area’s run down in 2016 and still run down and even poorer in 2037 will it take to think they have absolutely nothing to lose voting in, to create a narrow 52/48 in win?
    The simple solution is not to ask them. People are generally ignorant of how things work, and keep being broadcast what amazing new trade benefits are coming thanks to Brexit. The Express today ran a story about someone catching a Tuna and selling it for £2k as a Brexit benefit.

    People want trade deals. So give them trade deals. And the quickest way to get the best trade deals is rejoin the EEA. But politically that is difficult, so we will do a bilateral deal not to join but to extend the EEA trade deals into GB.
    Just to clarify, you are saying don’t hold in/out EU referendums to decide this as voters are too ignorant to how things work?

    Just put your intentions clearly in your General Election manifesto’s instead?
    Who said anything about the EU?

    I said that we should formalise our current alignment with the EEA so that we can benefit from their existing trade deals. The Trussbot signed continuation deals for a few of them, so on those we are already aligned.

    I would rejoin and go all in. That won't happen. So that isn't what I am talking about now. Its what PM Starmer may do to chase down his pledges. Not rejoin. Just realign to unlock all that bottled up economic growth we've killed.
    “i would rejoin and go all in”

    Just 7 years ago you voted to unjoin and go all out?

    Are you an impulsive type of personality?
    My perspective has changed. And what I would do isn't an option so its not something I am about to do, is it?
    You don’t have to decide right now, obviously, but do you have a firm mind on which pair of slippers to slip on tomorrow?

    And you have the freedom to change your mind by tomorrow.
    In a decade I have backed Ed "hell yeah" Milliband, backed Corbyn as a wild card, denounced Jezbollah, voted (thanks to a late pivot) to leave and then immediately regretted it, defected to the LibDems after 25 years, quit the LibDems and tried to rejoin Labour whilst having a full on mental health breakdown during Covid - before rejoining the LDs. And threatened resignation again having realised I likely couldn't vote LibDem in the GE to vote ABC.

    I am not the person you want to look at if looking for consistency. Politically we have been through a maelstrom, and I have been swept around as so many people have. I'd rather confess and say "I changed my mind" or "I got it wrong" than cling to a dogmatic position regardless or sanity or morality.
    I suggest a pair of flip flops tomorrow, covers all your bases, indoors and outdoors.
    Meh. Political absolutism is stupid.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,499

    ohnotnow said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The biggest impediment to British economic success is that we seem to see everything in terms of our relationship with the EU, rather than in making the necessary reforms at home.

    I'm not sure it's specifically the EU. It's just we lack the 'hutzpah' to make any changes and point at THE THING for our failings. If it wasn't the EU, it's be... Ireland? Iceland? Asia? Whatever.
    The baffling thing which may or may not be the Big Thing is that we've stopped investing. We don't think about the long term, we just want to profit now and sell it off.

    Our crumbling services and infrastructure, our terrible productivity, our ludicrous pooling of money with a select few - it all relates back to our lack of an industrial strategy.

    Sure, we had a decade of godawful industrial leadership mirrored by communist union leaders trying to destroy what we still had. But then we opted to scrap industry and largely just do services. Which are transient and able to move elsewhere on the globe.

    If we start investing then we have to build houses and hospitals and motorways and fibre broadband and power networks. The one thing forces the fix on the others.
    Until you tackle the political issue of the resistance to each and every bit of investment, each and every bit of infrastructure. The myriads who will pop up to defend spending hundreds of millions on a planning application.

    During the coalition government, a certain MP made a speech decrying the lack of space technology in the U.K.

    The same MP successfully fought off an attempt to reuse one of the old 1960s sites for liquid engine testing.

    Until people learn to love this https://youtu.be/QMcj58TbsyU?si=_P50uC50An1dFnra

    You have nothing
  • Options
    SteveSSteveS Posts: 50

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Why I am a sadder and wiser engine is that I have realised the unspeakable truth - that we can't be trusted to recognise just how shit this country is. Whilst a lot of people voted Brexit because things are shit and they were being promised the moon on a stick, that means they think we just say WE ARE BRITAIN and the forrin do as they are told and we won two world wars and one world cup anyway.

    Its crap. Until the English let go of the empire, we will never be able to start healing ourselves because we can't accept that we are a fading former imperial power who are now being surpassed by countries like Poland. We would now be better going all in - the Euro, Schengen, the whole smash.
    If you see being surpassed by Poland as such an abject humilation (in fact they're catching up just as fast with France and Germany), then perhaps you are you the one who has an empire complex and misplaced sense of superiority towards the 'forrin'.

    First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
    I don't think we have the right to be bigger than anyone. And what is wrong with Poland? Its the little Englanders who think they are superior. In reality Poland and now Slovakia are threatening to overhaul us economically. We're nothing special.
    I think this is really interesting. Countries do have differences which mean they can out perform similar nations. I’d say ours are:
    - owning the English language - more than just being fluent
    - Energy. We’re not a Norway or an Iceland, but offshore wind has huge potential (oil and gas is running out]
    - Universities / research
    - Political stability (even still)
    - History / royal family (because tourists are money)
    - Immigration. Controversial I know, but if people are choosing to pass through france to come to the uk, then that is also an advantage (increased labour supply = lower wages)


    s
  • Options

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Why I am a sadder and wiser engine is that I have realised the unspeakable truth - that we can't be trusted to recognise just how shit this country is. Whilst a lot of people voted Brexit because things are shit and they were being promised the moon on a stick, that means they think we just say WE ARE BRITAIN and the forrin do as they are told and we won two world wars and one world cup anyway.

    Its crap. Until the English let go of the empire, we will never be able to start healing ourselves because we can't accept that we are a fading former imperial power who are now being surpassed by countries like Poland. We would now be better going all in - the Euro, Schengen, the whole smash.
    I genuinely don't think Imperial hangups is the problem. I think the majority of people and politicians are content to be a mid tier power, and blaming it on nostalgia for a golden age (if not the actual elements from that time, then the power and prestige) misses that a lot of people in this country don't seem to want to take on that kind of global power role, they just want things to be 'better' in unspecific ways. I also don't think there is an inherent problem in wanting to do things differently and go our own way, any country can make that choice, and they can believe it will make things better and face the consequences if wrong.

    I do think we are caught in a malaise where we are afraid to tackle various problems, or just give up as they are too baked in or perceived as too big to solve, but I really don't see the connection to 'letting go of Empire' in that respect - which is restricted, in its open style as you've described, to really really old people and weirdo fantasists who at best get winked at by would be populists, rather than being mainstream. I don't see it driving things. I think exceptionalism is overplayed, but may be more at play, but that's not quite the same thing as bringing Empire into it.

    I think the country is tired, its bogged down, it is a bit confused about what it wants to be, but due to confusion about no longer being a world level power - and we're still a bigger power than many, just not as many as we used to be by any means - I think the country gets that. We just aren't sure of what to do with that position now, which again is not the same thing as not having let go of the change in tier level.

    It is also the case that rejoining the EU is seen as a solution to various issues. By magic. Bit like Kings Evil

    The housing crisis will continue until someone builds some houses. It is quite clear that just as many Remainers are firmly in the No Development camp as Back To The Past Leavers.

    The productivity issue will not change in or out - until we prioritise investment.

    The long running problems in this country are due to the political and social resistance to the answers.

    Just for comedy - take my idea of reinforced fines for employing undocumented workers , a whistleblowers fee and indefinite leave to remain for the whistleblower. Try it out on an elected politician. The horrified answers you will receive say much.
    I agree with everything you've said - and your last point cannot be comedy because it's Swiss, and they are known to avoid comedy.

    I would also like to suggest increasing the penalty for people smuggling across the channel on the grounds of the danger to which migrants are exposed.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,893

    ohnotnow said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The biggest impediment to British economic success is that we seem to see everything in terms of our relationship with the EU, rather than in making the necessary reforms at home.

    I'm not sure it's specifically the EU. It's just we lack the 'hutzpah' to make any changes and point at THE THING for our failings. If it wasn't the EU, it's be... Ireland? Iceland? Asia? Whatever.
    The baffling thing which may or may not be the Big Thing is that we've stopped investing. We don't think about the long term, we just want to profit now and sell it off.

    Our crumbling services and infrastructure, our terrible productivity, our ludicrous pooling of money with a select few - it all relates back to our lack of an industrial strategy.

    Sure, we had a decade of godawful industrial leadership mirrored by communist union leaders trying to destroy what we still had. But then we opted to scrap industry and largely just do services. Which are transient and able to move elsewhere on the globe.

    If we start investing then we have to build houses and hospitals and motorways and fibre broadband and power networks. The one thing forces the fix on the others.
    Until you tackle the political issue of the resistance to each and every bit of investment, each and every bit of infrastructure. The myriads who will pop up to defend spending hundreds of millions on a planning application.

    During the coalition government, a certain MP made a speech decrying the lack of space technology in the U.K.

    The same MP successfully fought off an attempt to reuse one of the old 1960s sites for liquid engine testing.

    Until people learn to love this https://youtu.be/QMcj58TbsyU?si=_P50uC50An1dFnra

    You have nothing
    Saxavord, surely?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SaxaVord_Spaceport
  • Options
    SteveS said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Why I am a sadder and wiser engine is that I have realised the unspeakable truth - that we can't be trusted to recognise just how shit this country is. Whilst a lot of people voted Brexit because things are shit and they were being promised the moon on a stick, that means they think we just say WE ARE BRITAIN and the forrin do as they are told and we won two world wars and one world cup anyway.

    Its crap. Until the English let go of the empire, we will never be able to start healing ourselves because we can't accept that we are a fading former imperial power who are now being surpassed by countries like Poland. We would now be better going all in - the Euro, Schengen, the whole smash.
    If you see being surpassed by Poland as such an abject humilation (in fact they're catching up just as fast with France and Germany), then perhaps you are you the one who has an empire complex and misplaced sense of superiority towards the 'forrin'.

    First cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
    I don't think we have the right to be bigger than anyone. And what is wrong with Poland? Its the little Englanders who think they are superior. In reality Poland and now Slovakia are threatening to overhaul us economically. We're nothing special.
    I think this is really interesting. Countries do have differences which mean they can out perform similar nations. I’d say ours are:
    - owning the English language - more than just being fluent
    - Energy. We’re not a Norway or an Iceland, but offshore wind has huge potential (oil and gas is running out]
    - Universities / research
    - Political stability (even still)
    - History / royal family (because tourists are money)
    - Immigration. Controversial I know, but if people are choosing to pass through france to come to the uk, then that is also an advantage (increased labour supply = lower wages)


    s
    We have huge advantages. And yet we are in such a poorer position than we could be. Nothing cannot be fixed. I just do not see the political will in Sir Keith Donkey's incoming government. They will be less corrupt and less mendacious than the Tories - huge benefits - but won't even recognise the problems never mind propose solutions.

    So we will slide further backwards compared to other neighbouring countries.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,893
    edited August 2023

    Nad was a "pretty useless culture sec who finally created her own theatre of the absurd" - Bob Neil. MP. (Express).

    Blue on blue.

    It's not a bad line. If he'd omitted the first five words it would have been better, but there y'go
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,096
    SteveS said:

    - Immigration. Controversial I know, but if people are choosing to pass through france to come to the uk, then that is also an advantage (increased labour supply = lower wages)

    We've seen the "increased labour supply = lower wages" phenomenon in action over the last 25 years. Does the country feel more prosperous because of it?
  • Options

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Why I am a sadder and wiser engine is that I have realised the unspeakable truth - that we can't be trusted to recognise just how shit this country is. Whilst a lot of people voted Brexit because things are shit and they were being promised the moon on a stick, that means they think we just say WE ARE BRITAIN and the forrin do as they are told and we won two world wars and one world cup anyway.

    Its crap. Until the English let go of the empire, we will never be able to start healing ourselves because we can't accept that we are a fading former imperial power who are now being surpassed by countries like Poland. We would now be better going all in - the Euro, Schengen, the whole smash.
    I genuinely don't think Imperial hangups is the problem. I think the majority of people and politicians are content to be a mid tier power, and blaming it on nostalgia for a golden age (if not the actual elements from that time, then the power and prestige) misses that a lot of people in this country don't seem to want to take on that kind of global power role, they just want things to be 'better' in unspecific ways. I also don't think there is an inherent problem in wanting to do things differently and go our own way, any country can make that choice, and they can believe it will make things better and face the consequences if wrong.

    I do think we are caught in a malaise where we are afraid to tackle various problems, or just give up as they are too baked in or perceived as too big to solve, but I really don't see the connection to 'letting go of Empire' in that respect - which is restricted, in its open style as you've described, to really really old people and weirdo fantasists who at best get winked at by would be populists, rather than being mainstream. I don't see it driving things. I think exceptionalism is overplayed, but may be more at play, but that's not quite the same thing as bringing Empire into it.

    Edit: I think the country is tired, its bogged down, it is a bit confused about what it wants to be, but not due to confusion about no longer being a world level power - and we're still a bigger power than many, just not as many as we used to be by any means - I think the country gets that. We just aren't sure of what to do with that position now, which again is not the same thing as not having let go of the change in tier level.

    Thats basically my point. We're a global power, but so many other former global powers are better than us when it comes to infrastructure, social inclusion, education etc etc etc. We think we are better than them, but in reality for so many people its the other way round.

    We are confused as you say - we know things are broken. But we seem unable to point to what is broken and why. Which gives us no chance of fixing anything. At least the French know exactly their place in the world and what is important to them - and they riot when they don't get it. What do we do? Billions stolen, crapola social security and failing services, and we just sit and take it.
    I blame prosperity consciousness. One thing that annoys me intensely on the news is the constant use of the phrase "rich country". We are constantly told how rich we are. The reality is that we have a high standard of living with a massive pile of debt. We are like Lord Grantham in Downton and we all know what happened to the aristocracy after WW1
    Doesn't that also apply to most of the G7 or even G20 countries? Indeed as a percentage of GDP our debt is the second lowest (or if you prefer 5th highest) of the G7 with only Germany having a lower debt to GDP ratio.
  • Options

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Brexit is totally labours fault. If the brown/blair labour party had given us a vote on lisbon as promised there would not have been a brexit referendum. Anyone suggesting it wasn't labours fault is stupid

    No it was the fault of the people who voted for it. None of that passive-aggressive bullshit. Let Leave voters have agency.
    I agree. I voted Leave, which I now regard as a mistake, and that's on me.
    Same here.
    Make that 3 of us and like you two now know it was a mistake
    Why I am a sadder and wiser engine is that I have realised the unspeakable truth - that we can't be trusted to recognise just how shit this country is. Whilst a lot of people voted Brexit because things are shit and they were being promised the moon on a stick, that means they think we just say WE ARE BRITAIN and the forrin do as they are told and we won two world wars and one world cup anyway.

    Its crap. Until the English let go of the empire, we will never be able to start healing ourselves because we can't accept that we are a fading former imperial power who are now being surpassed by countries like Poland. We would now be better going all in - the Euro, Schengen, the whole smash.
    I genuinely don't think Imperial hangups is the problem. I think the majority of people and politicians are content to be a mid tier power, and blaming it on nostalgia for a golden age (if not the actual elements from that time, then the power and prestige) misses that a lot of people in this country don't seem to want to take on that kind of global power role, they just want things to be 'better' in unspecific ways. I also don't think there is an inherent problem in wanting to do things differently and go our own way, any country can make that choice, and they can believe it will make things better and face the consequences if wrong.

    I do think we are caught in a malaise where we are afraid to tackle various problems, or just give up as they are too baked in or perceived as too big to solve, but I really don't see the connection to 'letting go of Empire' in that respect - which is restricted, in its open style as you've described, to really really old people and weirdo fantasists who at best get winked at by would be populists, rather than being mainstream. I don't see it driving things. I think exceptionalism is overplayed, but may be more at play, but that's not quite the same thing as bringing Empire into it.

    I think the country is tired, its bogged down, it is a bit confused about what it wants to be, but due to confusion about no longer being a world level power - and we're still a bigger power than many, just not as many as we used to be by any means - I think the country gets that. We just aren't sure of what to do with that position now, which again is not the same thing as not having let go of the change in tier level.

    It is also the case that rejoining the EU is seen as a solution to various issues. By magic. Bit like Kings Evil

    The housing crisis will continue until someone builds some houses. It is quite clear that just as many Remainers are firmly in the No Development camp as Back To The Past Leavers.

    The productivity issue will not change in or out - until we prioritise investment.

    The long running problems in this country are due to the political and social resistance to the answers.

    Just for comedy - take my idea of reinforced fines for employing undocumented workers , a whistleblowers fee and indefinite leave to remain for the whistleblower. Try it out on an elected politician. The horrified answers you will receive say much.
    I agree with everything you've said - and your last point cannot be comedy because it's Swiss, and they are known to avoid comedy.

    I would also like to suggest increasing the penalty for people smuggling across the channel on the grounds of the danger to which migrants are exposed.
    The current guidelines have penalties of up to 14 years for "ill treatment, abandonment, neglect, and failure to protect" children. I don't think it would be too extreme to charge people smugglers on that basis.

    Of course what would really help would be to allow safer legal means of access to the country whilst at the same time being tougher with those facilitating illegal migration. But the political will is not there for that. Politicians are happy to claim they are dealing with the illegal part but unwilling to accept there needs to be movement on the legal part. And until they do that the problem will persist. It is basic human nature.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,753
    rcs1000 said:

    The biggest impediment to British economic success is that we seem to see everything in terms of our relationship with the EU, rather than in making the necessary reforms at home.

    Yes. Being members of the EU didn't remove the necessity of the UK tackling its many problems. Being out of the EU doesn't prevent the UK from tackling those same problems.

    Nevertheless Brexit was a mistake. Given we actually voted for the wretched thing, it is an infuriatingly stupid mistake.
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,758

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66634187

    Labour rules out wealth tax if party wins next election

    SKS being too timid again?
  • Options
    FF43 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The biggest impediment to British economic success is that we seem to see everything in terms of our relationship with the EU, rather than in making the necessary reforms at home.

    Yes. Being members of the EU didn't remove the necessity of the UK tackling its many problems. Being out of the EU doesn't prevent the UK from tackling those same problems.

    Nevertheless Brexit was a mistake. Given we actually voted for the wretched thing, it is an infuriatingly stupid mistake.
    If it makes no difference to our ability to deal with the fundemental problems of the economy but does make a difference in terms of democratic accountability then I fail to see how it was a mistake, stupid or otherwise.
  • Options
    SteveSSteveS Posts: 50

    SteveS said:

    - Immigration. Controversial I know, but if people are choosing to pass through france to come to the uk, then that is also an advantage (increased labour supply = lower wages)

    We've seen the "increased labour supply = lower wages" phenomenon in action over the last 25 years. Does the country feel more prosperous because of it?
    Interesting question. I think definite increase in productivity (ask the NHS or P&O re cheaper wages). But prosperity perhaps doesn’t always equal productivity. Will have a think…

    S
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,893

    SteveS said:

    - Immigration. Controversial I know, but if people are choosing to pass through france to come to the uk, then that is also an advantage (increased labour supply = lower wages)

    We've seen the "increased labour supply = lower wages" phenomenon in action over the last 25 years. Does the country feel more prosperous because of it?
    It does not.

    Let me remind you that importing up to a million people per year to deliberately suppress wages is currently the policy of the Government of the United Kingdom. And that the Loyal Opposition has no plans to alter this policy and may in fact increase it.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,273
    Angela watches studiously on in her new glasses as Sir K asks a tory switch voter whether they feel better off now than when this gov came in 13 years ago.

    Ge campaign in a nutshell.

    https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1695836322047365613
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 15,753

    FF43 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    The biggest impediment to British economic success is that we seem to see everything in terms of our relationship with the EU, rather than in making the necessary reforms at home.

    Yes. Being members of the EU didn't remove the necessity of the UK tackling its many problems. Being out of the EU doesn't prevent the UK from tackling those same problems.

    Nevertheless Brexit was a mistake. Given we actually voted for the wretched thing, it is an infuriatingly stupid mistake.
    If it makes no difference to our ability to deal with the fundemental problems of the economy but does make a difference in terms of democratic accountability then I fail to see how it was a mistake, stupid or otherwise.
    I chose my words carefully. Brexit has created new problems and made existing problems more difficult to solve, while essentially not solving any problems at all. That is a quite remarkable outcome for something we voted for. You should expect at least net neutral, ideally net positive.

    And if you are going to bring up democratic accountability, I'll suggest EU peace in Europe. Why not? It's no less abstract.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,273
    Oliver Kamm
    @OliverKamm
    ·
    5h
    This should not go unnoticed. The London mayoral candidate for Farage’s party goes on a conspiracist channel to assert an absolutely bogus and seditious conspiracy theory.

    https://twitter.com/OliverKamm/status/1695837739202044174
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,273
    Andy_JS said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66634187

    Labour rules out wealth tax if party wins next election

    SKS being too timid again?
    Reeves is far too cautious.

    She will rue the day she made this promise.

    The tax system is a mess and has all sorts of unjustifiable stuff. Why to take one of her examples is CGT not same as tax on alarm clock people who actually get up and got to work rather than sit on an asset?

    As I posted earlier she has just booster Green vote and that may be in some very tight marginals.

    Mistake imho.

    They are starting to appear like people who do not believe in themselves. This could cost Labour.

    Sunak's best day in ages frankly.



  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,266
    Good spot, but If that was Starmer he would be about Mike Read's age, which is 76. So a nice try but no (Jimmy Savile) cigar!
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 117,075
    edited August 2023
    Andy_JS said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66634187

    Labour rules out wealth tax if party wins next election

    SKS being too timid again?
    Apart from removing tax relief on private schools what exactly would a Starmer government do any differently from the current Sunak government?
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,273
    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66634187

    Labour rules out wealth tax if party wins next election

    SKS being too timid again?
    Apart from removing tax relief on private schools what exactly would a Starmer government do any differently from the current Sunak government?
    Something about non doms tax and...erm...

    that's it.

  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,273
    Why has Reeves given such an important, manifesto-defining interview on an august bank holiday weekend?

    Jeez.



  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,273
    Sandpit said:

    Well that was a rather epic trip, now back home in the sandpit approaching 3am! Back to the office in the morning ✈️ 🚆 🚙

    You'll always have Krakow.

  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,074

    Andy_JS said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66634187

    Labour rules out wealth tax if party wins next election

    SKS being too timid again?
    Reeves is far too cautious.

    She will rue the day she made this promise.

    The tax system is a mess and has all sorts of unjustifiable stuff. Why to take one of her examples is CGT not same as tax on alarm clock people who actually get up and got to work rather than sit on an asset?

    As I posted earlier she has just booster Green vote and that may be in some very tight marginals.

    Mistake imho.

    They are starting to appear like people who do not believe in themselves. This could cost Labour.

    Sunak's best day in ages frankly.




    The argument on CGT is to incentivise investment - investment creates jobs which support incomes. It also comes with considerable risks. Increasing the after tax proceeds make it more attractive
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,273

    Andy_JS said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66634187

    Labour rules out wealth tax if party wins next election

    SKS being too timid again?
    Reeves is far too cautious.

    She will rue the day she made this promise.

    The tax system is a mess and has all sorts of unjustifiable stuff. Why to take one of her examples is CGT not same as tax on alarm clock people who actually get up and got to work rather than sit on an asset?

    As I posted earlier she has just booster Green vote and that may be in some very tight marginals.

    Mistake imho.

    They are starting to appear like people who do not believe in themselves. This could cost Labour.

    Sunak's best day in ages frankly.




    The argument on CGT is to incentivise investment - investment creates jobs which support incomes. It also comes with considerable risks. Increasing the after tax proceeds make it more attractive
    If that's the goal then change it. What % of it is on non-sole-residency property where there has been zero risk for decades?
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,074

    Andy_JS said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66634187

    Labour rules out wealth tax if party wins next election

    SKS being too timid again?
    Reeves is far too cautious.

    She will rue the day she made this promise.

    The tax system is a mess and has all sorts of unjustifiable stuff. Why to take one of her examples is CGT not same as tax on alarm clock people who actually get up and got to work rather than sit on an asset?

    As I posted earlier she has just booster Green vote and that may be in some very tight marginals.

    Mistake imho.

    They are starting to appear like people who do not believe in themselves. This could cost Labour.

    Sunak's best day in ages frankly.




    The argument on CGT is to incentivise investment - investment creates jobs which support incomes. It also comes with considerable risks. Increasing the after tax proceeds make it more attractive
    If that's the goal then change it. What % of it is on non-sole-residency property where there has been zero risk for decades?
    There hasn’t been zero risk for decades - there have been ups and downs. Moreover you are aftertiming - perhaps you could look back and say there was zero risk in buying Apple in its IPO because it’s been so successful since then?

    The distortions are part of the implications of zero interest rates.
  • Options
    EPGEPG Posts: 6,013
    Property is zero-risk? I can understand not remembering the early 1990s but to not remember the late 2000s is to ignore the defining event of modern Western economies.
  • Options
    .
    eristdoof said:

    .

    As for Labour thinkers. Tony Blair, he's back advising weekly, this will be a fourth term of Blairism.

    If I’d posted that I’d be called a moaning cybernat etc.
    Tony Blair is the best PM we’ve had since Thatcher by a country mile. The country has been going down ever since him and Brown left.
    It is under Tony Blair that house prices exploded and tuition fees were introduced.

    Tony Blair was one of the worst PMs ever for younger generations.
    House prices exploded under Thatcher 97-88
    Not remotely comparable to how they went under Blair. Not even close.

    And thankfully they came back down after the peak under Thatcher, so people in the 90s could afford to get house at barely over 2x income multiple rather than spending decades renting instead as most do today; we were never so fortunate after the rise under Blair to get a proper correction so the miserable disaster of high house prices has continued without respite post-Blair.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,862
    edited August 2023
    I agree that it is regrettable that Labour appear to be ruling out all forms of wealth tax, including a so-called mansion tax.

    But I’m not sure, politically, they have another option.

    The electorate is simply in denial about the fiscal situation, wealth inequality, and the way taxation discriminated against workers versus rentiers. They have no wish to be educated, and will eagerly punish anyone that tries to do so.

    Having said all that, I think Reeves should merely have committed to the same fiscal envelope that the Tories are promising, ie taxation as a % of GDP, and ruled out “new taxes”.
  • Options
    Thank you to everyone who has given me advice on changing my Laptop's fans, which had started sounding like an airplane taking off pretty much all the time. Just spent the last couple of hours completely stripping it apart and doing it.

    One of the old fans was still making a noise even after I'd completely removed it from the machine and just from spinning the fan, something clearly failed with that fan. As well the thermal paste on the main CPU and GPU were completely dried out.

    There was thermal paste on a bunch of other small things that remained tacky, but I cleaned it all off and applied all new.

    *Touch wood* since I have turned my machine on its remained almost completely silent. A very quiet noise currently that I can only hear because no TV or anything else on deliberately to listen out for noises. So far the CPU temperature is at 43 and the GPU is at 38 which is well below what they were at previously, but I haven't started trying to stress them yet.

    Really good to have it quiet again though. A relief after last few weeks.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,074

    I agree that it is regrettable that Labour appear to be ruling out all forms of wealth tax, including a so-called mansion tax.

    But I’m not sure, politically, they have another option.

    The electorate is simply in denial about the fiscal situation, wealth inequality, and the way taxation discriminated against workers versus rentiers. They have no wish to be educated, and will eagerly punish anyone that tries to do so.

    Having said all that, I think Reeves should merely have committed to the same fiscal envelope that the Tories are promising, ie taxation as a % of GDP, and ruled out “new taxes”.

    “No new taxes” sounds very familiar… perhaps we could read her lips?
  • Options

    I agree that it is regrettable that Labour appear to be ruling out all forms of wealth tax, including a so-called mansion tax.

    But I’m not sure, politically, they have another option.

    The electorate is simply in denial about the fiscal situation, wealth inequality, and the way taxation discriminated against workers versus rentiers. They have no wish to be educated, and will eagerly punish anyone that tries to do so.

    Having said all that, I think Reeves should merely have committed to the same fiscal envelope that the Tories are promising, ie taxation as a % of GDP, and ruled out “new taxes”.

    Manifestos are meaningless anyway. Commitments made now won't mean anything once elected.

    Blair said he wasn't going to introduce tuition fees, then immediately did. Clegg said he'd abolish them, then trebled them. Boris said he wasn't going to put up NI, then he did.

    Hell even less-time-than-lettuce Truss managed to break her promises, she said she wouldn't do an energy bail out then immediately did.

    Take with a huge grain of salt anything that Labour say now. They're saying what they think people want to hear, more than what they'll do.
  • Options
    nico679nico679 Posts: 4,875
    edited August 2023
    Labour seem obsessed with avoiding attacks from the Tories on taxes but are in danger of losing support from not just the left of the parties supporters .

    They seem to be chasing the votes of people who would never vote for them anyway .

    They’ve said they won’t borrow for day to day spending and ruled out any wealth taxes so where’s the money going to come from to fund their offer to voters .

    I’m getting seriously pissed off with Starmer and Reeves who seem to think this timid approach is risk free .

    I will be voting Lib Dem in my area to help remove the Tory MP as a Labour vote here is wasted . Ordinarily I’d vote Labour but it would currently be with zero enthusiasm.
  • Options
    GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 20,862
    nico679 said:

    Labour seem obsessed with avoiding attacks from the Tories on taxes but are in danger of losing support from not just the left of the parties supporters .

    They seem to be chasing the votes of people who would never vote for them anyway .

    They’ve said they won’t borrow for day to day spending and ruled out any wealth taxes so where’s the money going to come from to fund their offer to voters .

    I’m getting seriously pissed off with Starmer and Reeves who seem to think this timid approach is risk free .

    I will be voting Lib Dem in my area to help remove the Tory MP as a Labour vote here is wasted . Ordinarily I’d vote Labour but it would currently be with zero enthusiasm.

    It’s true that they are not really offering much in the way of hope.

    And the concrete policies we are aware of - on non-doms, private schools, and oil companies - are essentially populist tripe.
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,893
    A blast from the past: an East German news program from Oct 10, 1989, celebrating the 40th anniversary of the DDR. It collapsed the following year. An interesting, if worrying, insight into the times.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hgHrD00jas
  • Options
    viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,893
    nico679 said:

    Labour seem obsessed with avoiding attacks from the Tories on taxes but are in danger of losing support from not just the left of the parties supporters .

    They seem to be chasing the votes of people who would never vote for them anyway .

    They’ve said they won’t borrow for day to day spending and ruled out any wealth taxes so where’s the money going to come from to fund their offer to voters .

    I’m getting seriously pissed off with Starmer and Reeves who seem to think this timid approach is risk free .

    I will be voting Lib Dem in my area to help remove the Tory MP as a Labour vote here is wasted . Ordinarily I’d vote Labour but it would currently be with zero enthusiasm.

    It's not just a case of hiding what they're going to do, it's a case of they don't know what to do.

    Blairism took the precepts of neoliberalism and used them in a more humane (YMMV) fashion whilst accepting the underlying assumptions. But in 2022 neoliberalism has failed, or at least ceased to have its grip, and we are left with its problems - a refusal to raise tax, an indolent attitude to debt and a Government with learned helplessness.

    Worse, our ruling elites have accepted that importing millions to suppress wages is a sane plan. Adopting neo-feudalism/technofeudalism as a cure is worse than the disease.
  • Options
    WhisperingOracleWhisperingOracle Posts: 8,503
    edited August 2023
    viewcode said:

    nico679 said:

    Labour seem obsessed with avoiding attacks from the Tories on taxes but are in danger of losing support from not just the left of the parties supporters .

    They seem to be chasing the votes of people who would never vote for them anyway .

    They’ve said they won’t borrow for day to day spending and ruled out any wealth taxes so where’s the money going to come from to fund their offer to voters .

    I’m getting seriously pissed off with Starmer and Reeves who seem to think this timid approach is risk free .

    I will be voting Lib Dem in my area to help remove the Tory MP as a Labour vote here is wasted . Ordinarily I’d vote Labour but it would currently be with zero enthusiasm.

    It's not just a case of hiding what they're going to do, it's a case of they don't know what to do.

    Blairism took the precepts of neoliberalism and used them in a more humane (YMMV) fashion whilst accepting the underlying assumptions. But in 2022 neoliberalism has failed, or at least ceased to have its grip, and we are left with its problems - a refusal to raise tax, an indolent attitude to debt and a Government with learned helplessness.

    Worse, our ruling elites have accepted that importing millions to suppress wages is a sane plan. Adopting neo-feudalism/technofeudalism as a cure is worse than the disease.
    It is a concern, certainly. Starmer appears to be moving past a soft-left, Milibandish position, to a clearly Blairite one on the right of the party, that I have decreasing sympathy for.

    He's heading for a large msajority, but needs to be careful not to just recapitulate and reiterate some of the mistakes and over-simplifications of the Blair years. If he does, by the end of their first term, Labour may be in as deep a trouble as the Tories are now. A large majority, followed by large disappointment.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,241
    All aboard the skylark, all aboard the skylark

    NEW THREAD
This discussion has been closed.