Undefined discussion subject.

justin124 said:

The ultra Tory optimists on here might like to look at:
1. The % party vote shares at the 2001 election
2. The % party vote shares shown by the polls some 8 months later - ie February 2002
3. The % party vote shares at the following election in 2005.
How much better are the Tories really performing today compared with Labour in Feb 2002?

Yes but who won the 2005 election? Labour

NBC News Democratic nomination

Clinton 59% Sanders 34%
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/poll-clinton-holds-25-point-national-lead-over-sanders-n498071

General Election

Clinton 51% Trump 41%

Sanders 54% Trump 39%
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/poll-sanders-outperforms-clinton-matchup-against-trump-n498076

Fysics_Teacher said:

alex. said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

On topic a bit:
Does anybody else think that the word 'myth' in Margaret Beckett's point one is part of the problem Labour has: they are telling the electorate that they were wrong? It feels like the Tory approach under Hague and IDS and it didn't work then.

Edited for punctuation.

Perhaps just as importantly it continues to misrepresent the charge against them ie. not that they were responsible for the economic crash (although there is an argument that they were a contributor as it was partly a consequence of the lax regulatory regime that they set up), but that they placed us in a very bad position to withstand the economic crash once it happened. It is even possible to hold the latter view whilst giving them credit for their specific immediate actions at the time (I think many people feel that Alistair Darling was quite a good Chancellor even if Brown tried to take the mantle of "saving the world").

Good point. I can see why they try to change the accusation, but I'm not sure it will work.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think that they didn't cause the crash but they did put us in a bad position when it happened because Brown thought that 'it will be different this time'.

The bad position being what? Before the crash, Labour had been reducing government debt (or Tory debt, as the never knowingly unpartisan Gordon Brown called it) which was at a lower level than France or Germany.

The real problem had nothing to do with fixing roofs or deficit but that we'd become heavily dependent on tax revenue from the financial service industry.

RodCrosby said:

malcolmg said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RodCrosby said:

david_herdson said:

RodCrosby said:

It seems to me that unless Labour can either crush the SNP or change the voting system they are finished as a party of government for the foreseeable future.

What difference would changing the voting system make? Who would Labour ally with under PR? It may well only be FPTP that's holding Labour together.

Well, Yes, but changing the voting system would lead to re-alignment among all parties, and almost certainly rule out a majority for any single one. Whichever faction inherited the "Labour" trademark could conceivably find itself in coalition at some point.

Whereas, under FPTP, unless Labour find themselves an SNP-slayer, middle and southern England will remain solidly Tory.

Unless there's a sudden surge in attachment to Britishness north of the border, an SNP-slaying Labour would have to be in some sense 'standing up for Scotland'. Not sure how that will ever square with middle and southern England.

Be a massive change if Labour even thought about standing up for Scotland

Labour's best bet is to now come out wholeheartedly for independence, and hope Scotland gets it.

They could then give their undivided attention to (somehow) winning the 70-odd extra seats in England and Wales they would need to govern rUK, without having to face the annihilating question of "So what sort of coalition are you going to form with the SNP?"

I wonder if that's doable, internally, for Labour. Obviously its Scottish wing doesn't have quite the influence it once did ...

notme said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

alex. said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

On topic a bit:
Does anybody else think that the word 'myth' in Margaret Beckett's point one is part of the problem Labour has: they are telling the electorate that they were wrong? It feels like the Tory approach under Hague and IDS and it didn't work then.

Edited for punctuation.

Perhaps just as importantly it continues to misrepresent the charge against them ie. not that they were responsible for the economic crash (although there is an argument that they were a contributor as it was partly a consequence of the lax regulatory regime that they set up), but that they placed us in a very bad position to withstand the economic crash once it happened. It is even possible to hold the latter view whilst giving them credit for their specific immediate actions at the time (I think many people feel that Alistair Darling was quite a good Chancellor even if Brown tried to take the mantle of "saving the world").

Good point. I can see why they try to change the accusation, but I'm not sure it will work.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think that they didn't cause the crash but they did put us in a bad position when it happened because Brown thought that 'it will be different this time'.

The bad position being what? Before the crash, Labour had been reducing government debt (or Tory debt, as the never knowingly unpartisan Gordon Brown called it) which was at a lower level than France or Germany.

The real problem had nothing to do with fixing roofs or deficit but that we'd become heavily dependent on tax revenue from the financial service industry.

Labour hadnt ran a surplus since 2002, despite the economy firing on all cylinders, and taxes flowing in.

And that still means Labour has run more surpluses than Conservatives since the war. Whether running surpluses is a good thing is a separate question, of course.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

alex. said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

On topic a bit:
Does anybody else think that the word 'myth' in Margaret Beckett's point one is part of the problem Labour has: they are telling the electorate that they were wrong? It feels like the Tory approach under Hague and IDS and it didn't work then.

Edited for punctuation.

Perhaps just as importantly it continues to misrepresent the charge against them ie. not that they were responsible for the economic crash (although there is an argument that they were a contributor as it was partly a consequence of the lax regulatory regime that they set up), but that they placed us in a very bad position to withstand the economic crash once it happened. It is even possible to hold the latter view whilst giving them credit for their specific immediate actions at the time (I think many people feel that Alistair Darling was quite a good Chancellor even if Brown tried to take the mantle of "saving the world").

Good point. I can see why they try to change the accusation, but I'm not sure it will work.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think that they didn't cause the crash but they did put us in a bad position when it happened because Brown thought that 'it will be different this time'.

The bad position being what? Before the crash, Labour had been reducing government debt (or Tory debt, as the never knowingly unpartisan Gordon Brown called it) which was at a lower level than France or Germany.

The real problem had nothing to do with fixing roofs or deficit but that we'd become heavily dependent on tax revenue from the financial service industry.

Which put us in a bad position when the crash happened and that tax revenue disappeared...

alex. said:

However, the nature of Marr’s questioning of Corbyn was attacked by John Prescott, the Labour peer and former deputy prime minister, who said it was a “disgrace”.

Lord Prescott said: “Here’s someone who is leading the debate by putting housing, social justice and equality right at the heart of our politics. And how did Marr respond? By asking questions to get answers he hopes will be in tomorrow’s Daily Mail.

“Why did he ask about flying pickets and the Falkland Islands? Are these really the big issues of today? Forget Deutschland 83, today’s Corbyn interview was more Marr 82.”

John Prescott deliberately misses the obvious point that these things are only non-issues because of the previously presumed political consensus on them. If Corbyn is not part of that consensus, and indeed gives no indication of any intention of compromising with that consensus, then they legitimately return right to the top of the political agenda.

I mean you can't have the BBC asking awkward questions to a LABOUR Politician can you? Whatever happened to the good old days of Ed Miliband? (It probably caught him unawares expecting to be given half-volleys and delicate lobs to be smashed into cow-shot corner.)

kle4 said:

alex. said:

However, the nature of Marr’s questioning of Corbyn was attacked by John Prescott, the Labour peer and former deputy prime minister, who said it was a “disgrace”.

Lord Prescott said: “Here’s someone who is leading the debate by putting housing, social justice and equality right at the heart of our politics. And how did Marr respond? By asking questions to get answers he hopes will be in tomorrow’s Daily Mail.

“Why did he ask about flying pickets and the Falkland Islands? Are these really the big issues of today? Forget Deutschland 83, today’s Corbyn interview was more Marr 82.”

John Prescott deliberately misses the obvious point that these things are only non-issues because of the previously presumed political consensus on them. If Corbyn is not part of that consensus, and indeed gives no indication of any intention of compromising with that consensus, then they legitimately return right to the top of the political agenda.

He is also implicitly saying politicians should only be asked about things they want to talk about, given his clear upset Marr did not ask questions fitting into the narrative he would prefer about leading 'the debate' on housing etc.

How can Prescott lead the debate on housing? – He bulldozed 200.000 perfectly adequate properties as deputy leader and stiffed the tax payer with a bill for £2 billion for the privilege.

What damage will the next Labour Leader do to the Labour brand? Is there anything remaining?
Blair wrecked the foreign policy image of Labour.
Brown wrecked the economic image of Labour.
Ed Miliband wrecked the Business image of Labour.
Corbyn wrecked the national security image of Labour.

CornishBlue said:

flightpath01 said:

CornishBlue said:

richardDodd said:

Cornish Blue..Why don't we just apply to become another American state..stop all this EU nonsense

Or - and here's a radical thought - perhaps the world's 5th largest economy could be an independent, sovereign state, with its own nuclear deterrent and main security alliances being that of NATO membership and close working with the other 4 Anglo-Saxon nations (the US, Canada, Australia, NZ), together with free trade arrangements (which don't boil over into political union..) with whichever nations or blocs who fancy having one..?

Radical stuff. *rolls eyes*

I'm not sure where you get anglo saxon from.
The USA is a mass immigration country with I would guess a strictly limited anglo saxon content.
Canada is not that much different and has a large immigrant community, thats before you get to its French component.
Your suggestion of Australia NZ holds more water but Australia has a growing local immigrant population and is on the opposite side of the world with its own distinct outlook.
All are quite clearly English Speaking of course but all I would suggest have quite different cultures. Australia is a fine country but it does have a history of a distinct British antipathy. I do not want to start a new hare running and can only be brief, but its really a bit fanciful to think that these 4 otherwise fine but widely spread countries offer serious alternative trading and security alliances beyond the treaties we have with them already and which are shared with others.

Wow. Not sure where to begin tearing this to shreds. Perhaps I could start with how Anglo-Saxon is a term used to describe the culture of government, work ethic, economics, etc and not the genetic make-up of people.

Also suggest you and others look up Five Eyes or UKUSA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Eyes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement

et al...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement#See_also

How does America be 'anglo saxon' given all the scottish irish greek italian scandinavian african jewish make up of its population? And all the rest of the huddled masses?

I would suggest a term other than anglo saxon to describe the similarities between our countries. Clearly there are links. They used to be a colony of ours.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Corbyn has got almost no experience of hostile interviews and it shows. A more experienced politician would have deflected the questions. That is Corbyn's problem: he is an elderly novice.

That's part of his problem; however, the bigger part is that his beliefs are loony.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

What damage will the next Labour Leader do to the Labour brand? Is there anything remaining?
Blair wrecked the foreign policy image of Labour.
Brown wrecked the economic image of Labour.
Ed Miliband wrecked the Business image of Labour.
Corbyn wrecked the national security image of Labour.

Of course there is welfare left...

Al Jazeera reporting that the Italian embassy in Kabul has come under rocket attack.

One problem with 2020 is that Corbyn is shutting down potential attack lines. To take the most prominent example, if it weren't for the pointless row about Trident, Labour could attack the government's own defence cuts. Now it can't.

For those of us who missed the interview and should be writing Y9 reports so don't rally have time to see it on iPlayer could some one give a quick summary (or link to same) of what he said?

HYUFD said:

NBC News Democratic nomination

Clinton 59% Sanders 34%
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/poll-clinton-holds-25-point-national-lead-over-sanders-n498071

General Election

Clinton 51% Trump 41%

Sanders 54% Trump 39%
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/poll-sanders-outperforms-clinton-matchup-against-trump-n498076

Sanders is only 4/1 for the nomination and 8/1 for the White House. I don't see any value there (quite the opposite) but all the same, for someone like him to be single figures to win is extraordinary.

flightpath01 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RodCrosby said:

david_herdson said:

RodCrosby said:

It seems to me that unless Labour can either crush the SNP or change the voting system they are finished as a party of government for the foreseeable future.

What difference would changing the voting system make? Who would Labour ally with under PR? It may well only be FPTP that's holding Labour together.

Well, Yes, but changing the voting system would lead to re-alignment among all parties, and almost certainly rule out a majority for any single one. Whichever faction inherited the "Labour" trademark could conceivably find itself in coalition at some point.

Whereas, under FPTP, unless Labour find themselves an SNP-slayer, middle and southern England will remain solidly Tory.

Unless there's a sudden surge in attachment to Britishness north of the border, an SNP-slaying Labour would have to be in some sense 'standing up for Scotland'. Not sure how that will ever square with middle and southern England.

What should there be a problem about anybody standing up for Scotland? The whole SNP prospectus is a rambling pack of lies driven by ignorance and bigotry and a notion of thinking they can do well out of claiming North Sea oil for purely Scottish ends. That notion has been run into the ground.
A UK political party should and would claim to be standing up for all parts of the UK. This should be quite acceptable for all parts of the UK. This points to the SNP being an irrelevance when it comes to putting Scotland first. They cannot form a UK government.

Och, wheesht you auld buffoon.

ThreeQuidder said:

flightpath01 said:

Why should 'anglo saxon' outlook dictate our trade ties? We are part of NATO which is a much wider based organisation re defence. America is a very militarily strong nation and is indeed the backbone of the western alliance. But what has anglo saxon got to do with anything.

We are far closer culturally and legalistically to the rest of the Anglosphere than to the countries of continental Europe that we have spent centuries fighting.

The narcissism of small differences...

Wanderer said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

In the context of trying to work out what happened last year and what will happen in 2020 which of us is right doesn't really matter though, does it? It is what either side can convince those likely to vote. I still think telling them they got it wrong last time is a poor strategy.

In that one respect Corbyn does solve a problem for Labour. If he stays as leader no-one is going to be talking about this stuff in 2020. They'll be talking about the fact that he's nuts instead but, hey, progress.

He can certainly claim to have had nothing to do with the government from 1997 to 2010. Didn't he vote against them more times than Cameron, or was that a garbled statistic?

Fysics_Teacher said:

Wanderer said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

In the context of trying to work out what happened last year and what will happen in 2020 which of us is right doesn't really matter though, does it? It is what either side can convince those likely to vote. I still think telling them they got it wrong last time is a poor strategy.

In that one respect Corbyn does solve a problem for Labour. If he stays as leader no-one is going to be talking about this stuff in 2020. They'll be talking about the fact that he's nuts instead but, hey, progress.

He can certainly claim to have had nothing to do with the government from 1997 to 2010. Didn't he vote against them more times than Cameron, or was that a garbled statistic?

I think he's voted against the Labour whip more times than Cameron, if one imagines that Cameron were taking the Labour whip. However, he has been in Parliament since 1983, Cameron since 2001.

Richard_Nabavi said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Corbyn has got almost no experience of hostile interviews and it shows. A more experienced politician would have deflected the questions. That is Corbyn's problem: he is an elderly novice.

That's part of his problem; however, the bigger part is that his beliefs are loony.

But not to him.

Now many people might have views which are a bit 'niche' but they tend to be aware of that fact and learn to display their views accordingly.

Corbyn has been living in his own leftist bubble for pretty much ever.

He thinks the 'progressive majority' are really in the majority.

notme said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

alex. said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

On topic a bit:
Does anybody else think that the word 'myth' in Margaret Beckett's point one is part of the problem Labour has: they are telling the electorate that they were wrong? It feels like the Tory approach under Hague and IDS and it didn't work then.

Edited for punctuation.

Perhaps just as importantly it continues to misrepresent the charge against them ie. not that they were responsible for the economic crash (although there is an argument that they were a contributor as it was partly a consequence of the lax regulatory regime that they set up), but that they placed us in a very bad position to withstand the economic crash once it happened. It is even possible to hold the latter view whilst giving them credit for their specific immediate actions at the time (I think many people feel that Alistair Darling was quite a good Chancellor even if Brown tried to take the mantle of "saving the world").

Good point. I can see why they try to change the accusation, but I'm not sure it will work.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think that they didn't cause the crash but they did put us in a bad position when it happened because Brown thought that 'it will be different this time'.

The bad position being what? Before the crash, Labour had been reducing government debt (or Tory debt, as the never knowingly unpartisan Gordon Brown called it) which was at a lower level than France or Germany.

The real problem had nothing to do with fixing roofs or deficit but that we'd become heavily dependent on tax revenue from the financial service industry.

Labour hadnt ran a surplus since 2002, despite the economy firing on all cylinders, and taxes flowing in.

The economy wasn't 'firing on all cylinders' between 2000 and 2007 - the stock market peaked in 1999, industrial production peaked in 2000.

What happened between 2000 and 2007 was a consumption/property bubble ** funded by over a half a trillion pounds of household borrowing and the public finances returning to deficit.

** bubble not boom please note.

DecrepitJohnL said:

notme said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

alex. said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

On topic a bit:
Does anybody else think that the word 'myth' in Margaret Beckett's point one is part of the problem Labour has: they are telling the electorate that they were wrong? It feels like the Tory approach under Hague and IDS and it didn't work then.

Edited for punctuation.

Perhaps just as importantly it continues to misrepresent the charge against them ie. not that they were responsible for the economic crash (although there is an argument that they were a contributor as it was partly a consequence of the lax regulatory regime that they set up), but that they placed us in a very bad position to withstand the economic crash once it happened. It is even possible to hold the latter view whilst giving them credit for their specific immediate actions at the time (I think many people feel that Alistair Darling was quite a good Chancellor even if Brown tried to take the mantle of "saving the world").

Good point. I can see why they try to change the accusation, but I'm not sure it will work.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think that they didn't cause the crash but they did put us in a bad position when it happened because Brown thought that 'it will be different this time'.

The bad position being what? Before the crash, Labour had been reducing government debt (or Tory debt, as the never knowingly unpartisan Gordon Brown called it) which was at a lower level than France or Germany.

The real problem had nothing to do with fixing roofs or deficit but that we'd become heavily dependent on tax revenue from the financial service industry.

Labour hadnt ran a surplus since 2002, despite the economy firing on all cylinders, and taxes flowing in.

And that still means Labour has run more surpluses than Conservatives since the war. Whether running surpluses is a good thing is a separate question, of course.

Just means it takes longer to clear up than to create

another_richard said:

notme said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

alex. said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

On topic a bit:
....

Perhaps just as importantly it continues to misrepresent the charge against them ie. not that they were responsible for the economic crash (although there is an argument that they were a contributor as it was partly a consequence of the lax regulatory regime that they set up), but that they placed us in a very bad position to withstand the economic crash once it happened. It is even possible to hold the latter view whilst giving them credit for their specific immediate actions at the time (I think many people feel that Alistair Darling was quite a good Chancellor even if Brown tried to take the mantle of "saving the world").

Good point. I can see why they try to change the accusation, but I'm not sure it will work.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think that they didn't cause the crash but they did put us in a bad position when it happened because Brown thought that 'it will be different this time'.

The bad position being what? Before the crash, Labour had been reducing government debt (or Tory debt, as the never knowingly unpartisan Gordon Brown called it) which was at a lower level than France or Germany.

The real problem had nothing to do with fixing roofs or deficit but that we'd become heavily dependent on tax revenue from the financial service industry.

Labour hadnt ran a surplus since 2002, despite the economy firing on all cylinders, and taxes flowing in.

The economy wasn't 'firing on all cylinders' between 2000 and 2007 - the stock market peaked in 1999, industrial production peaked in 2000.

What happened between 2000 and 2007 was a consumption/property bubble ** funded by over a half a trillion pounds of household borrowing and the public finances returning to deficit.

** bubble not boom please note.

The economy was growing - we had growth - there are limits to the different ways you can say that. It was an upswing in the economic cycle that in normal times should have led to the running of surpluses not deficits. We had deficits because the government continued to spend money it did not have - and this form a position where it was perfectly right and safe to run surpluses. Its deceitful of Labour to talk about 'austerity' when the main reason the govt has to rein in spending compared to Labours years is because labour massively increased spending in its time when it should have been holding it back.

flightpath01 said:

another_richard said:

The economy wasn't 'firing on all cylinders' between 2000 and 2007 - the stock market peaked in 1999, industrial production peaked in 2000.

What happened between 2000 and 2007 was a consumption/property bubble ** funded by over a half a trillion pounds of household borrowing and the public finances returning to deficit.

** bubble not boom please note.

The economy was growing - we had growth - there are limits to the different ways you can say that. It was an upswing in the economic cycle that in normal times should have led to the running of surpluses not deficits. We had deficits because the government continued to spend money it did not have - and this form a position where it was perfectly right and safe to run surpluses. Its deceitful of Labour to talk about 'austerity' when the main reason the govt has to rein in spending compared to Labours years is because labour massively increased spending in its time when it should have been holding it back.

The point is that the growth was not real - it was just money being spent on ever-more-expensive property and other consumables (almost entirely imported too) - money that was borrowed by the government, by corporations, by banks, by individuals...

Baskerville said:

Surely, Anglo Saxon is valid shorthand for those western countries that follow the British (anglo-saxon) political and economic model rather than the Continental or Roman cultural, economic, legal and political system.

Yes. It's a perfectly normal term for the socio-economic traits of the following countries: Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand.

It has very little to do with ethnicity.

On the continent it's quite common to talk of the "Anglo-Saxon model" of economics, politics, etc, just in the same way we often hear about the "Scandinavian model" of ditto.

A country - of whatever ethnic make-up - can adopt the Anglo-Saxon way.

Baskerville said:

Surely, Anglo Saxon is valid shorthand for those western countries that follow the British (anglo-saxon) political and economic model rather than the Continental or Roman cultural, economic, legal and political system.

Why say anglo-saxon if you need to put British in brackets after it? Plus I repeat - the notion that we should target and promt our trade and political links to solely American Canadian and Australasian countries does not seem in any way realistic to me. All those countries (well maybe not the smallest NZ) are large federal nations with needs very much tuned to themselves.

Mr. Wanderer, surely French for Anglo-Saxon is 'le rosbif'?

MarqueeMark said:

After Corbyn's subs-without-warheads Trident clarification today, it is now obvious how Corbyn will square the circle of the police having a shoot to kill policy against terrorists.

The police will be issued with guns, but no bullets....

Harsh language should be enough

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Wanderer, surely French for Anglo-Saxon is 'le rosbif'?

Nope. Les Rosbif is for us English, and of course Perfidious Albion

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, the Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish are Celts. So, surely, les Rosbif does refer to the Anglo-Saxons?

The Germans have a more inclusive term - Inselaffen.

flightpath01 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

flightpath01 said:

Theuniondivvie said:

RodCrosby said:

david_herdson said:

RodCrosby said:

It seems to me that unless Labour can either crush the SNP or change the voting system they are finished as a party of government for the foreseeable future.

What difference would changing the voting system make? Who would Labour ally with under PR? It may well only be FPTP that's holding Labour together.

Well, Yes, but changing the voting system would lead to re-alignment among all parties, and almost certainly rule out a majority for any single one. Whichever faction inherited the "Labour" trademark could conceivably find itself in coalition at some point.

Whereas, under FPTP, unless Labour find themselves an SNP-slayer, middle and southern England will remain solidly Tory.

Unless there's a sudden surge in attachment to Britishness north of the border, an SNP-slaying Labour would have to be in some sense 'standing up for Scotland'. Not sure how that will ever square with middle and southern England.

What should there be a problem about anybody standing up for Scotland? The whole SNP prospectus is a rambling pack of lies driven by ignorance and bigotry and a notion of thinking they can do well out of claiming North Sea oil for purely Scottish ends. That notion has been run into the ground.
A UK political party should and would claim to be standing up for all parts of the UK. This should be quite acceptable for all parts of the UK. This points to the SNP being an irrelevance when it comes to putting Scotland first. They cannot form a UK government.

Och, wheesht you auld buffoon.

:-)
The fact remains that Scotland is too small and economically weak to maintain its current welfare status as an independent nation and as it stands with 50-odd SNP MPs it has no political say in anything.

But it will have $20 per barrel oil.

Mr. Mark, the Eastern Empire had a terrible time of it after Basil II passed away, but recovered.

The question for Labour is whether Basil II just died, or the Fourth Crusade has happened. If the latter, it's a question of marking time until the inevitable end. If the former, recovery remains possible.

Edited extra bit: Mr. Glenn, ah, not heard that before. Island monkeys?

As an aside, those who think we can recreate an Anglosphere trading block around the Commonwealth are having a laugh.

Take Australia: Asia accounts for 84% of their exports, and we account for 1.3%. Simply put, they aren't going to reorient their trade policy for our convenience. We do slightly better for New Zealand, sucking up a staggering 3.1% of their exports. Canada is midway between Australia and NZ, with 2.2% of exports going to the UK.

Thinking of the rest of the Commonwealth; what of India and Pakistan? Well, we're important to India. We account for a solid 3.4% of their exports. And Pakistan is better yet: we're 4.8% of their exports.

Of course, we could go and join NAFTA. But then we'd be largely just swapping product specifications imposed by Brussels for those imposed by Washington. And the ISDS provisions of NAFTA are pretty harsh: the Quebec government was forced to abandon its GM food law after being sued in a (non-public) ISDS tribunal. (NAFTA is odd in that US states can implement laws requiring compulsory labelling of GM foods... but Canadian states cannot. There is no way for Monsanto to move against California under NAFTA, but it can against Quebec.)

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Eagles, the Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish are Celts. So, surely, les Rosbif does refer to the Anglo-Saxons?

Remember the Auld Alliance, les grenouilles like the Scots

“They came on in the same old way, and we sent them back in the same old way,”

Wellington at Waterloo in 1815, and based on today's performance by Corbyn, the Tory party in 2020.

Truth is stranger than fiction. Last year, If someone had related to me some of the utterances he's made, I'd have thought them mad - he's almost beyond parody as a right-on, anti-American, anti-Imperialist, anti-colonialist lefty peacenik.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Wanderer, surely French for Anglo-Saxon is 'le rosbif'?

I mean when they are talking about economic models
https://www.cafedelabourse.com/lexique/definition/capitalisme-anglo-saxon

O/T:

Cassiobridge is going to be a new tube station on the Metropolitan Line within a few years:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGPQfVMTaJQ

Sean_F said:

Two more voting intention polls.

Survation Con 37%, Lab 30%, UKIP 16%, Lib Dem 7%.

Panel base Con 39%, Lab 31%, UKIP 14%, Lib Dem 7%.

Is this the first Panelbase since May 6th? (Or maybe weak Google-fu on my part.)

Completely O/T but I've just read Chris Mullin's A Very British Coup for the first time. I hadn't realised he'd written it BEFORE becoming an MP. On the outer fringes of believability but felt just as relevant today as it was in 1982.

I loved how having retired as PM on health grounds, former steel worker Harry Perkins is graciously given Chequers by the new government - a government led by the former Chancellor who was the candidate of the PLP but not the Labour membership.

flightpath01 said:

Fysics_Teacher said:

One problem with 2020 is that Corbyn is shutting down potential attack lines. To take the most prominent example, if it weren't for the pointless row about Trident, Labour could attack the government's own defence cuts. Now it can't.

For those of us who missed the interview and should be writing Y9 reports so don't rally have time to see it on iPlayer could some one give a quick summary (or link to same) of what he said?

The govt are spending 2% of GDP on defence as promised. It has just announced a large expenditure programme covering intelligence and our Special Forces.
The Typhoon has had its service life extended and numbers increased and its later variants have been upgraded and armed to be very good fighter bombers.
We are buying these aircraft carriers and F35s
A major AFV programme was announced recently, £3.5bns worth of 38 tonne Ajax or 'Scouts' to replace our light tanks.
We have large numbers and a wide range of Warriors and Bulldogs AFVs and Cougar Mastiff Wolfhound Foxhound Ridgeback mine protected vehicles.

2010 defence spending was 42.5bn in 2016 it is 45bn.
45bn is a very large sum.

I do not see how Labour can spout defence cuts when in the course of this parliament we will see Trident replacement laid down, the two aircraft carriers and F35s being commissioned and hundreds of new Ajax AFVs entering service. Plus new and modern Typhoons entering squadron service with squadron numbers increasing.

The only "cuts" were to demented spending programs like MPA (Nimrods that couldn't get a airworthiness certificate), FRES (Vehicles that had a problem with actually existing - MBT level protection while deployable by air....) etc...

In this context the P-8 order and Airseeker are valuable far beyond their cost - as a warning that if industry can't shape up, defence orders will go abroad. And will be purely off the shelf - no juicy little programs to stuff it all up (Chinook style).

FrankBooth said:

Completely O/T but I've just read Chris Mullin's A Very British Coup for the first time. I hadn't realised he'd written it BEFORE becoming an MP. On the outer fringes of believability but felt just as relevant today as it was in 1982.

I loved how having retired as PM on health grounds, former steel worker Harry Perkins is graciously given Chequers by the new government - a government led by the former Chancellor who was the candidate of the PLP but not the Labour membership.

You can watch the TV programme on Channel 4's website.