The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
But what about our wonderful FTA with the USA?
I am saying the UK will not agree to the EU LPF demands. One of the reasons why is your last point, so we can do FTA's easier with other countries.
Haven't we agreed already as part of the political declaration to the WDA? Or do you expect us to renege on it?
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
But what about our wonderful FTA with the USA?
We already have a trade surplus with the US. I am open to new info, but I don't see that increasing our successful trading relationship there is currently blocked by lack of a trade deal. Therefore, we should just politely delay this indefinitely.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
But what about our wonderful FTA with the USA?
We already have a trade surplus with the US. I am open to new info, but I don't see that increasing our successful trading relationship there is currently blocked by lack of a trade deal. Therefore, we should just politely delay this indefinitely.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
But what about our wonderful FTA with the USA?
I am saying the UK will not agree to the EU LPF demands. One of the reasons why is your last point, so we can do FTA's easier with other countries.
Haven't we agreed already as part of the political declaration to the WDA? Or do you expect us to renege on it?
Well lets say that the Des Moine Register polls is accurate, that would mean a catastrophic result for Biden, he would probably miss the 15% threshold in a lot of areas and coming in 4th is a campaign ending result.
4th wouldn't be at all good for Biden, but McCain came 4th with 13% in 2008 but won the nomination fairly easily. Bush Snr came 3rd with 19% and won even more comfortably in the end.
Biden has also sought to play down Iowa expectations in such a way that, while it wouldn't generate the right headlines for him by any means, a narrow 4th would be survivable. It'd put real pressure on to pull out a good result in New Hampshire, but wouldn't be "campaign ending" in itself.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
But what about our wonderful FTA with the USA?
I am saying the UK will not agree to the EU LPF demands. One of the reasons why is your last point, so we can do FTA's easier with other countries.
Haven't we agreed already as part of the political declaration to the WDA? Or do you expect us to renege on it?
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
But what about our wonderful FTA with the USA?
I am saying the UK will not agree to the EU LPF demands. One of the reasons why is your last point, so we can do FTA's easier with other countries.
Then there will be no FTA with the EU surely, even a basic one? I can’t see the EU dropping it, especially after reading their “negotiating objectives” documentation.
The CET of the EU has 50% of goods no tariff, 30% with tariffs under 3% and the final 20% have a high tariffs. The high tariffs are designed to keep the WW competition out of the single market or at restricted levels. So it is no surprise that the bulk of the EU surplus is in these high tariff areas, Textiles, Cars, trucks, Vans and Food. To preserve this surplus the EU needs an FTA or the UK will go and buy its food on the WW market. Even with this FTA, this change will take place, just over longer period as the UK signs FTA's with other countries. The EU knows this which is why they have from day one tried to keep us locked into their customs union and regulatory environment. Sabine Weyland "We have them where we want them, in a customs union." Guy VdH adviser "They are a vassal state."
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
But what about our wonderful FTA with the USA?
I am saying the UK will not agree to the EU LPF demands. One of the reasons why is your last point, so we can do FTA's easier with other countries.
Then there will be no FTA with the EU surely, even a basic one? I can’t see the EU dropping it, especially after reading their “negotiating objectives” documentation.
The CET of the EU has 50% of goods no tariff, 30% with tariffs under 3% and the final 20% have a high tariffs. The high tariffs are designed to keep the WW competition out of the single market or at restricted levels. So it is no surprise that the bulk of the EU surplus is in these high tariff areas, Textiles, Cars, trucks, Vans and Food. To preserve this surplus the EU needs an FTA or the UK will go and buy its food on the WW market. Even with this FTA, this change will take place, just over longer period as the UK signs FTA's with other countries. The EU knows this which is why they have from day one tried to keep us locked into their customs union and regulatory environment. Sabine Weyland "We have them where we want them, in a customs union." Guy VdH adviser "They are a vassal state."
That’s a lot of words to say “we hold all the cards”. So is your premise that the EU will fold on LPF because they need access to our markets at the (very real) risk of us plunging our standards to “undercut” them?
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
But what about our wonderful FTA with the USA?
We already have a trade surplus with the US. I am open to new info, but I don't see that increasing our successful trading relationship there is currently blocked by lack of a trade deal. Therefore, we should just politely delay this indefinitely.
@rcs1000 should do a video. We think we have a surplus with America. America thinks it has a surplus with us.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
ars. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
But what about our wonderful FTA with the USA?
I am saying the UK will not agree to the EU LPF demands. One of the reasons why is your last point, so we can do FTA's easier with other countries.
Then there will be no FTA with the EU surely, even a basic one? I can’t see the EU dropping it, especially after reading their “negotiating objectives” documentation.
The CET of the EU has 50% of goods no tariff, 30% with tariffs under 3% and the final 20% have a high tariffs. The high tariffs are designed to keep the WW competition out of the single market or at restricted levels. So it is no surprise that the bulk of the EU surplus is in these high tariff areas, Textiles, Cars, trucks, Vans and Food. To preserve this surplus the EU needs an FTA or the UK will go and buy its food on the WW market. Even with this FTA, this change will take place, just over longer period as the UK signs FTA's with other countries. The EU knows this which is why they have from day one tried to keep us locked into their customs union and regulatory environment. Sabine Weyland "We have them where we want them, in a customs union." Guy VdH adviser "They are a vassal state."
That’s a lot of words to say “we hold all the cards”. So is your premise that the EU will fold on LPF because they need access to our markets at the (very real) risk of us plunging our standards to “undercut” them?
At the end of the discussions over the changed WDA and PD that the Boris Govt was negotiating it has been reported that Merkel said "Go and get a document that Johnson can sign." I fully expect this to happen again and that means no LPF. If the UK decides to do things differently to become more competitive then the EU has the choice to react or not, just as they do with other countries around the world.
With all that’s gone on in the Middle East in recent decades, he’s been completely neutral and as a result has a stable well-developed economy. Oman is a lovely place to visit.
He sounded like a legend.
When you get people to name a county beginning with O - They insist there is not one pretty quickly and move on to P . err hang on a minute there is one! Oman is always destined to be one of those completely ignored countries because they are not big or bad and too far to go on holiday to. Any other countries/states /counties like this?
I always forget about
Gabon (when recalling countries in Africa) Belize in central america Oman in Asia Moldova in Europe Northamptonshire (when recalling counties ) Wisconsin (usa states)
Lol @ Northamptonshire.
Yeah, I live in Northamptonshire.
It`s shit.
Its Anglican Cathedral is in Peterborough. One of the Henrican conversions.
At the end of the discussions over the changed WDA and PD that the Boris Govt was negotiating it has been reported that Merkel said "Go and get a document that Johnson can sign." I fully expect this to happen again and that means no LPF. If the UK decides to do things differently to become more competitive then the EU has the choice to react or not, just as they do with other countries around the world.
So you want us to play chicken with no deal again? If so, expect an extension to the transition period. There can be no 11th hour ratification this time round. It is not in Merkel’s gift.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
But what about our wonderful FTA with the USA?
We already have a trade surplus with the US. I am open to new info, but I don't see that increasing our successful trading relationship there is currently blocked by lack of a trade deal. Therefore, we should just politely delay this indefinitely.
@rcs1000 should do a video. We think we have a surplus with America. America thinks it has a surplus with us.
Safe to assume that whatever is printed in the papers is spin from one side or another, designed to present themselves in the best possible light. Most unedifying.
And we're expected to pay for this circus. No thanks. Now, how do I step back from paying for them?
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
The LPF is the reddest of EU red lines. There will be no deal without it. Other things including fisheries are negotiable.
I don't think no deal with EU ever is a sustainable position for the UK
At the end of the discussions over the changed WDA and PD that the Boris Govt was negotiating it has been reported that Merkel said "Go and get a document that Johnson can sign." I fully expect this to happen again and that means no LPF. If the UK decides to do things differently to become more competitive then the EU has the choice to react or not, just as they do with other countries around the world.
So you want us to play chicken with no deal again? If so, expect an extension to the transition period. There can be no 11th hour ratification this time round. It is not in Merkel’s gift.
I do not see any other outcome. Do not forget that in the PD the EU agreed to try and get an FTA deal by 31st Dec. They seem to have forgotten that they agreed this and have since been running around saying it is impossible to do that. So the UK Govt needs to keep reminding them of this and keep the pressure on.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
The LPF is the reddest of EU red lines. There will be no deal without it. Other things including fisheries are negotiable.
I don't think no deal with EU ever is a sustainable position for the UK
If it is a red line why did they remove it from the PD? Have they been negotiating in bad faith?
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
But what about our wonderful FTA with the USA?
We already have a trade surplus with the US. I am open to new info, but I don't see that increasing our successful trading relationship there is currently blocked by lack of a trade deal. Therefore, we should just politely delay this indefinitely.
The success of a trading relationship isn't defined by the size of the surplus, and indeed running a deficit isn't a failure in itself.
Volume is the key thing. Each one of those exports AND imports represents an economic arrangement making BOTH the seller and buyer better off - that's the fundamental nature of trade.
It's true that a persistent trade deficit can be problematic - it might mean you're getting dangerously indebted, and could put upward pressure on unemployment and interest rates. But it isn't necessarily a problem. And surpluses aren't necessarily bad - they might we indicative of weak domestic demand or a problem in getting credit from overseas. Venezuela has quite a large trade surplus for example.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
The LPF is the reddest of EU red lines. There will be no deal without it. Other things including fisheries are negotiable.
I don't think no deal with EU ever is a sustainable position for the UK
If it is a red line why did they remove it from the PD? Have they been negotiating in bad faith?
The Withdrawal Agreement is about withdrawing, not the long term arrangement. They got what they wanted from it.
I accept the LPF is going to be a big issue
Another point. Johnson goes on about the Brexit deal being "oven ready". It won't make him look good if it turns out there wasn't one.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
The LPF is the reddest of EU red lines. There will be no deal without it. Other things including fisheries are negotiable.
I don't think no deal with EU ever is a sustainable position for the UK
If it is a red line why did they remove it from the PD? Have they been negotiating in bad faith?
Safe to assume that whatever is printed in the papers is spin from one side or another, designed to present themselves in the best possible light. Most unedifying.
And we're expected to pay for this circus. No thanks. Now, how do I step back from paying for them?
Falsely understating your income by about a pound should do the trick.
Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
I suspect both sides will have an interest in making an essentially status quo arrangement on deep sea fishing look like a win for the UK fishing fleet.
There's little upside for either party to rock the boat, so to speak.
? What do you mean little upside? Countries have the sole right to fish or allocate permission to fish within 200 nautical miles of their borders, or to a median point if another country is closer. That *is* the status quo now. We accepted a shit deal on fishing in order to join, now we're expected to accept a shit deal on fishing in order to leave?
We didn't get a shit deal when we joined. Our fishermen fished in Icelandic waters and European fishermen fished in British waters. We just accepted that status quo continuing. Then the Icelanders kicked us out but we couldn't do the same to the Europeans. I think it is inevitable that we do so now. The political benefits of resurgent fishing towns in poor places are too big for Boris to forego the opportunity.
Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
I suspect both sides will have an interest in making an essentially status quo arrangement on deep sea fishing look like a win for the UK fishing fleet.
There's little upside for either party to rock the boat, so to speak.
? What do you mean little upside? Countries have the sole right to fish or allocate permission to fish within 200 nautical miles of their borders, or to a median point if another country is closer. That *is* the status quo now. We accepted a shit deal on fishing in order to join, now we're expected to accept a shit deal on fishing in order to leave?
We didn't get a shit deal when we joined. Our fishermen fished in Icelandic waters and European fishermen fished in British waters. We just accepted that status quo continuing. Then the Icelanders kicked us out but we couldn't do the same to the Europeans. I think it is inevitable that we do so now. The political benefits of resurgent fishing towns in poor places are too big for Boris to forego the opportunity.
IIRC, it's a bit more complicated. There were commercial deals as to quotas and rights, AIUI, which were much of the problem.
Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
I suspect both sides will have an interest in making an essentially status quo arrangement on deep sea fishing look like a win for the UK fishing fleet.
There's little upside for either party to rock the boat, so to speak.
? What do you mean little upside? Countries have the sole right to fish or allocate permission to fish within 200 nautical miles of their borders, or to a median point if another country is closer. That *is* the status quo now. We accepted a shit deal on fishing in order to join, now we're expected to accept a shit deal on fishing in order to leave?
We didn't get a shit deal when we joined. Our fishermen fished in Icelandic waters and European fishermen fished in British waters. We just accepted that status quo continuing. Then the Icelanders kicked us out but we couldn't do the same to the Europeans. I think it is inevitable that we do so now. The political benefits of resurgent fishing towns in poor places are too big for Boris to forego the opportunity.
IIRC, it's a bit more complicated. There were commercial deals as to quotas and rights, AIUI, which were much of the problem.
We sold our rights to European fisherman. How do we get the rights we sold back?
Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
I suspect both sides will have an interest in making an essentially status quo arrangement on deep sea fishing look like a win for the UK fishing fleet.
There's little upside for either party to rock the boat, so to speak.
? What do you mean little upside? Countries have the sole right to fish or allocate permission to fish within 200 nautical miles of their borders, or to a median point if another country is closer. That *is* the status quo now. We accepted a shit deal on fishing in order to join, now we're expected to accept a shit deal on fishing in order to leave?
We didn't get a shit deal when we joined. Our fishermen fished in Icelandic waters and European fishermen fished in British waters. We just accepted that status quo continuing. Then the Icelanders kicked us out but we couldn't do the same to the Europeans. I think it is inevitable that we do so now. The political benefits of resurgent fishing towns in poor places are too big for Boris to forego the opportunity.
IIRC, it's a bit more complicated. There were commercial deals as to quotas and rights, AIUI, which were much of the problem.
I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. Trading permit allocations between companies is different from the sovereign control over managing and distributing between nations.
I think the article linked to earlier in the thread makes a good point - just having one hard left candidate is going to make it harder for RLB as she will struggle to get many 2nd prefs.
Corbyn won as the sole candidate in 2015 but he got 50% 1st prefs.
RLB is surely going to need at a very minimum 40% in Round 1 and maybe 42-44% (allowing for fact some people may not give a 2nd pref).
The vast majority of Nandy and Phillips 2nd prefs will go to Starmer (or 3rd prefs where they get each other's 2nd pref).
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
The LPF is the reddest of EU red lines. There will be no deal without it. Other things including fisheries are negotiable.
I don't think no deal with EU ever is a sustainable position for the UK
If it is a red line why did they remove it from the PD? Have they been negotiating in bad faith?
It hasn’t been removed as I explained above.
An LPF of some form I think is a very red line. What gets included in a LPF is negotiable.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
The LPF is the reddest of EU red lines. There will be no deal without it. Other things including fisheries are negotiable.
I don't think no deal with EU ever is a sustainable position for the UK
If it is a red line why did they remove it from the PD? Have they been negotiating in bad faith?
The Withdrawal Agreement is about withdrawing, not the long term arrangement. They got what they wanted from it.
I accept the LPF is going to be a big issue
Another point. Johnson goes on about the Brexit deal being "oven ready". It won't make him look good if it turns out there wasn't one.
The Brexit Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which has already passed the Commons, what will be agreed by December is a basic trade deal for goods, anything beyond that including on services depends on the level of regulatory alignment the UK government agrees to
Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
I suspect both sides will have an interest in making an essentially status quo arrangement on deep sea fishing look like a win for the UK fishing fleet.
There's little upside for either party to rock the boat, so to speak.
? What do you mean little upside? Countries have the sole right to fish or allocate permission to fish within 200 nautical miles of their borders, or to a median point if another country is closer. That *is* the status quo now. We accepted a shit deal on fishing in order to join, now we're expected to accept a shit deal on fishing in order to leave?
We didn't get a shit deal when we joined. Our fishermen fished in Icelandic waters and European fishermen fished in British waters. We just accepted that status quo continuing. Then the Icelanders kicked us out but we couldn't do the same to the Europeans. I think it is inevitable that we do so now. The political benefits of resurgent fishing towns in poor places are too big for Boris to forego the opportunity.
Part of the the problem seems to be that joining the EEC's Common Fishing Policy was co-incidental with Iceland extending it's marine limits to 200 nautical miles. Banning British (and German and Danish) fishermen from Icelandic waters meant job losses in British (etc) ports. Will having a 200nmi (where possible) exclusive zone bring back the prosperity of Grimsby etc. I very much doubt it.
Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
I suspect both sides will have an interest in making an essentially status quo arrangement on deep sea fishing look like a win for the UK fishing fleet.
There's little upside for either party to rock the boat, so to speak.
? What do you mean little upside? Countries have the sole right to fish or allocate permission to fish within 200 nautical miles of their borders, or to a median point if another country is closer. That *is* the status quo now. We accepted a shit deal on fishing in order to join, now we're expected to accept a shit deal on fishing in order to leave?
We didn't get a shit deal when we joined. Our fishermen fished in Icelandic waters and European fishermen fished in British waters. We just accepted that status quo continuing. Then the Icelanders kicked us out but we couldn't do the same to the Europeans. I think it is inevitable that we do so now. The political benefits of resurgent fishing towns in poor places are too big for Boris to forego the opportunity.
IIRC, it's a bit more complicated. There were commercial deals as to quotas and rights, AIUI, which were much of the problem.
I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. Trading permit allocations between companies is different from the sovereign control over managing and distributing between nations.
Point taken, but the effect on the guys at the bottom can be very similar.
The Brexit Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which has already passed the Commons, what will be agreed by December is a basic trade deal for goods, anything beyond that including on services depends on the level of regulatory alignment the UK government agrees to
Well, quite but the crucial importance of Services to the UK economy means it's not just something to be glossed over.
I suspect the issue of "regulatory alignment" is one about which we're going to hear a lot this year especially with reference to financial services but in other key sectors.
I think the article linked to earlier in the thread makes a good point - just having one hard left candidate is going to make it harder for RLB as she will struggle to get many 2nd prefs.
Corbyn won as the sole candidate in 2015 but he got 50% 1st prefs.
RLB is surely going to need at a very minimum 40% in Round 1 and maybe 42-44% (allowing for fact some people may not give a 2nd pref).
The vast majority of Nandy and Phillips 2nd prefs will go to Starmer (or 3rd prefs where they get each other's 2nd pref).
I think the article linked to earlier in the thread makes a good point - just having one hard left candidate is going to make it harder for RLB as she will struggle to get many 2nd prefs.
Corbyn won as the sole candidate in 2015 but he got 50% 1st prefs.
RLB is surely going to need at a very minimum 40% in Round 1 and maybe 42-44% (allowing for fact some people may not give a 2nd pref).
The vast majority of Nandy and Phillips 2nd prefs will go to Starmer (or 3rd prefs where they get each other's 2nd pref).
Can't see RLB getting 40%, can you?
Agreed - it certainly looks a very, very big stretch indeed - given that polling showed her behind Starmer on 1st prefs.
If I had to guess the Round 1 result now I would say something like:
Starmer 35 RLB 28 Nandy 22 Phillips 15
Maybe something might happen in a TV debate (or similar) to change the dynamics but RLB just seems far too robotic that it's hard to see her cutting through. Indeed it's just as likely she loses votes following a TV debate.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
The LPF is the reddest of EU red lines. There will be no deal without it. Other things including fisheries are negotiable.
I don't think no deal with EU ever is a sustainable position for the UK
If it is a red line why did they remove it from the PD? Have they been negotiating in bad faith?
It hasn’t been removed as I explained above.
An LPF of some form I think is a very red line. What gets included in a LPF is negotiable.
What do the Canada and Japan deals with the EU have to say on the subject?
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
The LPF is the reddest of EU red lines. There will be no deal without it. Other things including fisheries are negotiable.
I don't think no deal with EU ever is a sustainable position for the UK
If it is a red line why did they remove it from the PD? Have they been negotiating in bad faith?
The Withdrawal Agreement is about withdrawing, not the long term arrangement. They got what they wanted from it.
I accept the LPF is going to be a big issue
Another point. Johnson goes on about the Brexit deal being "oven ready". It won't make him look good if it turns out there wasn't one.
The Brexit Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which has already passed the Commons, what will be agreed by December is a basic trade deal for goods, anything beyond that including on services depends on the level of regulatory alignment the UK government agrees to
When Johnson talks about the Brexit deal being "oven ready" and "getting Brexit done" he surely wants people to think it's more than a strictly temporary arrangement lasting eleven months*.
* Except payments, EU citizen rights and Northern Ireland frontstop, which will endure.
Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
I suspect both sides will have an interest in making an essentially status quo arrangement on deep sea fishing look like a win for the UK fishing fleet.
There's little upside for either party to rock the boat, so to speak.
? What do you mean little upside? Countries have the sole right to fish or allocate permission to fish within 200 nautical miles of their borders, or to a median point if another country is closer. That *is* the status quo now. We accepted a shit deal on fishing in order to join, now we're expected to accept a shit deal on fishing in order to leave?
We didn't get a shit deal when we joined. Our fishermen fished in Icelandic waters and European fishermen fished in British waters. We just accepted that status quo continuing. Then the Icelanders kicked us out but we couldn't do the same to the Europeans. I think it is inevitable that we do so now. The political benefits of resurgent fishing towns in poor places are too big for Boris to forego the opportunity.
Part of the the problem seems to be that joining the EEC's Common Fishing Policy was co-incidental with Iceland extending it's marine limits to 200 nautical miles. Banning British (and German and Danish) fishermen from Icelandic waters meant job losses in British (etc) ports. Will having a 200nmi (where possible) exclusive zone bring back the prosperity of Grimsby etc. I very much doubt it.
Yes that's right. The EU shares were largely divvied up based on existing activity, whereas broader international law does it based on nautical limits. Iceland was using the European system and then changed to the international law one, and we couldn't do the same. It is not the EU's fault, it was Iceland's, but it is one of the few genuine areas where we are worse off in the EU system. Of course that is a drop in the sand relative to the EU's vast social and economic benefits, but tangible industries like fishing and manufacturing always capture public support more than more valuable ones like advertising or legal advice.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
The LPF is the reddest of EU red lines. There will be no deal without it. Other things including fisheries are negotiable.
I don't think no deal with EU ever is a sustainable position for the UK
If it is a red line why did they remove it from the PD? Have they been negotiating in bad faith?
The Withdrawal Agreement is about withdrawing, not the long term arrangement. They got what they wanted from it.
I accept the LPF is going to be a big issue
Another point. Johnson goes on about the Brexit deal being "oven ready". It won't make him look good if it turns out there wasn't one.
The Brexit Deal is the Withdrawal Agreement which has already passed the Commons, what will be agreed by December is a basic trade deal for goods, anything beyond that including on services depends on the level of regulatory alignment the UK government agrees to
When Johnson talks about the Brexit deal being "oven ready" and "getting Brexit done" he surely wants people to think it's more than a strictly temporary arrangement lasting eleven months*.
* Except payments, EU citizen rights and Northern Ireland frontstop, which will endure.
Johnson is like Humpty Dumpty. Words mean what he wants them to mean.
I think the article linked to earlier in the thread makes a good point - just having one hard left candidate is going to make it harder for RLB as she will struggle to get many 2nd prefs.
Corbyn won as the sole candidate in 2015 but he got 50% 1st prefs.
RLB is surely going to need at a very minimum 40% in Round 1 and maybe 42-44% (allowing for fact some people may not give a 2nd pref).
The vast majority of Nandy and Phillips 2nd prefs will go to Starmer (or 3rd prefs where they get each other's 2nd pref).
Can't see RLB getting 40%, can you?
Agreed - it certainly looks a very, very big stretch indeed - given that polling showed her behind Starmer on 1st prefs.
If I had to guess the Round 1 result now I would say something like:
Starmer 35 RLB 28 Nandy 22 Phillips 15
Maybe something might happen in a TV debate (or similar) to change the dynamics but RLB just seems far too robotic that it's hard to see her cutting through. Indeed it's just as likely she loses votes following a TV debate.
Yes, it's all guess work but I think Keir Bear will get slightly more, perhaps.
The EU wants free trade with no quotas in goods, the UK to agree to LPF in state aid, workers rights, H&S, REACH etc, ECJ jurisdiction, access to the City as long as they set the rules and arbitrate, security co-operation, fishing rights with no change, some form of undefined FOM.
What does the UK Govt want a basic free trade deal.
There is a bit of a mismatch here and I hope Barnier fully understands the term "you are having a laugh." There is nothing the EU can offer to the UK that will compensate for their wish list (to control the UK economy).
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
The LPF is the reddest of EU red lines. There will be no deal without it. Other things including fisheries are negotiable.
I don't think no deal with EU ever is a sustainable position for the UK
If it is a red line why did they remove it from the PD? Have they been negotiating in bad faith?
It hasn’t been removed as I explained above.
An LPF of some form I think is a very red line. What gets included in a LPF is negotiable.
What do the Canada and Japan deals with the EU have to say on the subject?
LPF elements exist in every trade deal. CETA contains some very explicit things and other hard to enforce things, like this catch-all:
"The Parties recognise that it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing the levels of protection afforded in their labour law and standards,”
The EU wants much more aggressive LPF provisions, including things like tax which I think is unprecedented. That seems very likely to get dropped given Ireland already has a 12.5% corporation tax rate and several tax haven tax treatments.
Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
I suspect both sides will have an interest in making an essentially status quo arrangement on deep sea fishing look like a win for the UK fishing fleet.
There's little upside for either party to rock the boat, so to speak.
? What do you mean little upside? Countries have the sole right to fish or allocate permission to fish within 200 nautical miles of their borders, or to a median point if another country is closer. That *is* the status quo now. We accepted a shit deal on fishing in order to join, now we're expected to accept a shit deal on fishing in order to leave?
We didn't get a shit deal when we joined. Our fishermen fished in Icelandic waters and European fishermen fished in British waters. We just accepted that status quo continuing. Then the Icelanders kicked us out but we couldn't do the same to the Europeans. I think it is inevitable that we do so now. The political benefits of resurgent fishing towns in poor places are too big for Boris to forego the opportunity.
Part of the the problem seems to be that joining the EEC's Common Fishing Policy was co-incidental with Iceland extending it's marine limits to 200 nautical miles. Banning British (and German and Danish) fishermen from Icelandic waters meant job losses in British (etc) ports. Will having a 200nmi (where possible) exclusive zone bring back the prosperity of Grimsby etc. I very much doubt it.
Yes that's right. The EU shares were largely divvied up based on existing activity, whereas broader international law does it based on nautical limits. Iceland was using the European system and then changed to the international law one, and we couldn't do the same. It is not the EU's fault, it was Iceland's, but it is one of the few genuine areas where we are worse off in the EU system. Of course that is a drop in the sand relative to the EU's vast social and economic benefits, but tangible industries like fishing and manufacturing always capture public support more than more valuable ones like advertising or legal advice.
I think the article linked to earlier in the thread makes a good point - just having one hard left candidate is going to make it harder for RLB as she will struggle to get many 2nd prefs.
Corbyn won as the sole candidate in 2015 but he got 50% 1st prefs.
RLB is surely going to need at a very minimum 40% in Round 1 and maybe 42-44% (allowing for fact some people may not give a 2nd pref).
The vast majority of Nandy and Phillips 2nd prefs will go to Starmer (or 3rd prefs where they get each other's 2nd pref).
Can't see RLB getting 40%, can you?
Agreed - it certainly looks a very, very big stretch indeed - given that polling showed her behind Starmer on 1st prefs.
If I had to guess the Round 1 result now I would say something like:
Starmer 35 RLB 28 Nandy 22 Phillips 15
Maybe something might happen in a TV debate (or similar) to change the dynamics but RLB just seems far too robotic that it's hard to see her cutting through. Indeed it's just as likely she loses votes following a TV debate.
It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage.
I think the article linked to earlier in the thread makes a good point - just having one hard left candidate is going to make it harder for RLB as she will struggle to get many 2nd prefs.
Corbyn won as the sole candidate in 2015 but he got 50% 1st prefs.
RLB is surely going to need at a very minimum 40% in Round 1 and maybe 42-44% (allowing for fact some people may not give a 2nd pref).
The vast majority of Nandy and Phillips 2nd prefs will go to Starmer (or 3rd prefs where they get each other's 2nd pref).
Can't see RLB getting 40%, can you?
Agreed - it certainly looks a very, very big stretch indeed - given that polling showed her behind Starmer on 1st prefs.
If I had to guess the Round 1 result now I would say something like:
Starmer 35 RLB 28 Nandy 22 Phillips 15
Maybe something might happen in a TV debate (or similar) to change the dynamics but RLB just seems far too robotic that it's hard to see her cutting through. Indeed it's just as likely she loses votes following a TV debate.
It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage.
I like Jess Phillips a lot but Keir is massively more qualified on paper. We'll see how they perform in the hustings.
Boris’s first test will be whether he agrees to the EU’s demands in sequencing and, specifically, the EU’s demands to come to an agreement on fishing before anything else.
He should not. Control the process and you go a long way to controlling the outcome.
So let’s see.
I suspect both sides will have an interest in making an essentially status quo arrangement on deep sea fishing look like a win for the UK fishing fleet.
There's little upside for either party to rock the boat, so to speak.
? What do you mean little upside? Countries have the sole right to fish or allocate permission to fish within 200 nautical miles of their borders, or to a median point if another country is closer. That *is* the status quo now. We accepted a shit deal on fishing in order to join, now we're expected to accept a shit deal on fishing in order to leave?
We didn't get a shit deal when we joined. Our fishermen fished in Icelandic waters and European fishermen fished in British waters. We just accepted that status quo continuing. Then the Icelanders kicked us out but we couldn't do the same to the Europeans. I think it is inevitable that we do so now. The political benefits of resurgent fishing towns in poor places are too big for Boris to forego the opportunity.
Part of the the problem seems to be that joining the EEC's Common Fishing Policy was co-incidental with Iceland extending it's marine limits to 200 nautical miles. Banning British (and German and Danish) fishermen from Icelandic waters meant job losses in British (etc) ports. Will having a 200nmi (where possible) exclusive zone bring back the prosperity of Grimsby etc. I very much doubt it.
Yes that's right. The EU shares were largely divvied up based on existing activity, whereas broader international law does it based on nautical limits. Iceland was using the European system and then changed to the international law one, and we couldn't do the same. It is not the EU's fault, it was Iceland's, but it is one of the few genuine areas where we are worse off in the EU system. Of course that is a drop in the sand relative to the EU's vast social and economic benefits, but tangible industries like fishing and manufacturing always capture public support more than more valuable ones like advertising or legal advice.
The legal basis for the 200 mile zone was not in force when Iceland declared a 200 mile zone. This was the 70's, the 200 mile zone with exclusive rights for fishing came into law in 1982 at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Also after we had joined the EEC and after the CFP.
I think the article linked to earlier in the thread makes a good point - just having one hard left candidate is going to make it harder for RLB as she will struggle to get many 2nd prefs.
Corbyn won as the sole candidate in 2015 but he got 50% 1st prefs.
RLB is surely going to need at a very minimum 40% in Round 1 and maybe 42-44% (allowing for fact some people may not give a 2nd pref).
The vast majority of Nandy and Phillips 2nd prefs will go to Starmer (or 3rd prefs where they get each other's 2nd pref).
Can't see RLB getting 40%, can you?
Agreed - it certainly looks a very, very big stretch indeed - given that polling showed her behind Starmer on 1st prefs.
If I had to guess the Round 1 result now I would say something like:
Starmer 35 RLB 28 Nandy 22 Phillips 15
Maybe something might happen in a TV debate (or similar) to change the dynamics but RLB just seems far too robotic that it's hard to see her cutting through. Indeed it's just as likely she loses votes following a TV debate.
It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage.
I like Jess Phillips a lot but Keir is massively more qualified on paper. We'll see how they perform in the hustings.
If we were going purely on proven record, Starmer would be the obvious choice, and I won't be too upset he wins.
Nandy has that "light in the darkness" quality to me. I'm convinced that she is right about how we defeat bigotry and create an open and tolerant society (applies to the western world, not just the UK). She also has the intangible skill to convince a range of people this.
But I accept that not everyone feels that way, and would never question anyone's motives for preferring Starmer.
Still, the missed opportunity to elect an outstanding female BAME candidate could be costly. There is a danger that, in some future election, the outstanding candidate will be a white man, but he will be unelectable because of the shame of having chosen white men on every previous occasion.
Your trade deficit, or surplus, is the consequence of your household savings rate. It is nothing to do with your free trade agreements.
We have a trade deficit, as a country, because we consume more than we make.
Swapping an FTA with the EU for one with the US will not change or trade deficit, all it will mean is that we drink more American wine, and less French. To actually lower the trade deficit would require Brits to actually drink less.
I think the article linked to earlier in the thread makes a good point - just having one hard left candidate is going to make it harder for RLB as she will struggle to get many 2nd prefs.
Corbyn won as the sole candidate in 2015 but he got 50% 1st prefs.
RLB is surely going to need at a very minimum 40% in Round 1 and maybe 42-44% (allowing for fact some people may not give a 2nd pref).
The vast majority of Nandy and Phillips 2nd prefs will go to Starmer (or 3rd prefs where they get each other's 2nd pref).
Can't see RLB getting 40%, can you?
Agreed - it certainly looks a very, very big stretch indeed - given that polling showed her behind Starmer on 1st prefs.
If I had to guess the Round 1 result now I would say something like:
Starmer 35 RLB 28 Nandy 22 Phillips 15
Maybe something might happen in a TV debate (or similar) to change the dynamics but RLB just seems far too robotic that it's hard to see her cutting through. Indeed it's just as likely she loses votes following a TV debate.
It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage.
I like Jess Phillips a lot but Keir is massively more qualified on paper. We'll see how they perform in the hustings.
If we were going purely on proven record, Starmer would be the obvious choice, and I won't be too upset he wins.
Nandy has that "light in the darkness" quality to me. I'm convinced that she is right about how we defeat bigotry and create an open and tolerant society (applies to the western world, not just the UK). She also has the intangible skill to convince a range of people this.
But I accept that not everyone feels that way, and would never question anyone's motives for preferring Starmer.
Still, the missed opportunity to elect an outstanding female BAME candidate could be costly. There is a danger that, in some future election, the outstanding candidate will be a white man, but he will be unelectable because of the shame of having chosen white men on every previous occasion.
"It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage."
Both Starmer and Phillips went to Leeds University.
I think the article linked to earlier in the thread makes a good point - just having one hard left candidate is going to make it harder for RLB as she will struggle to get many 2nd prefs.
Corbyn won as the sole candidate in 2015 but he got 50% 1st prefs.
RLB is surely going to need at a very minimum 40% in Round 1 and maybe 42-44% (allowing for fact some people may not give a 2nd pref).
The vast majority of Nandy and Phillips 2nd prefs will go to Starmer (or 3rd prefs where they get each other's 2nd pref).
Can't see RLB getting 40%, can you?
Agreed - it certainly looks a very, very big stretch indeed - given that polling showed her behind Starmer on 1st prefs.
If I had to guess the Round 1 result now I would say something like:
Starmer 35 RLB 28 Nandy 22 Phillips 15
Maybe something might happen in a TV debate (or similar) to change the dynamics but RLB just seems far too robotic that it's hard to see her cutting through. Indeed it's just as likely she loses votes following a TV debate.
It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage.
I like Jess Phillips a lot but Keir is massively more qualified on paper. We'll see how they perform in the hustings.
If we were going purely on proven record, Starmer would be the obvious choice, and I won't be too upset he wins.
Nandy has that "light in the darkness" quality to me. I'm convinced that she is right about how we defeat bigotry and create an open and tolerant society (applies to the western world, not just the UK). She also has the intangible skill to convince a range of people this.
But I accept that not everyone feels that way, and would never question anyone's motives for preferring Starmer.
Still, the missed opportunity to elect an outstanding female BAME candidate could be costly. There is a danger that, in some future election, the outstanding candidate will be a white man, but he will be unelectable because of the shame of having chosen white men on every previous occasion.
It is strange to reflect that Labour, supposedly the party of equality, has had one BAME leader and no female leaders while the Tory figure stands at at least three, and two.
But again, I come back to the question of why among a parliamentary party over 50% female the stand out candidate is a man. Why are the women not surging through this breach in their own right? What flaws are there in selection or process?
I think the article linked to earlier in the thread makes a good point - just having one hard left candidate is going to make it harder for RLB as she will struggle to get many 2nd prefs.
Corbyn won as the sole candidate in 2015 but he got 50% 1st prefs.
RLB is surely going to need at a very minimum 40% in Round 1 and maybe 42-44% (allowing for fact some people may not give a 2nd pref).
The vast majority of Nandy and Phillips 2nd prefs will go to Starmer (or 3rd prefs where they get each other's 2nd pref).
Can't see RLB getting 40%, can you?
Agreed - it certainly looks a very, very big stretch indeed - given that polling showed her behind Starmer on 1st prefs.
If I had to guess the Round 1 result now I would say something like:
Starmer 35 RLB 28 Nandy 22 Phillips 15
Maybe something might happen in a TV debate (or similar) to change the dynamics but RLB just seems far too robotic that it's hard to see her cutting through. Indeed it's just as likely she loses votes following a TV debate.
It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage.
I like Jess Phillips a lot but Keir is massively more qualified on paper. We'll see how they perform in the hustings.
If we were going purely on proven record, Starmer would be the obvious choice, and I won't be too upset he wins.
Nandy has that "light in the darkness" quality to me. I'm convinced that she is right about how we defeat bigotry and create an open and tolerant society (applies to the western world, not just the UK). She also has the intangible skill to convince a range of people this.
But I accept that not everyone feels that way, and would never question anyone's motives for preferring Starmer.
Still, the missed opportunity to elect an outstanding female BAME candidate could be costly. There is a danger that, in some future election, the outstanding candidate will be a white man, but he will be unelectable because of the shame of having chosen white men on every previous occasion.
"It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage."
Both Starmer and Phillips went to Leeds University.
After graduating from Leeds Starmer did a further degree at Oxford.
I think the article linked to earlier in the thread makes a good point - just having one hard left candidate is going to make it harder for RLB as she will struggle to get many 2nd prefs.
Corbyn won as the sole candidate in 2015 but he got 50% 1st prefs.
RLB is surely going to need at a very minimum 40% in Round 1 and maybe 42-44% (allowing for fact some people may not give a 2nd pref).
The vast majority of Nandy and Phillips 2nd prefs will go to Starmer (or 3rd prefs where they get each other's 2nd pref).
Can't see RLB getting 40%, can you?
Agreed - it certainly looks a very, very big stretch indeed - given that polling showed her behind Starmer on 1st prefs.
If I had to guess the Round 1 result now I would say something like:
Starmer 35 RLB 28 Nandy 22 Phillips 15
Maybe something might happen in a TV debate (or similar) to change the dynamics but RLB just seems far too robotic that it's hard to see her cutting through. Indeed it's just as likely she loses votes following a TV debate.
It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage.
I like Jess Phillips a lot but Keir is massively more qualified on paper. We'll see how they perform in the hustings.
If we were going purely on proven record, Starmer would be the obvious choice, and I won't be too upset he wins.
snip
But I accept that not everyone feels that way, and would never question anyone's motives for preferring Starmer.
Still, the missed opportunity to elect an outstanding female BAME candidate could be costly. There is a danger that, in some future election, the outstanding candidate will be a white man, but he will be unelectable because of the shame of having chosen white men on every previous occasion.
"It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage."
Both Starmer and Phillips went to Leeds University.
After graduating from Leeds Starmer did a further degree at Oxford.
So a year at Oxford, as a postgrad turns you into posh.
It is strange to reflect that Labour, supposedly the party of equality, has had one BAME leader and no female leaders while the Tory figure stands at at least three, and two.
But again, I come back to the question of why among a parliamentary party over 50% female the stand out candidate is a man. Why are the women not surging through this breach in their own right? What flaws are there in selection or process?
I think most of them just honestly think Starmer is the best candidate. I disagree, but I respect that, especially in light of his record.
The fact that Labour has never elected a female leader is absolutely because of sexism. It doesn't follow that anyone who votes for Starmer is sexist.
Your trade deficit, or surplus, is the consequence of your household savings rate. It is nothing to do with your free trade agreements.
We have a trade deficit, as a country, because we consume more than we make.
Swapping an FTA with the EU for one with the US will not change or trade deficit, all it will mean is that we drink more American wine, and less French. To actually lower the trade deficit would require Brits to actually drink less.
The FTAs will make a significant difference to what we export, which will affect the balance of trade as well as potentially reducing employment and taxes to support public services.
I think the article linked to earlier in the thread makes a good point - just having one hard left candidate is going to make it harder for RLB as she will struggle to get many 2nd prefs.
Corbyn won as the sole candidate in 2015 but he got 50% 1st prefs.
RLB is surely going to need at a very minimum 40% in Round 1 and maybe 42-44% (allowing for fact some people may not give a 2nd pref).
The vast majority of Nandy and Phillips 2nd prefs will go to Starmer (or 3rd prefs where they get each other's 2nd pref).
Can't see RLB getting 40%, can you?
Agreed - it certainly looks a very, very big stretch indeed - given that polling showed her behind Starmer on 1st prefs.
If I had to guess the Round 1 result now I would say something like:
Starmer 35 RLB 28 Nandy 22 Phillips 15
Maybe something might happen in a TV debate (or similar) to change the dynamics but RLB just seems far too robotic that it's hard to see her cutting through. Indeed it's just as likely she loses votes following a TV debate.
It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage.
I like Jess Phillips a lot but Keir is massively more qualified on paper. We'll see how they perform in the hustings.
If we were going purely on proven record, Starmer would be the obvious choice, and I won't be too upset he wins.
Nandy has that "light in the darkness" quality to me. I'm convinced that she is right about how we defeat bigotry and create an open and tolerant society (applies to the western world, not just the UK). She also has the intangible skill to convince a range of people this.
But I accept that not everyone feels that way, and would never question anyone's motives for preferring Starmer.
Still, the missed opportunity to elect an outstanding female BAME candidate could be costly. There is a danger that, in some future election, the outstanding candidate will be a white man, but he will be unelectable because of the shame of having chosen white men on every previous occasion.
"It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage."
Both Starmer and Phillips went to Leeds University.
After graduating from Leeds Starmer did a further degree at Oxford.
I think the article linked to earlier in the thread makes a good point - just having one hard left candidate is going to make it harder for RLB as she will struggle to get many 2nd prefs.
Corbyn won as the sole candidate in 2015 but he got 50% 1st prefs.
RLB is surely going to need at a very minimum 40% in Round 1 and maybe 42-44% (allowing for fact some people may not give a 2nd pref).
The vast majority of Nandy and Phillips 2nd prefs will go to Starmer (or 3rd prefs where they get each other's 2nd pref).
Can't see RLB getting 40%, can you?
Agreed - it certainly looks a very, very big stretch indeed - given that polling showed her behind Starmer on 1st prefs.
If I had to guess the Round 1 result now I would say something like:
Starmer 35 RLB 28 Nandy 22 Phillips 15
Maybe something might happen in a TV debate (or similar) to change the dynamics but RLB just seems far too robotic that it's hard to see her cutting through. Indeed it's just as likely she loses votes following a TV debate.
It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage.
I like Jess Phillips a lot but Keir is massively more qualified on paper. We'll see how they perform in the hustings.
If we were going purely on proven record, Starmer would be the obvious choice, and I won't be too upset he wins.
snip
But I accept that not everyone feels that way, and would never question anyone's motives for preferring Starmer.
Still, the missed opportunity to elect an outstanding female BAME candidate could be costly. There is a danger that, in some future election, the outstanding candidate will be a white man, but he will be unelectable because of the shame of having chosen white men on every previous occasion.
"It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage."
Both Starmer and Phillips went to Leeds University.
After graduating from Leeds Starmer did a further degree at Oxford.
So a year at Oxford, as a postgrad turns you into posh.
Must be pretty intensive process.
It is the stamp of approval to get you into respected, "serious" society.
It is strange to reflect that Labour, supposedly the party of equality, has had one BAME leader and no female leaders while the Tory figure stands at at least three, and two.
But again, I come back to the question of why among a parliamentary party over 50% female the stand out candidate is a man. Why are the women not surging through this breach in their own right? What flaws are there in selection or process?
I think most of them just honestly think Starmer is the best candidate. I disagree, but I respect that, especially in light of his record.
But he is. Nandy is uninspiring, Phillips is a person who prizes background over ability and Long Bailey and Thornberry combine arrogance, rudeness, stupidity and dishonesty into two highly unattractive packages.
That is not to say Starmer is a great candidate. But he is at the moment the best on offer. He has ability, he has experience, and he has the skill to lead the opposition. That in itself is a pretty savage indictment of Labour, but it is also a concern as to why the pre-eminent candidate is drawn from a group that makes up less than half the party.
With all that’s gone on in the Middle East in recent decades, he’s been completely neutral and as a result has a stable well-developed economy. Oman is a lovely place to visit.
He sounded like a legend.
When you get people to name a county beginning with O - They insist there is not one pretty quickly and move on to P . err hang on a minute there is one! Oman is always destined to be one of those completely ignored countries because they are not big or bad and too far to go on holiday to. Any other countries/states /counties like this?
I always forget about
Gabon (when recalling countries in Africa) Belize in central america Oman in Asia Moldova in Europe Northamptonshire (when recalling counties ) Wisconsin (usa states)
Lol @ Northamptonshire.
Yeah, I live in Northamptonshire.
It`s shit.
Quite nice at the NE tip, and some of the bits near Market Harborough. Definitely a curates egg.
I was joking (kind of). Best part of the county is N/W, within the triangle made by Market Harborough, Northampton and Long Buckby - tis where I live, so I may be biased.
I think the article linked to earlier in the thread makes a good point - just having one hard left candidate is going to make it harder for RLB as she will struggle to get many 2nd prefs.
Corbyn won as the sole candidate in 2015 but he got 50% 1st prefs.
RLB is surely going to need at a very minimum 40% in Round 1 and maybe 42-44% (allowing for fact some people may not give a 2nd pref).
The vast majority of Nandy and Phillips 2nd prefs will go to Starmer (or 3rd prefs where they get each other's 2nd pref).
Can't see RLB getting 40%, can you?
Agreed - it certainly looks a very, very big stretch indeed - given that polling showed her behind Starmer on 1st prefs.
If I had to guess the Round 1 result now I would say something like:
Starmer 35 RLB 28 Nandy 22 Phillips 15
Maybe something might happen in a TV debate (or similar) to change the dynamics but RLB just seems far too robotic that it's hard to see her cutting through. Indeed it's just as likely she loses votes following a TV debate.
It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage.
I like Jess Phillips a lot but Keir is massively more qualified on paper. We'll see how they perform in the hustings.
If we were going purely on proven record, Starmer would be the obvious choice, and I won't be too upset he wins.
snip
But I accept that not everyone feels that way, and would never question anyone's motives for preferring Starmer.
Still, the missed opportunity to elect an outstanding female BAME candidate could be costly. There is a danger that, in some future election, the outstanding candidate will be a white man, but he will be unelectable because of the shame of having chosen white men on every previous occasion.
"It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage."
Both Starmer and Phillips went to Leeds University.
After graduating from Leeds Starmer did a further degree at Oxford.
So a year at Oxford, as a postgrad turns you into posh.
Must be pretty intensive process.
The leftist equivalent of a Swiss finishing school?
It is strange to reflect that Labour, supposedly the party of equality, has had one BAME leader and no female leaders while the Tory figure stands at at least three, and two.
But again, I come back to the question of why among a parliamentary party over 50% female the stand out candidate is a man. Why are the women not surging through this breach in their own right? What flaws are there in selection or process?
I think most of them just honestly think Starmer is the best candidate. I disagree, but I respect that, especially in light of his record.
But he is. Nandy is uninspiring, Phillips is a person who prizes background over ability and Long Bailey and Thornberry combine arrogance, rudeness, stupidity and dishonesty into two highly unattractive packages.
That is not to say Starmer is a great candidate. But he is at the moment the best on offer. He has ability, he has experience, and he has the skill to lead the opposition. That in itself is a pretty savage indictment of Labour, but it is also a concern as to why the pre-eminent candidate is drawn from a group that makes up less than half the party.
You may not be inspired by Nandy, but plenty of people are. See for example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000d2fh/politics-live-09012020 (start at 25:55 but also watch the reaction from other panel members at 30:35). Another example, I joined the Labour party because of her (not just to vote for her).
Also Starmer is a great candidate. I just happen to think there's an even better one.
Well, they need to win back Birmingham and Glasgow.
That said, otherwise she is right.
Edit - also, Durham is the most logical place to hold a hustings in Durham and the North East other than Newcastle, which is an area where they struggled last month.
It is strange to reflect that Labour, supposedly the party of equality, has had one BAME leader and no female leaders while the Tory figure stands at at least three, and two.
But again, I come back to the question of why among a parliamentary party over 50% female the stand out candidate is a man. Why are the women not surging through this breach in their own right? What flaws are there in selection or process?
I think most of them just honestly think Starmer is the best candidate. I disagree, but I respect that, especially in light of his record.
But he is. Nandy is uninspiring, Phillips is a person who prizes background over ability and Long Bailey and Thornberry combine arrogance, rudeness, stupidity and dishonesty into two highly unattractive packages.
That is not to say Starmer is a great candidate. But he is at the moment the best on offer. He has ability, he has experience, and he has the skill to lead the opposition. That in itself is a pretty savage indictment of Labour, but it is also a concern as to why the pre-eminent candidate is drawn from a group that makes up less than half the party.
Jess Phillips will Rejoin the EU though and Starmer has said the Brexit debate is over. Labour has one last chance to win back the vote of us Rejoiners. Otherwise we should focus the pro-EU movement on the Lib Dems.
Well, they need to win back Birmingham and Glasgow.
That said, otherwise she is right.
They're still doing OK in Birmingham, it's just most of the bits immediately around it where they're struggling.
They can forget about Glasgow. That battle's over. They need to work out how the Hell they're meant to win a Parliamentary majority once Scotland is gone. Good luck with that one.
With all that’s gone on in the Middle East in recent decades, he’s been completely neutral and as a result has a stable well-developed economy. Oman is a lovely place to visit.
He sounded like a legend.
When you get people to name a county beginning with O - They insist there is not one pretty quickly and move on to P . err hang on a minute there is one! Oman is always destined to be one of those completely ignored countries because they are not big or bad and too far to go on holiday to. Any other countries/states /counties like this?
I always forget about
Gabon (when recalling countries in Africa) Belize in central america Oman in Asia Moldova in Europe Northamptonshire (when recalling counties ) Wisconsin (usa states)
Lol @ Northamptonshire.
Yeah, I live in Northamptonshire.
It`s shit.
Quite nice at the NE tip, and some of the bits near Market Harborough. Definitely a curates egg.
I was joking (kind of). Best part of the county is N/W, within the triangle made by Market Harborough, Northampton and Long Buckby - tis where I live, so I may be biased.
So as far away from Peterborough as possible in Northamptonshire?
Well, they need to win back Birmingham and Glasgow.
That said, otherwise she is right.
They're still doing OK in Birmingham, it's just most of the bits immediately around it where they're struggling.
They can forget about Glasgow. That battle's over. They need to work out how the Hell they're meant to win a Parliamentary majority once Scotland is gone. Good luck with that one.
OK, I will clarify. They hold 8 in 10 constituencies in Birmingham proper, but 14 of 28 in the West Midlands Urban Area. Which is what I generally think of as Birmingham. And they need to win back some of the 14 seats they don’t hold if they want to go back into government.
Well, they need to win back Birmingham and Glasgow.
That said, otherwise she is right.
Edit - also, Durham is the most logical place to hold a hustings in Durham and the North East other than Newcastle, which is an area where they struggled last month.
They won every seat in Birmingham apart from Sutton Coldfield and Northfield.
They should have had it in places like West Bromwich, Nuneaton, Hartlepool, Blyth...
It is strange to reflect that Labour, supposedly the party of equality, has had one BAME leader and no female leaders while the Tory figure stands at at least three, and two.
But again, I come back to the question of why among a parliamentary party over 50% female the stand out candidate is a man. Why are the women not surging through this breach in their own right? What flaws are there in selection or process?
I think most of them just honestly think Starmer is the best candidate. I disagree, but I respect that, especially in light of his record.
But he is. Nandy is uninspiring, Phillips is a person who prizes background over ability and Long Bailey and Thornberry combine arrogance, rudeness, stupidity and dishonesty into two highly unattractive packages.
That is not to say Starmer is a great candidate. But he is at the moment the best on offer. He has ability, he has experience, and he has the skill to lead the opposition. That in itself is a pretty savage indictment of Labour, but it is also a concern as to why the pre-eminent candidate is drawn from a group that makes up less than half the party.
Jess Phillips will Rejoin the EU though and Starmer has said the Brexit debate is over. Labour has one last chance to win back the vote of us Rejoiners. Otherwise we should focus the pro-EU movement on the Lib Dems.
The EU movement in England is finished, at least for the lifetime of all of us who are over 40. That is, a small number of the very committed will keep banging on about it, but in that regard it'll be just like republicanism. One can find anything from a quarter to a third of the population to be theoretically enthusiastic about the proposition if one bothers to pay for an opinion poll on the subject, but in practice it's at the very bottom of the list of priorities for most of them.
That'll be doubly the case for the EU argument, where the great mass of the uncommitted who've been stuck between the two warring camps for years just want the entire subject thrown down a thousand-foot mineshaft, never to be seen nor heard from again.
It is strange to reflect that Labour, supposedly the party of equality, has had one BAME leader and no female leaders while the Tory figure stands at at least three, and two.
But again, I come back to the question of why among a parliamentary party over 50% female the stand out candidate is a man. Why are the women not surging through this breach in their own right? What flaws are there in selection or process?
I think most of them just honestly think Starmer is the best candidate. I disagree, but I respect that, especially in light of his record.
But he is. Nandy is uninspiring, Phillips is a person who prizes background over ability and Long Bailey and Thornberry combine arrogance, rudeness, stupidity and dishonesty into two highly unattractive packages.
That is not to say Starmer is a great candidate. But he is at the moment the best on offer. He has ability, he has experience, and he has the skill to lead the opposition. That in itself is a pretty savage indictment of Labour, but it is also a concern as to why the pre-eminent candidate is drawn from a group that makes up less than half the party.
Jess Phillips will Rejoin the EU though and Starmer has said the Brexit debate is over. Labour has one last chance to win back the vote of us Rejoiners. Otherwise we should focus the pro-EU movement on the Lib Dems.
Jess Phillips said no such thing. She said if Brexit is a ballsup then she would campaign to rejoin which is an entirely reasonable position.
It is strange to reflect that Labour, supposedly the party of equality, has had one BAME leader and no female leaders while the Tory figure stands at at least three, and two.
But again, I come back to the question of why among a parliamentary party over 50% female the stand out candidate is a man. Why are the women not surging through this breach in their own right? What flaws are there in selection or process?
I think most of them just honestly think Starmer is the best candidate. I disagree, but I respect that, especially in light of his record.
But he is. Nandy is uninspiring, Phillips is a person who prizes background over ability and Long Bailey and Thornberry combine arrogance, rudeness, stupidity and dishonesty into two highly unattractive packages.
That is not to say Starmer is a great candidate. But he is at the moment the best on offer. He has ability, he has experience, and he has the skill to lead the opposition. That in itself is a pretty savage indictment of Labour, but it is also a concern as to why the pre-eminent candidate is drawn from a group that makes up less than half the party.
Jess Phillips will Rejoin the EU though and Starmer has said the Brexit debate is over. Labour has one last chance to win back the vote of us Rejoiners. Otherwise we should focus the pro-EU movement on the Lib Dems.
The EU movement in England is finished, at least for the lifetime of all of us who are over 40. That is, a small number of the very committed will keep banging on about it, but in that regard it'll be just like republicanism. One can find anything from a quarter to a third of the population to be theoretically enthusiastic about the proposition if one bothers to pay for an opinion poll on the subject, but in practice it's at the very bottom of the list of priorities for most of them.
That'll be doubly the case for the EU argument, where the great mass of the uncommitted who've been stuck between the two warring camps for years just want the entire subject thrown down a thousand-foot mineshaft, never to be seen nor heard from again.
I think that's broadly correct.
The difficulty is if the UK economy begins to underperform. (And, by the way, given demographics, I'd expect both the UK and the EU economies to do pretty poorly in the medium term.)
Jess Phillips will Rejoin the EU though and Starmer has said the Brexit debate is over. Labour has one last chance to win back the vote of us Rejoiners. Otherwise we should focus the pro-EU movement on the Lib Dems.
The EU movement in England is finished, at least for the lifetime of all of us who are over 40. That is, a small number of the very committed will keep banging on about it, but in that regard it'll be just like republicanism. One can find anything from a quarter to a third of the population to be theoretically enthusiastic about the proposition if one bothers to pay for an opinion poll on the subject, but in practice it's at the very bottom of the list of priorities for most of them.
That'll be doubly the case for the EU argument, where the great mass of the uncommitted who've been stuck between the two warring camps for years just want the entire subject thrown down a thousand-foot mineshaft, never to be seen nor heard from again.
I think that you're largely right, the only chance rejoin will have is if the exit is particularly painful over an extended period (long enough for it to be an issue at the next election).
That being said the known consensus on a number of these issues can be shaken up very quickly. No-one would have thought a referendum on Brexit was even possible in 2010 let alone leaving within 10 years.
Well, they need to win back Birmingham and Glasgow.
That said, otherwise she is right.
Edit - also, Durham is the most logical place to hold a hustings in Durham and the North East other than Newcastle, which is an area where they struggled last month.
They won every seat in Birmingham apart from Sutton Coldfield, Halesowen and Northfield.
They should have had it in places like West Bromwich, Nuneaton, Hartlepool, Blyth...
This seems delusional. Viewed by an outsider, if they're planning the May 2024 campaign, it's easier/less hard to win Hastings, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Watford, Reading W, Norwich N, Swindon, Ipswich, the rest of Southampton and Portsmouth and Plymouth.
Rural seats like Sedgefield, Bolsover, Don Valley, Blyth Valley, NW Durham won't be returning to Labour. The mines are gone.
Are they planning to win back seats in Norfolk? It was Red decades ago. 10,000s of (unionised) farmworkers have now mostly been replaced by self-employment.
To get a basic trade deal, the UK will need to agree LPF on the environment, social protection, taxation and state aid with legally enforceable sanctions for breach. Other regulatory alignment depends on access to the EU market but the EU may not offer that much access anyway. There's a risk the UK government may decide the basic trade deal isn't worth it.
In any case, Brexit isn't nearly "oven ready". The debilitating uncertainty will continue for years. In fact Johnson is making that uncertainty much worse.
There is not a risk that the UK Govt will not agree to LPF it is guaranteed.
The LPF is the reddest of EU red lines. There will be no deal without it. Other things including fisheries are negotiable.
I don't think no deal with EU ever is a sustainable position for the UK
If it is a red line why did they remove it from the PD? Have they been negotiating in bad faith?
It hasn’t been removed as I explained above.
An LPF of some form I think is a very red line. What gets included in a LPF is negotiable.
What do the Canada and Japan deals with the EU have to say on the subject?
LPF elements exist in every trade deal. CETA contains some very explicit things and other hard to enforce things, like this catch-all:
"The Parties recognise that it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing the levels of protection afforded in their labour law and standards,”
The EU wants much more aggressive LPF provisions, including things like tax which I think is unprecedented. That seems very likely to get dropped given Ireland already has a 12.5% corporation tax rate and several tax haven tax treatments.
Thanks for that. I think that the wording in the Japan and Canada agreements needs to be our goal - which means that initially we need to ask for more.
Sadly, there’s much more politics involved in this compared to most trade deals. What I can see happening is precisely nothing until the June extension deadline passes and the EU side realises that the PM has a majority to leave the EU atmosphere at the end of the year - with a deal or without one.
Well, they need to win back Birmingham and Glasgow.
That said, otherwise she is right.
Edit - also, Durham is the most logical place to hold a hustings in Durham and the North East other than Newcastle, which is an area where they struggled last month.
They won every seat in Birmingham apart from Sutton Coldfield, Halesowen and Northfield.
They should have had it in places like West Bromwich, Nuneaton, Hartlepool, Blyth...
This seems delusional. Viewed by an outsider, if they're planning the May 2024 campaign, it's easier/less hard to win Hastings, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Watford, Reading W, Norwich N, Swindon, Ipswich, the rest of Southampton and Portsmouth and Plymouth.
Rural seats like Sedgefield, Bolsover, Don Valley, Blyth Valley, NW Durham won't be returning to Labour. The mines are gone.
Are they planning to win back seats in Norfolk? It was Red decades ago. 10,000s of (unionised) farmworkers have now mostly been replaced by self-employment.
What’s delusional? The majority in Blyth was 700 votes. The majority in NW Durham was 1000 votes. Easily winnable.
Also to describe Blyth Valley as a rural seat is ridiculous.
The EU movement in England is finished, at least for the lifetime of all of us who are over 40. That is, a small number of the very committed will keep banging on about it, but in that regard it'll be just like republicanism. One can find anything from a quarter to a third of the population to be theoretically enthusiastic about the proposition if one bothers to pay for an opinion poll on the subject, but in practice it's at the very bottom of the list of priorities for most of them.
That'll be doubly the case for the EU argument, where the great mass of the uncommitted who've been stuck between the two warring camps for years just want the entire subject thrown down a thousand-foot mineshaft, never to be seen nor heard from again.
I think that's broadly correct.
The difficulty is if the UK economy begins to underperform. (And, by the way, given demographics, I'd expect both the UK and the EU economies to do pretty poorly in the medium term.)
If the UK does badly for a long time *AND* does worse than the EU then you might be onto something. It's not inconceivable that we could suffer from the first problem, but the second ain't happening.
The tremendous Euro problem hasn't gone away, and Germany, France, Spain and Italy are all dealing with serious issues of their own, even before it erupts again.
With all that’s gone on in the Middle East in recent decades, he’s been completely neutral and as a result has a stable well-developed economy. Oman is a lovely place to visit.
He sounded like a legend.
When you get people to name a county beginning with O - They insist there is not one pretty quickly and move on to P . err hang on a minute there is one! Oman is always destined to be one of those completely ignored countries because they are not big or bad and too far to go on holiday to. Any other countries/states /counties like this?
I always forget about
Gabon (when recalling countries in Africa) Belize in central america Oman in Asia Moldova in Europe Northamptonshire (when recalling counties ) Wisconsin (usa states)
Lol @ Northamptonshire.
Yeah, I live in Northamptonshire.
It`s shit.
Quite nice at the NE tip, and some of the bits near Market Harborough. Definitely a curates egg.
I was joking (kind of). Best part of the county is N/W, within the triangle made by Market Harborough, Northampton and Long Buckby - tis where I live, so I may be biased.
So as far away from Peterborough as possible in Northamptonshire?
Well, they need to win back Birmingham and Glasgow.
That said, otherwise she is right.
Edit - also, Durham is the most logical place to hold a hustings in Durham and the North East other than Newcastle, which is an area where they struggled last month.
They won every seat in Birmingham apart from Sutton Coldfield and Northfield.
They should have had it in places like West Bromwich, Nuneaton, Hartlepool, Blyth...</
Wonder if there is a poll around? I doubt MP nominations would cause a move that big - as MP nominations aren't going to influence many voters.
I guess the other thing would be further union endorsements. I think these do matter - if a union sends a leaflet to all its members telling them to vote X then that will swing some votes.
Remember in 2010 some unions sent such literature in the same envelope as the ballot paper(!)
Well, they need to win back Birmingham and Glasgow.
That said, otherwise she is right.
Edit - also, Durham is the most logical place to hold a hustings in Durham and the North East other than Newcastle, which is an area where they struggled last month.
They won every seat in Birmingham apart from Sutton Coldfield, Halesowen and Northfield.
They should have had it in places like West Bromwich, Nuneaton, Hartlepool, Blyth...
This seems delusional. Viewed by an outsider, if they're planning the May 2024 campaign, it's easier/less hard to win Hastings, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Watford, Reading W, Norwich N, Swindon, Ipswich, the rest of Southampton and Portsmouth and Plymouth.
Rural seats like Sedgefield, Bolsover, Don Valley, Blyth Valley, NW Durham won't be returning to Labour. The mines are gone.
Are they planning to win back seats in Norfolk? It was Red decades ago. 10,000s of (unionised) farmworkers have now mostly been replaced by self-employment.
What’s delusional? The majority in Blyth was 700 votes. The majority in NW Durham was 1000 votes. Easily winnable.
Also to describe Blyth Valley as a rural seat is ridiculous.
Sorry, I don't know these seats. I'm going on what I read about them. UK Polling Report describes NW Durham, where Pidcock lost her seat, as remote and rural. To me that signals 'safe Tory constituency'. Small-town England, places lacking large unionised employers, just doesn't vote Labour.
I don't want endless Tory govts. either but my forecast would be that rural northern seats will slip away from Labour's grasp, with the Tory majority increasing.
Labour needs to discuss voting systems with pro-PR parties or it risks 15-20+ years of losing elections held under FPTP. AFAIK only Lewis has suggested that we need PR.
How could anyone who has not been sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983 back Richard Burgon?
I think we must again consider the very real possibility that the Labour left are actually Tory sleeper agents...
Our family member MP is voting RLB and Burgon.
*facepalm*
Family member MP??
Wife's son's partner is now the MP for Luton South. And she'd said such positive things about Nandy. Or maybe I misheard, and she really likes Nandos.
But her father was one of the MPs who nominated Corbyn, so I guess she has been surrounded by The Cause all her life. She may need another terrible election loss to see the light.
Agreed - it certainly looks a very, very big stretch indeed - given that polling showed her behind Starmer on 1st prefs.
If I had to guess the Round 1 result now I would say something like:
Starmer 35 RLB 28 Nandy 22 Phillips 15
Maybe something might happen in a TV debate (or similar) to change the dynamics but RLB just seems far too robotic that it's hard to see her cutting through. Indeed it's just as likely she loses votes following a TV debate.
It is clear people like Philips are facing a sexist bias. She is clearly more compelling than Starmer but he is a white, middle class man who went to a posh university so has a major advantage.
I like Jess Phillips a lot but Keir is massively more qualified on paper. We'll see how they perform in the hustings.
If we were going purely on proven record, Starmer would be the obvious choice, and I won't be too upset he wins.
Nandy has that "light in the darkness" quality to me. I'm convinced that she is right about how we defeat bigotry and create an open and tolerant society (applies to the western world, not just the UK). She also has the intangible skill to convince a range of people this.
But I accept that not everyone feels that way, and would never question anyone's motives for preferring Starmer.
Still, the missed opportunity to elect an outstanding female BAME candidate could be costly. There is a danger that, in some future election, the outstanding candidate will be a white man, but he will be unelectable because of the shame of having chosen white men on every previous occasion.
It is strange to reflect that Labour, supposedly the party of equality, has had one BAME leader and no female leaders while the Tory figure stands at at least three, and two.
But again, I come back to the question of why among a parliamentary party over 50% female the stand out candidate is a man. Why are the women not surging through this breach in their own right? What flaws are there in selection or process?
All-women shortlists, they move the focus purely onto the quantity of women MPs, as opposed to the quality of them. Women only have to beat 50% of the potential candidates, whereas men have to beat 100% of them to become an MP. The result is that the men of are higher quality on average, when it comes time to find the more senior members of the group.
It is strange to reflect that Labour, supposedly the party of equality, has had one BAME leader and no female leaders while the Tory figure stands at at least three, and two.
But again, I come back to the question of why among a parliamentary party over 50% female the stand out candidate is a man. Why are the women not surging through this breach in their own right? What flaws are there in selection or process?
I think most of them just honestly think Starmer is the best candidate. I disagree, but I respect that, especially in light of his record.
But he is. Nandy is uninspiring, Phillips is a person who prizes background over ability and Long Bailey and Thornberry combine arrogance, rudeness, stupidity and dishonesty into two highly unattractive packages.
That is not to say Starmer is a great candidate. But he is at the moment the best on offer. He has ability, he has experience, and he has the skill to lead the opposition. That in itself is a pretty savage indictment of Labour, but it is also a concern as to why the pre-eminent candidate is drawn from a group that makes up less than half the party.
Jess Phillips will Rejoin the EU though and Starmer has said the Brexit debate is over. Labour has one last chance to win back the vote of us Rejoiners. Otherwise we should focus the pro-EU movement on the Lib Dems.
The EU movement in England is finished, at least for the lifetime of all of us who are over 40. That is, a small number of the very committed will keep banging on about it, but in that regard it'll be just like republicanism. One can find anything from a quarter to a third of the population to be theoretically enthusiastic about the proposition if one bothers to pay for an opinion poll on the subject, but in practice it's at the very bottom of the list of priorities for most of them.
That'll be doubly the case for the EU argument, where the great mass of the uncommitted who've been stuck between the two warring camps for years just want the entire subject thrown down a thousand-foot mineshaft, never to be seen nor heard from again.
I don't think rejoining the EU is the issue. It's what does the UK want from it's unequal relationship with the dominant consortium of countries on its doorstep. I think that issue is far from resolved.
Comments
No, the commitment for "dynamic" alignment removed, just agreed to uphold current arrangements at end of transition period.
Biden has also sought to play down Iowa expectations in such a way that, while it wouldn't generate the right headlines for him by any means, a narrow 4th would be survivable. It'd put real pressure on to pull out a good result in New Hampshire, but wouldn't be "campaign ending" in itself.
Regardless we are still agreeing to uphold current standards so no “race to the bottom”.
https://www.ft.com/content/82ebed88-9ede-11e7-8cd4-932067fbf946
https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/europe/united-kingdom
If so, expect an extension to the transition period. There can be no 11th hour ratification this time round. It is not in Merkel’s gift.
https://mobile.twitter.com/djolder/status/1215476257909026816
And we're expected to pay for this circus. No thanks. Now, how do I step back from paying for them?
I don't think no deal with EU ever is a sustainable position for the UK
Volume is the key thing. Each one of those exports AND imports represents an economic arrangement making BOTH the seller and buyer better off - that's the fundamental nature of trade.
It's true that a persistent trade deficit can be problematic - it might mean you're getting dangerously indebted, and could put upward pressure on unemployment and interest rates. But it isn't necessarily a problem. And surpluses aren't necessarily bad - they might we indicative of weak domestic demand or a problem in getting credit from overseas. Venezuela has quite a large trade surplus for example.
I accept the LPF is going to be a big issue
Another point. Johnson goes on about the Brexit deal being "oven ready". It won't make him look good if it turns out there wasn't one.
That's a big move but I can't see any comment about it at all.
Any explanation?
Corbyn won as the sole candidate in 2015 but he got 50% 1st prefs.
RLB is surely going to need at a very minimum 40% in Round 1 and maybe 42-44% (allowing for fact some people may not give a 2nd pref).
The vast majority of Nandy and Phillips 2nd prefs will go to Starmer (or 3rd prefs where they get each other's 2nd pref).
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1215999658310492160?s=20
I suspect the issue of "regulatory alignment" is one about which we're going to hear a lot this year especially with reference to financial services but in other key sectors.
https://twitter.com/JimSlaven/status/1216023965828898817?s=20
If I had to guess the Round 1 result now I would say something like:
Starmer 35
RLB 28
Nandy 22
Phillips 15
Maybe something might happen in a TV debate (or similar) to change the dynamics but RLB just seems far too robotic that it's hard to see her cutting through. Indeed it's just as likely she loses votes following a TV debate.
* Except payments, EU citizen rights and Northern Ireland frontstop, which will endure.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1216030564110807042?s=20
"The Parties recognise that it is inappropriate to encourage trade or investment by weakening or reducing the levels of protection afforded in their labour law and standards,”
The EU wants much more aggressive LPF provisions, including things like tax which I think is unprecedented. That seems very likely to get dropped given Ireland already has a 12.5% corporation tax rate and several tax haven tax treatments.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jan/11/keir-starmer-vows-to-end-antisemitism-in-labour-if-elected-leader
Nandy has that "light in the darkness" quality to me. I'm convinced that she is right about how we defeat bigotry and create an open and tolerant society (applies to the western world, not just the UK). She also has the intangible skill to convince a range of people this.
But I accept that not everyone feels that way, and would never question anyone's motives for preferring Starmer.
Still, the missed opportunity to elect an outstanding female BAME candidate could be costly. There is a danger that, in some future election, the outstanding candidate will be a white man, but he will be unelectable because of the shame of having chosen white men on every previous occasion.
We have a trade deficit, as a country, because we consume more than we make.
Swapping an FTA with the EU for one with the US will not change or trade deficit, all it will mean is that we drink more American wine, and less French. To actually lower the trade deficit would require Brits to actually drink less.
Both Starmer and Phillips went to Leeds University.
But again, I come back to the question of why among a parliamentary party over 50% female the stand out candidate is a man. Why are the women not surging through this breach in their own right? What flaws are there in selection or process?
Must be pretty intensive process.
The fact that Labour has never elected a female leader is absolutely because of sexism. It doesn't follow that anyone who votes for Starmer is sexist.
I think we must again consider the very real possibility that the Labour left are actually Tory sleeper agents...
That is not to say Starmer is a great candidate. But he is at the moment the best on offer. He has ability, he has experience, and he has the skill to lead the opposition. That in itself is a pretty savage indictment of Labour, but it is also a concern as to why the pre-eminent candidate is drawn from a group that makes up less than half the party.
He's finished......
Also Starmer is a great candidate. I just happen to think there's an even better one.
*facepalm*
Or are they Tory three quidders?
There's something I don't like about Starmer. I'm not sure what it is.
His background is just right though. Poor, made good, and returning the favour.
Working out that you need to speak clearly and a bit bbc-like if you want to be taken seriously isn't a crime.
Oxford of course is a complete dump. Well known!
Edit: I lost the blockquote war on this
https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1216053775850491907?s=21
I think there's some chance he may prove to be a great PM. (He certainly aspires to that)
That said, otherwise she is right.
Edit - also, Durham is the most logical place to hold a hustings in Durham and the North East other than Newcastle, which is an area where they struggled last month.
They can forget about Glasgow. That battle's over. They need to work out how the Hell they're meant to win a Parliamentary majority once Scotland is gone. Good luck with that one.
They should have had it in places like West Bromwich, Nuneaton, Hartlepool, Blyth...
That'll be doubly the case for the EU argument, where the great mass of the uncommitted who've been stuck between the two warring camps for years just want the entire subject thrown down a thousand-foot mineshaft, never to be seen nor heard from again.
The difficulty is if the UK economy begins to underperform. (And, by the way, given demographics, I'd expect both the UK and the EU economies to do pretty poorly in the medium term.)
That being said the known consensus on a number of these issues can be shaken up very quickly. No-one would have thought a referendum on Brexit was even possible in 2010 let alone leaving within 10 years.
Rural seats like Sedgefield, Bolsover, Don Valley, Blyth Valley, NW Durham won't be returning to Labour. The mines are gone.
Are they planning to win back seats in Norfolk? It was Red decades ago. 10,000s of (unionised) farmworkers have now mostly been replaced by self-employment.
Sadly, there’s much more politics involved in this compared to most trade deals. What I can see happening is precisely nothing until the June extension deadline passes and the EU side realises that the PM has a majority to leave the EU atmosphere at the end of the year - with a deal or without one.
https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1215750506406195201?s=19
Also to describe Blyth Valley as a rural seat is ridiculous.
The tremendous Euro problem hasn't gone away, and Germany, France, Spain and Italy are all dealing with serious issues of their own, even before it erupts again.
Wonder if there is a poll around? I doubt MP nominations would cause a move that big - as MP nominations aren't going to influence many voters.
I guess the other thing would be further union endorsements. I think these do matter - if a union sends a leaflet to all its members telling them to vote X then that will swing some votes.
Remember in 2010 some unions sent such literature in the same envelope as the ballot paper(!)
I don't want endless Tory govts. either but my forecast would be that rural northern seats will slip away from Labour's grasp, with the Tory majority increasing.
Labour needs to discuss voting systems with pro-PR parties or it risks 15-20+ years of losing elections held under FPTP. AFAIK only Lewis has suggested that we need PR.
But her father was one of the MPs who nominated Corbyn, so I guess she has been surrounded by The Cause all her life. She may need another terrible election loss to see the light.