politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guess who? Looking for Jeremy Corbyn’s successor

System · February 2016

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guess who? Looking for Jeremy Corbyn’s successor

Pitt the Elder did not lack confidence, declaring to the Duke of Devonshire:

Read the full story here

CarlottaVance · February 2016

First!

megalomaniacs4u · February 2016

Ed the return? roflmao - on reflection, labour could do something that daft...

CarlottaVance · February 2016

Alastair Meeks said:
No wonder Labour is in so much trouble; it has suffered a serious brain drain.

A tad generous?

Which King 'over the water' could come to their rescue/found a safe seat?

The Conservatives had (among some views, not my own) Boris should Cameron have failed in 2015 - but who have Labour got?

Which 'Best Prime Minister we never had' departed the Labour benches in 2015? I can think of several from previous intakes - but none from the class of 2010.

The problem goes back to Blair, a decade ago, who should have stopped Brown sidelining any potential challengers to his own coronation.....

Sunil_Prasannan · February 2016

Wes Streeting MP

RobD · February 2016

megalomaniacs4u said:
Ed the return? roflmao - on reflection, labour could do something that daft...

I look forward to the return of "EICIPM" greeting each new poll

SimonStClare · February 2016

Morning all.

Excellent thread Mr Meeks – but really, Ed Miliband – as the unity candidate?

If that's the best choice Labour have, then the barrel has well and truly been scraped. #Twice

RobD · February 2016

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!

Indigo · February 2016

Not sure how Ed makes things better. Replace one election loser with another. Ed might not be as catastrophic as Jezz, but he will be subject to a "which bit of NO didn't you understand" reaction from most of the voting public.

I cant see how this works for Labour now short of a complete car-crash of an election in 2020, and even then they might mistake the "your leader is an unelectable muppet" press for the "right wing press". At the moment it looks like the only way they come to their senses is with a sub-Foot (1983) result, which is possible, but only if Cameron can stop shooting his party in the foot over Europe. (Which doesn't mean going for in or out, it means not lying through his teeth in public so badly that everyone can see it)

SimonStClare · February 2016

RobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!

"Under the 2003 Le Touquet treaty between the UK and France, Britain is allowed to conduct border controls at French rather than UK borders"

Appears to have little to do with EU and everything to do with France playing silly buggers.

Indigo · February 2016

RobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!

Its very strange. If you arrive by air and your paperwork isn't in order, and you get rejected at immigration, it is up to the airline to return you to your point of origin at their own expense. Consequently when I stand in the check-in lounge in Manila, they have some one (often from the embassy) checking everyone's visa or passport before they let you on the aircraft. Why doesn't the same apply to Eurostar at Dover ? If they bring someone across and they get rejected at immigration, it should be up to Eurostar to return them to France at their own expense. That way if you have "accidentally burned" your identity papers, you would never get across the channel in the first place. Ditto ferry companies etc ofc.

JosiasJessop · February 2016

Indigo said:
Not sure how Ed makes things better. Replace one election loser with another. Ed might not be as catastrophic as Jezz, but he will be subject to a "which bit of NO didn't you understand" reaction from most of the voting public.

I cant see how this works for Labour now short of a complete car-crash of an election in 2020, and even then they might mistake the "your leader is an unelectable muppet" press for the "right wing press". At the moment it looks like the only way they come to their senses is with a sub-Foot (1983) result, which is possible, but only if Cameron can stop shooting his party in the foot over Europe. (Which doesn't mean going for in or out, it means not lying through his teeth in public so badly that everyone can see it)

I think the idea is that Miliband might be a unity candidate: not to win an election, but to stop Labour descending further into insanity. He's also done the job very recently, so he will be able to get up and running quickly. People served under him before, and some of his policies appealed to the hard left.

The problem IMO is that Ed is not capable of fixing the factors that made him unelectable. The report into the general election shows that Labour is in deep denial.

Also, almost every candidate who could take over will be seen as a puppet of the hard left: of people who want to return the Falklands to Argentina against the wishes of the population; who want unilateral disarmament, and who favour every disgruntled terrorist group over UK citizens.

The damage Corbyn is doing to the Labour party will be long-lasting.

RobD · February 2016

SimonStClare said:

RobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!
"Under the 2003 Le Touquet treaty between the UK and France, Britain is allowed to conduct border controls at French rather than UK borders"

Appears to have little to do with EU and everything to do with France playing silly buggers.

As Indigo just mentioned, surely the ferry/train/airplane operator would be responsible for checking that a passenger has a valid visa or the necessary documentation to enter the UK. For those sneaking through, the border controls in France do bugger all anyway.

Innocent_Abroad · February 2016

Many thanks, Alistair.

I take it you have - at least in your heart - come to the conclusion that I have: that Labour is an idea whose time has gone. For two reasons: first, the members have now experience of 13 years; consecutively in government, with all its attendant compromises and c*ck-ups and they feel deeply insulted by it. They are, after all, women and men of principle! Secondly, it's no longer "the economy, stupid". Identity politics are (slowly) taking over. And as they do not only the Labour Party but representative democracy itself will cease to meet the needs of the case.

JosiasJessop · February 2016

Indigo said:

RobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!
Its very strange. If you arrive by air and your paperwork isn't in order, and you get rejected at immigration, it is up to the airline to return you to your point of origin at their own expense. Consequently when I stand in the check-in lounge in Manila, they have some one (often from the embassy) checking everyone's visa or passport before they let you on the aircraft. Why doesn't the same apply to Eurostar at Dover ? If they bring someone across and they get rejected at immigration, it should be up to Eurostar to return them to France at their own expense. That way if you have "accidentally burned" your identity papers, you would never get across the channel in the first place. Ditto ferry companies etc ofc.

AIUI Eurostar is subject to special immigration laws under an agreement between France, Belgium and the UK,, which put the onus on the passengers' point of embarkation, not arrival.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls

RobD · February 2016

JosiasJessop said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!
Its very strange. If you arrive by air and your paperwork isn't in order, and you get rejected at immigration, it is up to the airline to return you to your point of origin at their own expense. Consequently when I stand in the check-in lounge in Manila, they have some one (often from the embassy) checking everyone's visa or passport before they let you on the aircraft. Why doesn't the same apply to Eurostar at Dover ? If they bring someone across and they get rejected at immigration, it should be up to Eurostar to return them to France at their own expense. That way if you have "accidentally burned" your identity papers, you would never get across the channel in the first place. Ditto ferry companies etc ofc.
AIUI Eurostar is subject to special immigration laws under an agreement between France, Belgium and the UK,, which put the onus on the passengers' point of embarkation, not arrival.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls

While legally it may be the case that the point of arrival is the normal point to check (apart from the Eurostar as you mention), by making the operating companies pay every time they transport a passenger not eligible to enter the UK, you'd quickly get them doing checks on the departure side.

OldKingCole · February 2016

Indigo said:
Not sure how Ed makes things better. Replace one election loser with another. Ed might not be as catastrophic as Jezz, but he will be subject to a "which bit of NO didn't you understand" reaction from most of the voting public.

I cant see how this works for Labour now short of a complete car-crash of an election in 2020, and even then they might mistake the "your leader is an unelectable muppet" press for the "right wing press". At the moment it looks like the only way they come to their senses is with a sub-Foot (1983) result, which is possible, but only if Cameron can stop shooting his party in the foot over Europe. (Which doesn't mean going for in or out, it means not lying through his teeth in public so badly that everyone can see it)

The significant difference with 1983 surely is that there’s no sign of an SDP mark2, and the LibDems haven’t got over the trauma of 2015.
Don’t fancy doing the detailed maths, but if Foot had held on to half the votes that went to the SDP he’d have done better, and wouldn’t be described as presiding over the nadir of Labour’s fortunes.
Anyway, if looking for a Labour car-crash, what about 1931?

Indigo · February 2016

JosiasJessop said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!
Its very strange. If you arrive by air and your paperwork isn't in order, and you get rejected at immigration, it is up to the airline to return you to your point of origin at their own expense. Consequently when I stand in the check-in lounge in Manila, they have some one (often from the embassy) checking everyone's visa or passport before they let you on the aircraft. Why doesn't the same apply to Eurostar at Dover ? If they bring someone across and they get rejected at immigration, it should be up to Eurostar to return them to France at their own expense. That way if you have "accidentally burned" your identity papers, you would never get across the channel in the first place. Ditto ferry companies etc ofc.
AIUI Eurostar is subject to special immigration laws under an agreement between France, Belgium and the UK,, which put the onus on the passengers' point of embarkation, not arrival.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls

One imagined this would be reappraised if we voted OUT, especially if the French were likely to play silly buggers, specifically to prevent what Cameron is trying disingenuously to claim would happen. I mean really, his bare faced whoppers are being called out by the media usually the same day he utters them, does he seriously think this improves his EURef chances, never mind his 2020 chances should Labour get their act together?

JosiasJessop · February 2016

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!
Its very strange. If you arrive by air and your paperwork isn't in order, and you get rejected at immigration, it is up to the airline to return you to your point of origin at their own expense. Consequently when I stand in the check-in lounge in Manila, they have some one (often from the embassy) checking everyone's visa or passport before they let you on the aircraft. Why doesn't the same apply to Eurostar at Dover ? If they bring someone across and they get rejected at immigration, it should be up to Eurostar to return them to France at their own expense. That way if you have "accidentally burned" your identity papers, you would never get across the channel in the first place. Ditto ferry companies etc ofc.
AIUI Eurostar is subject to special immigration laws under an agreement between France, Belgium and the UK,, which put the onus on the passengers' point of embarkation, not arrival.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls
One imagined this would be reappraised if we voted OUT, especially if the French were likely to play silly buggers, specifically to prevent what Cameron is trying disingenuously to claim would happen. I mean really, his bare faced whoppers are being called out by the media usually the same day he utters them, does he seriously think this improves his EURef chances, never mind his 2020 chances should Labour get their act together?

Surely that would require the agreement of the French government who, as we have seen at Calais, are already rather keen to shove the problem over then channel given half a chance.

not_on_fire · February 2016

Indigo said:

RobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!
Its very strange. If you arrive by air and your paperwork isn't in order, and you get rejected at immigration, it is up to the airline to return you to your point of origin at their own expense. Consequently when I stand in the check-in lounge in Manila, they have some one (often from the embassy) checking everyone's visa or passport before they let you on the aircraft. Why doesn't the same apply to Eurostar at Dover ? If they bring someone across and they get rejected at immigration, it should be up to Eurostar to return them to France at their own expense. That way if you have "accidentally burned" your identity papers, you would never get across the channel in the first place. Ditto ferry companies etc ofc.

Immigration controls for Eurostar are at the origin country, not the destination.

not_on_fire · February 2016

RobD said:

JosiasJessop said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!
Its very strange. If you arrive by air and your paperwork isn't in order, and you get rejected at immigration, it is up to the airline to return you to your point of origin at their own expense. Consequently when I stand in the check-in lounge in Manila, they have some one (often from the embassy) checking everyone's visa or passport before they let you on the aircraft. Why doesn't the same apply to Eurostar at Dover ? If they bring someone across and they get rejected at immigration, it should be up to Eurostar to return them to France at their own expense. That way if you have "accidentally burned" your identity papers, you would never get across the channel in the first place. Ditto ferry companies etc ofc.
AIUI Eurostar is subject to special immigration laws under an agreement between France, Belgium and the UK,, which put the onus on the passengers' point of embarkation, not arrival.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls
While legally it may be the case that the point of arrival is the normal point to check (apart from the Eurostar as you mention), by making the operating companies pay every time they transport a passenger not eligible to enter the UK, you'd quickly get them doing checks on the departure side.

What is the point of having Eurostar staff duplicating a role already played by specialist of UK immigration officers, bearing in mind the immigration checks are done BEFORE you board the train. All it would achieve would be longer wait times before you can board the train and most likely higher prices.

gettingbetter · February 2016

Alastair. Are you betting on the Edstone coming back too?

Indigo · February 2016

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:

One imagined this would be reappraised if we voted OUT, especially if the French were likely to play silly buggers, specifically to prevent what Cameron is trying disingenuously to claim would happen. I mean really, his bare faced whoppers are being called out by the media usually the same day he utters them, does he seriously think this improves his EURef chances, never mind his 2020 chances should Labour get their act together?
Surely that would require the agreement of the French government who, as we have seen at Calais, are already rather keen to shove the problem over then channel given half a chance.

If we voted OUT I would imagine we would repudiate the Le Tourquet Treaty at the same time as we ditched the other treaties, and border controls would resume their default state, vis checks made at disembarkation. Then as is standard practise in the airline world, we would legislate to make all operators arriving with persons not authorised to enter the UK responsible for returning them to the point of departure, very rapidly those operators would start inspecting papers, or paying embassy staff to inspect papers, at the point of departure, again, just as they do now in the airline world.

JosiasJessop · February 2016

gettingbetter said:
Alastair. Are you betting on the Edstone coming back too?

It'll start as a blank sheet of stone.

Moses_ · February 2016

Following the discussion yesterday about naming those accused of rape and affording them anonymous status at least until the trial had completed with a finding, I was rather bemused by this mornings Telegraph front page.

IPSA have stated that the 4 MP's (possibly 5) that are under investigation for their expenses cannot be named due to "human rights laws". So we can name anyone accused of a sexual crime without fear irrespective of the subsequent outcome of the trial yet an MP on the fiddle cannot be named as it breaches their human rights.

The law is an Ass and a half.

JosiasJessop · February 2016

Moses_ said:
Following the discussion yesterday about naming those accused of rape and affording them anonymous status at least until the trial had completed with a finding, I was rather bemused by this mornings Telegraph front page.

IPSA have stated that the 4 MP's (possibly 5) that are under investigation for their expenses cannot be named due to "human rights laws". So we can name anyone accused of a sexual crime without fear irrespective of the subsequent outcome of the trial yet an MP on the fiddle cannot be named as it breaches their human rights.

The law is an Ass and a half.

You mean: an MP accused of being on the fiddle ...

But I agree on your substantive point.

Casino_Royale · February 2016

RobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!

Given the 2003 Le Touquet treaty is a bilateral treaty between the UK and France, and has nothing to do with the EU, it is indeed a nonsense.

RobD · February 2016

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!
Given the 2003 Le Touquet treaty is a bilateral treaty between the UK and France, and has nothing to do with the EU, it is indeed a nonsense.

Project fear... I feel like I'm turning into malc!!

Casino_Royale · February 2016

Wow. The conclusion is Ed Miliband.

Labour really are in trouble.

ThomasNashe · February 2016

The only way back for Labour is for the membership to come back to their senses. It's going to require heavy defeat in 2020 (which is, of course, highly likely). Then there will be broader acceptance of the need for an electable leader. As Alistair indicates all the current frontrunners are tainted in one way or other, so it will have to be someone from the next generation - Stella Creasy, for example.

Indigo · February 2016

Moses_ said:
The law is an Ass and a half.

So is it:

a) The MPs are not protected by "Human Rights Law" but the officials are using it as a generic excuse to brush off journalistic enquiries, at least until they start taking legal advise, which may result in a court case ruling that MPs have no such rights

b) MPs and other people have such rights, and those rights are specifically abrogated in some bit of legislation in respect of people involve in sex crimes, in which case it seems only a matter of time before that is challenged in Strasbourg

c) Human Rights has nothing to say on the subject and its a lot of wishful thinking all around, sooner or later to be resolved in a court room .

Either way, more money for the lawyers

Moses_ · February 2016

JosiasJessop said:

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!
Its very strange. If you arrive by air and your paperwork isn't in order, and you get rejected at immigration, it is up to the airline to return you to your point of origin at their own expense. Consequently when I stand in the check-in lounge in Manila, they have some one (often from the embassy) checking everyone's visa or passport before they let you on the aircraft. Why doesn't the same apply to Eurostar at Dover ? If they bring someone across and they get rejected at immigration, it should be up to Eurostar to return them to France at their own expense. That way if you have "accidentally burned" your identity papers, you would never get across the channel in the first place. Ditto ferry companies etc ofc.
AIUI Eurostar is subject to special immigration laws under an agreement between France, Belgium and the UK,, which put the onus on the passengers' point of embarkation, not arrival.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls
One imagined this would be reappraised if we voted OUT, especially if the French were likely to play silly buggers, specifically to prevent what Cameron is trying disingenuously to claim would happen. I mean really, his bare faced whoppers are being called out by the media usually the same day he utters them, does he seriously think this improves his EURef chances, never mind his 2020 chances should Labour get their act together?
Surely that would require the agreement of the French government who, as we have seen at Calais, are already rather keen to shove the problem over then channel given half a chance.

It might be easier for us to return to point of embarkation rather than country of origin which is very difficult after documentation has been intentionally destroyed. This is of course what the USA does as do Australia.

It's not the authorities per se you target it's the carriers who then get turned into a pseudo border protection force. As a result of the costs, hassle and potential fines they monitor this pretty we'll but It's still not without difficulties though.

Indigo · February 2016

Moses_ said:

JosiasJessop said:

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:

AIUI Eurostar is subject to special immigration laws under an agreement between France, Belgium and the UK,, which put the onus on the passengers' point of embarkation, not arrival.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juxtaposed_controls
One imagined this would be reappraised if we voted OUT, especially if the French were likely to play silly buggers, specifically to prevent what Cameron is trying disingenuously to claim would happen. I mean really, his bare faced whoppers are being called out by the media usually the same day he utters them, does he seriously think this improves his EURef chances, never mind his 2020 chances should Labour get their act together?
Surely that would require the agreement of the French government who, as we have seen at Calais, are already rather keen to shove the problem over then channel given half a chance.
It might be easier for us to return to point of embarkation rather than country of origin which is very difficult after documentation has been intentionally destroyed. This is of course what the USA does as do Australia.

It's not the authorities per se you target it's the carriers who then get turned into a pseudo border protection force. As a result of the costs, hassle and potential fines they monitor this pretty we'll but It's still not without difficulties though.

We do it now in the UK. If you jump on a plane here in Manila, and get rejected by UK Border Force (nee Immigration) at Heathrow, its up to your carrier to bring you back to Manila at their own expense, hence their close scrutiny of your passport before they let you anywhere near the aircraft.

rcs1000 · February 2016

Indigo said:

RobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!
Its very strange. If you arrive by air and your paperwork isn't in order, and you get rejected at immigration, it is up to the airline to return you to your point of origin at their own expense. Consequently when I stand in the check-in lounge in Manila, they have some one (often from the embassy) checking everyone's visa or passport before they let you on the aircraft. Why doesn't the same apply to Eurostar at Dover ? If they bring someone across and they get rejected at immigration, it should be up to Eurostar to return them to France at their own expense. That way if you have "accidentally burned" your identity papers, you would never get across the channel in the first place. Ditto ferry companies etc ofc.

On the Eurostar from Paris or Brussels to London (and vice versa) you clear immigration at your departure point for exactly this reason

Indigo · February 2016

I am slightly puzzled by the dribbling from EU leaders today about how losing Schengen will cost the EU over a hundred billion Euros in Trade.

As I understand it, this isn't suggesting the end of free movement of Labour/Service/Goods, it just means that the people concerned will have to show an EU passport, or valid visa, before they can cross national borders, rather like coming to the UK. Exactly the same trucks, can carry exactly the same cargoes to exactly the same destinations, so long as the driver has a valid travel document.

(In reference to : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12143376/EUs-110bn-problem-save-Schengen-economic-crisis.html)

Indigo · February 2016

rcs1000 said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!
Its very strange. If you arrive by air and your paperwork isn't in order, and you get rejected at immigration, it is up to the airline to return you to your point of origin at their own expense. Consequently when I stand in the check-in lounge in Manila, they have some one (often from the embassy) checking everyone's visa or passport before they let you on the aircraft. Why doesn't the same apply to Eurostar at Dover ? If they bring someone across and they get rejected at immigration, it should be up to Eurostar to return them to France at their own expense. That way if you have "accidentally burned" your identity papers, you would never get across the channel in the first place. Ditto ferry companies etc ofc.
On the Eurostar from Paris or Brussels to London (and vice versa) you clear immigration at your departure point for exactly this reason

Yes, I know, as we said earlier, if the French started to play silly buggers it wouldnt be a huge step to drop back to borders in the UK and making the operator responsible for returning people that are not admitted, rather like we do now in the airline world. I fail to see it as the huge problem Cameron is trying to make it out to be (for obvious reasons)

JosiasJessop · February 2016

Moses_ said:
It might be easier for us to return to point of embarkation rather than country of origin which is very difficult after documentation has been intentionally destroyed. This is of course what the USA does as do Australia.

It's not the authorities per se you target it's the carriers who then get turned into a pseudo border protection force. As a result of the costs, hassle and potential fines they monitor this pretty we'll but It's still not without difficulties though.

I'd agree, but you need to look at what the relevant parties want. To put it simply:

Tens of thousands of people want to enter the UK illegally.
We want to keep them out.
The French are fed up with them.

If it was just the first two factors, such a scheme would be relatively unproblematic. It's the third factor that makes it more difficult. And it's not as if the French impeccably keep to international agreements as it is.

peter_from_putney · February 2016

An interesting piece Mr. Meeks, I've followed you in with a crisp oncer!
Please let's not have the usual procession of "Can't see it myself" comments from non-punters.
You're not supposed to "see it" ..... it's a 200/1 shot ..... it's not supposed to happen! Rather it's all about spotting value.
In such an unpredictable contest, picking a couple of left field rank outsiders surely makes sense.
Reminds me of my own investment of a couple of quid at odds of 949/1 against Hilary Benn becoming the next Prime Minster. The only mystery to me is that the layer was prepared to put down £2000 for up to 5 years in the hope of ultimately winning the princely sum of £1.90 after Betfair's commission.

Indigo · February 2016

JosiasJessop said:

Moses_ said:
It might be easier for us to return to point of embarkation rather than country of origin which is very difficult after documentation has been intentionally destroyed. This is of course what the USA does as do Australia.

It's not the authorities per se you target it's the carriers who then get turned into a pseudo border protection force. As a result of the costs, hassle and potential fines they monitor this pretty we'll but It's still not without difficulties though.
I'd agree, but you need to look at what the relevant parties want. To put it simply:

Tens of thousands of people want to enter the UK illegally.
We want to keep them out.
The French are fed up with them.

If it was just the first two factors, such a scheme would be relatively unproblematic. It's the third factor that makes it more difficult. And it's not as if the French impeccably keep to international agreements as it is.

I am unsympathetic, if they don't want them, they shouldn't have let them in in the first place, those who live by Schengen, die by Schengen

Its just an international game of musical chairs, no one wants to be the one holding the "refugees" when the music stops.

dugarbandier · February 2016

Indigo said:

Either way, more money for the lawyers

more money for lawyers seems to occur in almost any given situation

Casino_Royale · February 2016

I suspect it's far worse in the USA, but prisons in the UK still sound very horrible:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35449015

AlastairMeeks · February 2016

Indigo said:
I am slightly puzzled by the dribbling from EU leaders today about how losing Schengen will cost the EU over a hundred billion Euros in Trade.

As I understand it, this isn't suggesting the end of free movement of Labour/Service/Goods, it just means that the people concerned will have to show an EU passport, or valid visa, before they can cross national borders, rather like coming to the UK. Exactly the same trucks, can carry exactly the same cargoes to exactly the same destinations, so long as the driver has a valid travel document.

(In reference to : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12143376/EUs-110bn-problem-save-Schengen-economic-crisis.html)

Everything takes longer, making some things no longer practical. The Economist gave two examples: east German hotels getting laundry done in Poland and people commuting from Malmö to Copenhagen. Even slowing things down has costs.

If you're a lorry driver going from Krakow to Trieste you cross four national borders. If you stop at each of those for an hour that adds four hours onto the journey each way.

DavidL · February 2016

The starting hypothesis for Alastair is someone with cabinet level experience. Why? Neither Cameron nor Osborne had such experience. Labour need to move on from a failed generation who delivered a spectacularly unsuccessful government (at least latterly) of whom the membership seriously disapprove.

Any unity team (and I think it will have to be a team of at least 2 given the width of the splits in the party) may well keep some experienced heads (like a Ken Clarke) around for experience but they need a fresh start above all. If I was looking to throw away £2 I would be looking at someone like Jim McMahon, someone with a lot of practical experience of running things and recent experience of winning.

Moses_ · February 2016

JosiasJessop said:

Moses_ said:
It might be easier for us to return to point of embarkation rather than country of origin which is very difficult after documentation has been intentionally destroyed. This is of course what the USA does as do Australia.

It's not the authorities per se you target it's the carriers who then get turned into a pseudo border protection force. As a result of the costs, hassle and potential fines they monitor this pretty we'll but It's still not without difficulties though.
I'd agree, but you need to look at what the relevant parties want. To put it simply:

Tens of thousands of people want to enter the UK illegally.
We want to keep them out.
The French are fed up with them.

If it was just the first two factors, such a scheme would be relatively unproblematic. It's the third factor that makes it more difficult. And it's not as if the French impeccably keep to international agreements as it is.

Indeed. I have visions of a trainload of returnees stuck in the middle of the Eurotunnel in a Mexican style standoff.

Either way the French brought this on themselves, they did not prevent illegals entering their country and consistently blame us for the appalling conditions at Calais. They will make it as difficult as possible but at day's end we should not be blackmailed which essentially is what this is. They should be blaming Merkel of course who shoulder the largest share of the responsibility with her lunatic invite. What did she think would happen?

Not for the first time does the being an Island make invasion difficult.

JosiasJessop · February 2016

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Moses_ said:
It might be easier for us to return to point of embarkation rather than country of origin which is very difficult after documentation has been intentionally destroyed. This is of course what the USA does as do Australia.

It's not the authorities per se you target it's the carriers who then get turned into a pseudo border protection force. As a result of the costs, hassle and potential fines they monitor this pretty we'll but It's still not without difficulties though.
I'd agree, but you need to look at what the relevant parties want. To put it simply:

Tens of thousands of people want to enter the UK illegally.
We want to keep them out.
The French are fed up with them.

If it was just the first two factors, such a scheme would be relatively unproblematic. It's the third factor that makes it more difficult. And it's not as if the French impeccably keep to international agreements as it is.
I am unsympathetic, if they don't want them, they shouldn't have let them in in the first place, those who live by Schengen, die by Schengen Its just an international game of musical chairs, no one wants to be the one holding the "refugees" when the music stops.

This is the issue: you are putting your fingers in your ears and going la-la-la-la - there won't be any problems. Your sympathy -or lack thereof - will mean nothing to France, who will act in their own interests given half a chance..

That's not the way the world works. If France wants, they could do all sorts of things to 'encourage' people over the channel. And it's not as if the camps in France are in any way a long-term solution, or should be.

ydoethur · February 2016

DavidL said:
The starting hypothesis for Alastair is someone with cabinet level experience. Why? Neither Cameron nor Osborne had such experience. Labour need to move on from a failed generation who delivered a spectacularly unsuccessful government (at least latterly) of whom the membership seriously disapprove.

Any unity team (and I think it will have to be a team of at least 2 given the width of the splits in the party) may well keep some experienced heads (like a Ken Clarke) around for experience but they need a fresh start above all. If I was looking to throw away £2 I would be looking at someone like Jim McMahon, someone with a lot of practical experience of running things and recent experience of winning.

As I understood the header, he was saying the only way a unity candidate could emerge is someone with a high profile and long track record. As he noted, there are very few of them and Ed Miliband is one.

However, as Labour can't do a Howard without Corbyn's help or early death, the point is moot. The best bet, whatever his age, is for Corbyn to be in place in 2020, because that is by far the likeliest scenario.

Indigo · February 2016

JosiasJessop said:

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:

Moses_ said:
It might be easier for us to return to point of embarkation rather than country of origin which is very difficult after documentation has been intentionally destroyed. This is of course what the USA does as do Australia.

It's not the authorities per se you target it's the carriers who then get turned into a pseudo border protection force. As a result of the costs, hassle and potential fines they monitor this pretty we'll but It's still not without difficulties though.
I'd agree, but you need to look at what the relevant parties want. To put it simply:

Tens of thousands of people want to enter the UK illegally.
We want to keep them out.
The French are fed up with them.

If it was just the first two factors, such a scheme would be relatively unproblematic. It's the third factor that makes it more difficult. And it's not as if the French impeccably keep to international agreements as it is.
I am unsympathetic, if they don't want them, they shouldn't have let them in in the first place, those who live by Schengen, die by Schengen Its just an international game of musical chairs, no one wants to be the one holding the "refugees" when the music stops.
This is the issue: you are putting your fingers in your ears and going la-la-la-la - there won't be any problems. Your sympathy -or lack thereof - will mean nothing to France, who will act in their own interests given half a chance..

That's not the way the world works. If France wants, they could do all sorts of things to 'encourage' people over the channel. And it's not as if the camps in France are in any way a long-term solution, or should be.

I am sure there are a whole host of things we could do to severely inconvenience France, that way wars lie. The problem as usual is the French play hardball and the British pussyfoot around and try and be nice to everyone, guess which side wins.

Casino_Royale · February 2016

DavidL said:
The starting hypothesis for Alastair is someone with cabinet level experience. Why? Neither Cameron nor Osborne had such experience. Labour need to move on from a failed generation who delivered a spectacularly unsuccessful government (at least latterly) of whom the membership seriously disapprove.

Any unity team (and I think it will have to be a team of at least 2 given the width of the splits in the party) may well keep some experienced heads (like a Ken Clarke) around for experience but they need a fresh start above all. If I was looking to throw away £2 I would be looking at someone like Jim McMahon, someone with a lot of practical experience of running things and recent experience of winning.

I agree with you. I think any Blair/Brown era minister is now a busted flush.

It will be somebody very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership, but unsullied by Government and relatively sane.

ydoethur · February 2016

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:
The starting hypothesis for Alastair is someone with cabinet level experience. Why? Neither Cameron nor Osborne had such experience. Labour need to move on from a failed generation who delivered a spectacularly unsuccessful government (at least latterly) of whom the membership seriously disapprove.

Any unity team (and I think it will have to be a team of at least 2 given the width of the splits in the party) may well keep some experienced heads (like a Ken Clarke) around for experience but they need a fresh start above all. If I was looking to throw away £2 I would be looking at someone like Jim McMahon, someone with a lot of practical experience of running things and recent experience of winning.

I agree with you. I think any Blair/Brown era minister is now a busted flush.

It will be somebody very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership, but unsullied by Government and relatively sane.

And it will also be for 2025 at the earliest.

DavidL · February 2016

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:
The starting hypothesis for Alastair is someone with cabinet level experience. Why? Neither Cameron nor Osborne had such experience. Labour need to move on from a failed generation who delivered a spectacularly unsuccessful government (at least latterly) of whom the membership seriously disapprove.

Any unity team (and I think it will have to be a team of at least 2 given the width of the splits in the party) may well keep some experienced heads (like a Ken Clarke) around for experience but they need a fresh start above all. If I was looking to throw away £2 I would be looking at someone like Jim McMahon, someone with a lot of practical experience of running things and recent experience of winning.

I agree with you. I think any Blair/Brown era minister is now a busted flush.

It will be somebody very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership, but unsullied by Government and relatively sane.

The last one is a hell of a bar. When was the last Labour leader that met that standard? Blair pre-Iraq?

JosiasJessop · February 2016

Moses_ said:

JosiasJessop said:

Moses_ said:
It might be easier for us to return to point of embarkation rather than country of origin which is very difficult after documentation has been intentionally destroyed. This is of course what the USA does as do Australia.

It's not the authorities per se you target it's the carriers who then get turned into a pseudo border protection force. As a result of the costs, hassle and potential fines they monitor this pretty we'll but It's still not without difficulties though.
I'd agree, but you need to look at what the relevant parties want. To put it simply:

Tens of thousands of people want to enter the UK illegally.
We want to keep them out.
The French are fed up with them.

If it was just the first two factors, such a scheme would be relatively unproblematic. It's the third factor that makes it more difficult. And it's not as if the French impeccably keep to international agreements as it is.
Indeed. I have visions of a trainload of returnees stuck in the middle of the Eurotunnel in a Mexican style standoff.

Either way the French brought this on themselves, they did not prevent illegals entering their country and consistently blame us for the appalling conditions at Calais. They will make it as difficult as possible but at day's end we should not be blackmailed which essentially is what this is. They should be blaming Merkel of course who shoulder the largest share of the responsibility with her lunatic invite. What did she think would happen?

Not for the first time does the being an Island make invasion difficult.

It's more likely to be a ferry than a train IMO: it gives the immigrants a chance to land in a few different places and overwhelm the few local immigration officials. Imagine four thousand refugees crammed onto a ferry. What could we do? Sink it? Board it?

And that's just one possible scenario.These people want to get in more than we want to keep them out, and certainly more than our capability of keeping them out.

Bromptonaut · February 2016

Casino_Royale said:
Wow. The conclusion is Ed Miliband.

Labour really are in trouble.

It's the analysis that's in trouble. It reaches a conclusion that is highly unlikely and the article is therefore fundamentally flawed, if not to say quite risible.

The correct conclusion is that Labour's next leader will not be a former Minister. It would be more sensible to consider what that would mean.

AlastairMeeks · February 2016

DavidL said:
The starting hypothesis for Alastair is someone with cabinet level experience. Why? Neither Cameron nor Osborne had such experience. Labour need to move on from a failed generation who delivered a spectacularly unsuccessful government (at least latterly) of whom the membership seriously disapprove.

Any unity team (and I think it will have to be a team of at least 2 given the width of the splits in the party) may well keep some experienced heads (like a Ken Clarke) around for experience but they need a fresh start above all. If I was looking to throw away £2 I would be looking at someone like Jim McMahon, someone with a lot of practical experience of running things and recent experience of winning.

Why? I was looking at who might fulfil the criteria of a unity candidate who could steady the ship. The need for such a leader is likely to get more apparent as time goes by, with the fraternal warfare intensifying. Good by itself isn't going to cut it: the new leader is going to need to command widespread respect among all the warring factions.

That needs stature. As I hope I demonstrated Labour are very short on suitable candidates for that role now.

David Cameron wasn't a unity candidate of this type. Michael Howard was.

Indigo · February 2016

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:
The starting hypothesis for Alastair is someone with cabinet level experience. Why? Neither Cameron nor Osborne had such experience. Labour need to move on from a failed generation who delivered a spectacularly unsuccessful government (at least latterly) of whom the membership seriously disapprove.

Any unity team (and I think it will have to be a team of at least 2 given the width of the splits in the party) may well keep some experienced heads (like a Ken Clarke) around for experience but they need a fresh start above all. If I was looking to throw away £2 I would be looking at someone like Jim McMahon, someone with a lot of practical experience of running things and recent experience of winning.

I agree with you. I think any Blair/Brown era minister is now a busted flush.

It will be somebody very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership, but unsullied by Government and relatively sane.

I think the problem here is that a good proportion of the selectorate are not "very Labour". A traditional Labour selectorate would go for Dan Jarvis or Hattie or Benn, but the bunch of SWP/Greens/CPGB morons they have managed to admit to the party for the princely sum of three quid would not hear of such sensible and moderate people, they are all a bunch of Tories to them. When the members are largely a bunch of hard left nutters, the only leader that is going to get elected is a hard left nutter. I would be putting my folding on Watson as next leader because he is left enough with excellent union connections, and he is deputy leader.

DavidL · February 2016

JosiasJessop said:

Moses_ said:

JosiasJessop said:

Moses_ said:
It might be easier for us to return to point of embarkation rather than country of origin which is very difficult after documentation has been intentionally destroyed. This is of course what the USA does as do Australia.

It's not the authorities per se you target it's the carriers who then get turned into a pseudo border protection force. As a result of the costs, hassle and potential fines they monitor this pretty we'll but It's still not without difficulties though.
I'd agree, but you need to look at what the relevant parties want. To put it simply:

Tens of thousands of people want to enter the UK illegally.
We want to keep them out.
The French are fed up with them.

If it was just the first two factors, such a scheme would be relatively unproblematic. It's the third factor that makes it more difficult. And it's not as if the French impeccably keep to international agreements as it is.
Indeed. I have visions of a trainload of returnees stuck in the middle of the Eurotunnel in a Mexican style standoff.

Either way the French brought this on themselves, they did not prevent illegals entering their country and consistently blame us for the appalling conditions at Calais. They will make it as difficult as possible but at day's end we should not be blackmailed which essentially is what this is. They should be blaming Merkel of course who shoulder the largest share of the responsibility with her lunatic invite. What did she think would happen?

Not for the first time does the being an Island make invasion difficult.
It's more likely to be a ferry than a train IMO: it gives the immigrants a chance to land in a few different places and overwhelm the few local immigration officials. Imagine four thousand refugees crammed onto a ferry. What could we do? Sink it? Board it?

And that's just one possible scenario.These people want to get in more than we want to keep them out, and certainly more than our capability of keeping them out.

The St Louis sails again: http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005267

Scott_P · February 2016

Casino_Royale said:
very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership

There's the problem.

Nobody has a clear idea of what Labour stands for since the crash. How do you spend other peoples money when there isn't any?

And the only thing exciting the membership is loony leftism

Innocent_Abroad · February 2016

Scott_P said:

Casino_Royale said:
very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership
There's the problem.

Nobody has a clear idea of what Labour stands for since the crash. How do you spend other peoples money when there isn't any?

And the only thing exciting the membership is loony leftism

Tory activists have been talking about the "loony left" since at least Harold Wilson's time. Is there any evidence that the jibe resonates beyond committed Tories?

foxinsoxuk · February 2016

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:
The starting hypothesis for Alastair is someone with cabinet level experience. Why? Neither Cameron nor Osborne had such experience. Labour need to move on from a failed generation who delivered a spectacularly unsuccessful government (at least latterly) of whom the membership seriously disapprove.

Any unity team (and I think it will have to be a team of at least 2 given the width of the splits in the party) may well keep some experienced heads (like a Ken Clarke) around for experience but they need a fresh start above all. If I was looking to throw away £2 I would be looking at someone like Jim McMahon, someone with a lot of practical experience of running things and recent experience of winning.

As I understood the header, he was saying the only way a unity candidate could emerge is someone with a high profile and long track record. As he noted, there are very few of them and Ed Miliband is one.

However, as Labour can't do a Howard without Corbyn's help or early death, the point is moot. The best bet, whatever his age, is for Corbyn to be in place in 2020, because that is by far the likeliest scenario.

The unity candidate idea seems implausible to me, partly because of the paucity of candidates (and I would not rule out Benn or Harman) but also the idea requires the support of the hard left. I cannot see that happening.

The way to be rid of Corbyn is the same way that he was appointed, a open and competetive contest. There is a small possibility that Corbyn would choose not to stand (he does not seem to be enjoying himself) and a larger possibility of him being defeated by a vote of the selectorate. I do not think the selectorate are particularly hard left, just not ready for a Kendallite New New Labour, or either of the retreads on offer.

The time for the contest is after the May elections, and referendum in June. Corbyn would then have a record (of sorts) to defend.

Indigo · February 2016

If as has been mooted there is another major financial crisis before the next election, presumably George is going to carry the can for it, in the way that chancellors do even if its not their fault, and especially since he will have been nowhere near as successful in "caulking the hull while the weather is good" as he claimed he would be. Come 2020, do the electorate go for George anyway because although it all went wrong under his watch, he isn't McIRA, or do they say that the Tories obviously cant be trusted on the economy either so we might as well be nice to people ?

ydoethur · February 2016

Innocent_Abroad said:

Scott_P said:

Casino_Royale said:
very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership
There's the problem.

Nobody has a clear idea of what Labour stands for since the crash. How do you spend other peoples money when there isn't any?

And the only thing exciting the membership is loony leftism
Tory activists have been talking about the "loony left" since at least Harold Wilson's time. Is there any evidence that the jibe resonates beyond committed Tories?

It's thought it delivered a number of London marginals to them in the 1980s, for example Battersea. However, that was 29 years ago and Blair has happened since.

A more serious problem now I think is that people just find Corbyn laughably stupid and incompetent. That's probably at the root of his atrocious ratings.

SouthamObserver · February 2016

As I said yesterday, very slowly - and perhaps not yet surely - some on Labour's left are beginning to understand that Corbyn is a road to nowhere. They won't say it openly, of course, but reading between the lines of articles written by, say, Owen Jones, you can see it very clearly.

Rather than look for a specific unity candidate as next leader, I'd say the best place to go searching is for centrist candidates (in Labour terms) who have not consistently and openly criticised Corbyn's leadership, and are taking a bit of time to meet and greet local constituency parties. This will take a lot more insider knowledge than I have, but I can't help noticing that Dan Jarvis is ticking those boxes right now.

peter_from_putney · February 2016

"The arguments for and against Brexit are balanced on a knife-point. We need much more detail about what this new deal will entail"

It sounds as if The Daily Telegraph's opposition to Dave's EU deal is weakening.

Indigo · February 2016

Innocent_Abroad said:

Scott_P said:

Casino_Royale said:
very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership
There's the problem.

Nobody has a clear idea of what Labour stands for since the crash. How do you spend other peoples money when there isn't any?

And the only thing exciting the membership is loony leftism
Tory activists have been talking about the "loony left" since at least Harold Wilson's time. Is there any evidence that the jibe resonates beyond committed Tories?

I think it resonated pretty loudly in the days of Liverpool and Militant.

Neil Kinnock said:
“I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, mis-placed, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council – a Labour council - hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers".

DavidL · February 2016

AlastairMeeks said:

DavidL said:
The starting hypothesis for Alastair is someone with cabinet level experience. Why? Neither Cameron nor Osborne had such experience. Labour need to move on from a failed generation who delivered a spectacularly unsuccessful government (at least latterly) of whom the membership seriously disapprove.

Any unity team (and I think it will have to be a team of at least 2 given the width of the splits in the party) may well keep some experienced heads (like a Ken Clarke) around for experience but they need a fresh start above all. If I was looking to throw away £2 I would be looking at someone like Jim McMahon, someone with a lot of practical experience of running things and recent experience of winning.

Why? I was looking at who might fulfil the criteria of a unity candidate who could steady the ship. The need for such a leader is likely to get more apparent as time goes by, with the fraternal warfare intensifying. Good by itself isn't going to cut it: the new leader is going to need to command widespread respect among all the warring factions.

That needs stature. As I hope I demonstrated Labour are very short on suitable candidates for that role now.

David Cameron wasn't a unity candidate of this type. Michael Howard was.

I agree there is a shortage of candidates and I also agree that Labour has suffered a serious brain drain, not least of which is the absence of Ed Balls.

I don't agree that the unity candidate around whom people need to coalesce needs cabinet level experience although clearly the experience of running local government on a fairly large scale is an alternative. That could create the respect you talk of if he can build a team around him from both wings of the party.

Ed was a disgracefully bad leader. His blank sheet of paper may have kept splits in the party under cover but only at the price of having nothing to say and a complete lack of coherence. His bandwagon jumping ultimately left Labour looking ridiculous and that was before the Ed Stone. His failure in developing ideas or even clear principles contributed to the void in the leadership now.

No one was encouraged to develop policies which actually addressed the realities that any incoming government was going to have to face. His resignation on the night of the election was a typically incompetent and self-indulgent move which aggravated the difficulties but the sad truth is those who had been in government and the shadow cabinet had nothing of interest to say.

MarqueeMark · February 2016

Indigo said:

rcs1000 said:

Indigo said:

RobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!
Its very strange. If you arrive by air and your paperwork isn't in order, and you get rejected at immigration, it is up to the airline to return you to your point of origin at their own expense. Consequently when I stand in the check-in lounge in Manila, they have some one (often from the embassy) checking everyone's visa or passport before they let you on the aircraft. Why doesn't the same apply to Eurostar at Dover ? If they bring someone across and they get rejected at immigration, it should be up to Eurostar to return them to France at their own expense. That way if you have "accidentally burned" your identity papers, you would never get across the channel in the first place. Ditto ferry companies etc ofc.
On the Eurostar from Paris or Brussels to London (and vice versa) you clear immigration at your departure point for exactly this reason
Yes, I know, as we said earlier, if the French started to play silly buggers it wouldnt be a huge step to drop back to borders in the UK and making the operator responsible for returning people that are not admitted, rather like we do now in the airline world. I fail to see it as the huge problem Cameron is trying to make it out to be (for obvious reasons)

Cameron's slightly hysterical tone suggests he has had a very bad week - and knows it (although clearly, not to how to respond to it).

Prime Minister, are you really admitting it is beyond your wit to prevent this being a problem? Why are you so intent on parading your limitations. Are you telling us that if each of these migrants was an ISIS foot soldier, the caliphate would have a base in Kent? Really?

ydoethur · February 2016

Indigo said:
The Tories obviously cant be trusted on the economy either so we might as well be nice to people ?

Tory campaign slogan - 'Labour are only nice to Irish terrorists, Argentinian fascists, Islamists and Holocaust deniers. They want to put you at risk to help their friends by scrapping trident and hamstringing the police.'

Xenophobic, hypocritical, somewhat accurate and likely to have considerable traction outside the big conurbations.

Labour cannot rely on being 'nice' when they are led by Corbyn. It would be like Hilary Clinton running on her skill in operating IT systems.

foxinsoxuk · February 2016

JosiasJessop said:

Moses_ said:

JosiasJessop said:

Moses_ said:
It might be easier for us to return to point of embarkation rather than country of origin which is very difficult after documentation has been intentionally destroyed. This is of course what the USA does as do Australia.

It's not the authorities per se you target it's the carriers who then get turned into a pseudo border protection force. As a result of the costs, hassle and potential fines they monitor this pretty we'll but It's still not without difficulties though.
I'd agree, but you need to look at what the relevant parties want. To put it simply:

Tens of thousands of people want to enter the UK illegally.
We want to keep them out.
The French are fed up with them.

If it was just the first two factors, such a scheme would be relatively unproblematic. It's the third factor that makes it more difficult. And it's not as if the French impeccably keep to international agreements as it is.
Indeed. I have visions of a trainload of returnees stuck in the middle of the Eurotunnel in a Mexican style standoff.

Either way the French brought this on themselves, they did not prevent illegals entering their country and consistently blame us for the appalling conditions at Calais. They will make it as difficult as possible but at day's end we should not be blackmailed which essentially is what this is. They should be blaming Merkel of course who shoulder the largest share of the responsibility with her lunatic invite. What did she think would happen?

Not for the first time does the being an Island make invasion difficult.
It's more likely to be a ferry than a train IMO: it gives the immigrants a chance to land in a few different places and overwhelm the few local immigration officials. Imagine four thousand refugees crammed onto a ferry. What could we do? Sink it? Board it?

And that's just one possible scenario.These people want to get in more than we want to keep them out, and certainly more than our capability of keeping them out.

In such a situation, the only real option is to intern the passengers, with automatic refusal of asylum applications on the grounds that they arrived from a safe country. The Australians do this, and in the Eighties Britain did this in Hong Kong.

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

As long as the prize for arrival is settlement, people will arrive.

MarqueeMark · February 2016

ydoethur said:

Innocent_Abroad said:

Scott_P said:

Casino_Royale said:
very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership
There's the problem.

Nobody has a clear idea of what Labour stands for since the crash. How do you spend other peoples money when there isn't any?

And the only thing exciting the membership is loony leftism
Tory activists have been talking about the "loony left" since at least Harold Wilson's time. Is there any evidence that the jibe resonates beyond committed Tories?

It's thought it delivered a number of London marginals to them in the 1980s, for example Battersea. However, that was 29 years ago and Blair has happened since.

A more serious problem now I think is that people just find Corbyn laughably stupid and incompetent. That's probably at the root of his atrocious ratings.

Nuclear submarines, still built to placate the unions but carrying no warheads to placate Stop The War - that tells us all we need to know about Jeremy Corbyn in power....

Indigo · February 2016

MarqueeMark said:
Cameron's slightly hysterical tone suggests he has had a very bad week - and knows it (although clearly, not to how to respond to it).

The piece de resistance this week for me was the revelation that the current bit of flimflam that Cameron came home with is the high point, and that the Council of Europe, and the European Parliament are certain to object to parts of it and make the final draft even more threadbare than it is now. Not just that but the European Parliament can vote to modify or retract it any time they feel like it - ie. its worse that worthless.

As an aside, what is this bollox about only locking up prisoners at weekends, even Blair wasn't that left-wing.

JosiasJessop · February 2016

foxinsoxuk said:
In such a situation, the only real option is to intern the passengers, with automatic refusal of asylum applications on the grounds that they arrived from a safe country. The Australians do this, and in the Eighties Britain did this in Hong Kong.

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

As long as the prize for arrival is settlement, people will arrive.

Do we have the capability to inter (say) four thousand immigrants arriving with only a few hours' notice at Newhaven? Any border force would be overwhelmed. And where would we inter them? Camps.

I admit it's unlikely, but their desire to make it over here is greater than our desire or capability to keep them out, especially without French help.

We have great problems with the way we handle illegals at the moment. Finding them and asking them to make their own way to an immigration centre was insanity (I can only hope that has changed).

richardDodd · February 2016

The Ferry would be refused berthing rights and facilities and kept at sea...

runnymede · February 2016

Indigo said:

MarqueeMark said:
Cameron's slightly hysterical tone suggests he has had a very bad week - and knows it (although clearly, not to how to respond to it).
The piece de resistance this week for me was the revelation that the current bit of flimflam that Cameron came home with is the high point, and that the Council of Europe, and the European Parliament are certain to object to parts of it and make the final draft even more threadbare than it is now. Not just that but the European Parliament can vote to modify or retract it any time they feel like it - ie. its worse that worthless.

As an aside, what is this bollox about only locking up prisoners at weekends, even Blair wasn't that left-wing.

The PM is just demeaning himself now

Indigo · February 2016

Britain will only be free from the influence of European Courts if it votes to leave the European Union, a senior British legal expert has said.

Sir Francis Jacobs, a former advocate general at the European Court of Justice, said that European law would always "prevail over national law" for as long as Britain remained in the European Union.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12143060/Britain-will-only-be-free-from-the-influence-of-European-Courts-if-it-votes-for-Brexit-says-senior-British-judge.html

Pulpstar · February 2016

What happened to the "Guess who" board

?

Casino_Royale · February 2016

peter_from_putney said:
"The arguments for and against Brexit are balanced on a knife-point. We need much more detail about what this new deal will entail"

It sounds as if The Daily Telegraph's opposition to Dave's EU deal is weakening.

The Sunday Times was very equivocal yesterday as well.

TOPPING · February 2016

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:
The starting hypothesis for Alastair is someone with cabinet level experience. Why? Neither Cameron nor Osborne had such experience. Labour need to move on from a failed generation who delivered a spectacularly unsuccessful government (at least latterly) of whom the membership seriously disapprove.

Any unity team (and I think it will have to be a team of at least 2 given the width of the splits in the party) may well keep some experienced heads (like a Ken Clarke) around for experience but they need a fresh start above all. If I was looking to throw away £2 I would be looking at someone like Jim McMahon, someone with a lot of practical experience of running things and recent experience of winning.

I agree with you. I think any Blair/Brown era minister is now a busted flush.

It will be somebody very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership, but unsullied by Government and relatively sane.

Mr Kinnock Jr still looking overlooked.

Casino_Royale · February 2016

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:
The starting hypothesis for Alastair is someone with cabinet level experience. Why? Neither Cameron nor Osborne had such experience. Labour need to move on from a failed generation who delivered a spectacularly unsuccessful government (at least latterly) of whom the membership seriously disapprove.

Any unity team (and I think it will have to be a team of at least 2 given the width of the splits in the party) may well keep some experienced heads (like a Ken Clarke) around for experience but they need a fresh start above all. If I was looking to throw away £2 I would be looking at someone like Jim McMahon, someone with a lot of practical experience of running things and recent experience of winning.

I agree with you. I think any Blair/Brown era minister is now a busted flush.

It will be somebody very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership, but unsullied by Government and relatively sane.
The last one is a hell of a bar. When was the last Labour leader that met that standard? Blair pre-Iraq?

I would say Ed Miliband was sane just very left-wing.

If we mean someone who understands the need to appeal to a broad electorate to win a general election then Harriet Harman and Hilary Benn would both qualify, as would Margaret Beckett.

Neil Kinnock is the closest analogy I can think of.

Unfortunately for Labour, none are in contention.

theodoxia · February 2016

JosiasJessop said:

foxinsoxuk said:
In such a situation, the only real option is to intern the passengers, with automatic refusal of asylum applications on the grounds that they arrived from a safe country. The Australians do this, and in the Eighties Britain did this in Hong Kong.

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

As long as the prize for arrival is settlement, people will arrive.
Do we have the capability to inter (say) four thousand immigrants arriving with only a few hours' notice at Newhaven? Any border force would be overwhelmed. And where would we inter them? Camps.

.

Burying the problem would command support in some quarters, but it would probably be a bit too much for some people to swallow.

Indigo · February 2016

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12142260/If-the-Brits-want-to-leave-let-them-leave-say-EU-leaders.html

Mr Schulz also said that MEPs could amend some of David Cameron's EU reforms after the referendum, telling Sky News that "nothing is irreversible", in apparent contradiction of Mr Cameron's claims that they would be binding.

Epic stuff Dave.

Innocent_Abroad · February 2016

Pulpstar said:
What happened to the "Guess who" board ?

Threat of a writ?

JosiasJessop · February 2016

richardDodd said:
The Ferry would be refused berthing rights and facilities and kept at sea...

A situation that could not last forever. In fact, it would become a de-facto camp in our national waters.

There's a great deal of handwavium going on this morning: if we leave the EU, everything will be great and it'll just work. It makes Cameron's comments seem sane.

CarlottaVance · February 2016

Casino_Royale said:

RobD said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12145781/David-Cameron-warns-of-migrant-camps-in-southern-England-if-Brexit-vote.html

If we leave the EU, surely we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Convention, and would thus be able to return the asylum seekers to France? To suggest that there would be camps in southern England would suggest that a UK government outside the EU would not protect it's borders. Project Fear indeed!
Given the 2003 Le Touquet treaty is a bilateral treaty between the UK and France, and has nothing to do with the EU, it is indeed a nonsense.

Exactly. Its got everything to do with a shared border and common infrastructure and nothing to do with the EU.

<"sarcasm"> But given if we do leave the EU the UK will be transformed overnight into such an economic basket case the camps of refugees wanting to get into Britain from France will evaporate.....so I don't know what Dave is worrying about <"/sarcasm">

Indigo · February 2016

JosiasJessop said:
There's a great deal of handwavium going on this morning: if we leave the EU, everything will be great and it'll just work. It makes Cameron's comments seem sane.

handwavium > handwringium

NorfolkTilIDie · February 2016

I see Cameron has come out to play 'Middle Eastern migrants will come here' scaremonger if we leave. I thought he had agreed he wouldn't be campaigning until cabinet was released to do the same? I guess no-one can now complain that Leave campaign has gone nasty if it starts talking about migrants to Germany getting EU passports. Cameron has thrown down dogwhistling gauntlet already.

Pulpstar · February 2016

JosiasJessop said:

Do we have the capability to inter (say) four thousand immigrants arriving with only a few hours' notice at Newhaven?

That's an invasion, and should be dealt with as it was in Fishguard, 1797.

Pong · February 2016

Someone's very keen to lay Rubio over on Betfair.

Oh, and Jeb!'s back to his pre-iowa odds.

Morris_Dancer · February 2016

Good morning, everyone.

Interesting piece, Mr. Meeks. There's another argument in favour, which is that Ed Miliband caused huge personal disruption when he beat his brother to the top job, only to ignominiously fail. Had he succeeded, he could've (better) justified that as being worth it, or proof he was the right man for the job.

A second bite of the cherry could offer him that, delayed, justification.

On the downside, the electorate were asked what they thought of Ed Miliband, and their response was to give a governing party an increased share of the vote for the first time since Lord Palmerstone[sp].

Wanderer · February 2016

Interesting article. Thanks Alastair.

It seems to me, though, that there is a fatal objection to all of them, including Ed, and that your argument for him is essentially just that the other eleven have been kicked into touch first. But Ed should also be booted high into the stands (spinning end over end in slowmo).

In short, these are not the droids we're looking for.

NorfolkTilIDie · February 2016

Innocent_Abroad said:

Scott_P said:

Casino_Royale said:
very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership
There's the problem.

Nobody has a clear idea of what Labour stands for since the crash. How do you spend other peoples money when there isn't any?

And the only thing exciting the membership is loony leftism
Tory activists have been talking about the "loony left" since at least Harold Wilson's time. Is there any evidence that the jibe resonates beyond committed Tories?

I voted Blair three times and it resonates with me. Us left leaners deserve better than donkeys in charge of Labour right now.

Casino_Royale · February 2016

Pong said:
Someone's very keen to lay Rubio over on Betfair.

Oh, and Jeb!'s back to his pre-iowa odds.

Jeb is like the T1000 - seemingly indestructible.

Morris_Dancer · February 2016

Mr. Die, has he explained why that's the case? Will the French throw open the Tunnel? Will the Channel shrink? Will our best friends with whom we ought to be engaged in union deliberately shovel as many migrants as they can towards us?

I still think Remain will win. But I hope not.

HYUFD · February 2016

Ed Miliband? May as well stick with Corbyn, at least he fires up the base. Ed Miliband got the worst election result for Labour in almost 30 years and completely turned off swing voters while failing to inspire his core. It would be like William Hague replacing IDS two years after he lost a landslide.

Hilary Benn would also be more acceptable to the membership than Cooper or Johnson, all three backed airstrikes but he is generally more leftwing and he is in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet whatever their disagreements. Of course the Tories never consulted the membership anyway when they replaced IDS

Pulpstar · February 2016

Pong said:
Someone's very keen to lay Rubio over on Betfair.

Oh, and Jeb!'s back to his pre-iowa odds.

They're both too short.

JosiasJessop · February 2016

Pulpstar said:

JosiasJessop said:

Do we have the capability to inter (say) four thousand immigrants arriving with only a few hours' notice at Newhaven?
That's an invasion, and should be dealt with as it was in Fishguard, 1797.

Yeah, right. The days of Jemima Nicholas are well over. And if you hadn't noticed, the way we currently deal with immigrants are more to their advantage than ours.

The fact is that if we want to manage our borders with France, it would be far easier and cheaper to do with French help.

JosiasJessop · February 2016

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:
There's a great deal of handwavium going on this morning: if we leave the EU, everything will be great and it'll just work. It makes Cameron's comments seem sane.
handwavium > handwringium

No. It's yet another issue that hardline BOOers are just ignoring, saying everything will be alright, as if saying it will make it true. As we can see from the posts on here this morning.

NorfolkTilIDie · February 2016

Pulpstar said:

JosiasJessop said:

Do we have the capability to inter (say) four thousand immigrants arriving with only a few hours' notice at Newhaven?
That's an invasion, and should be dealt with as it was in Fishguard, 1797.

Wouldn't we just close the Channel Tunnel??

MarkHopkins · February 2016

On Cameron's comments about migrants in Southern England, I have two comments:

1. FFS.

2. Is he trying to destroy all his credibility?

MarqueeMark · February 2016

I still can't believe that the Prime Minister wants to run on the argument that Britain's borders are only secure because of the French.

Is that the best Remain has got?

NorfolkTilIDie · February 2016

JosiasJessop said:

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:
There's a great deal of handwavium going on this morning: if we leave the EU, everything will be great and it'll just work. It makes Cameron's comments seem sane.
handwavium > handwringium
No. It's yet another issue that hardline BOOers are just ignoring, saying everything will be alright, as if saying it will make it true. As we can see from the posts on here this morning.

What do the Remain supporters think we should do if Eurozone starts passing laws that we disagree with over us?

HYUFD · February 2016

Indigo said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:
The starting hypothesis for Alastair is someone with cabinet level experience. Why? Neither Cameron nor Osborne had such experience. Labour need to move on from a failed generation who delivered a spectacularly unsuccessful government (at least latterly) of whom the membership seriously disapprove.

Any unity team (and I think it will have to be a team of at least 2 given the width of the splits in the party) may well keep some experienced heads (like a Ken Clarke) around for experience but they need a fresh start above all. If I was looking to throw away £2 I would be looking at someone like Jim McMahon, someone with a lot of practical experience of running things and recent experience of winning.

I agree with you. I think any Blair/Brown era minister is now a busted flush.

It will be somebody very Labour, with a clear idea of what Labour stands for that excites the membership, but unsullied by Government and relatively sane.
I think the problem here is that a good proportion of the selectorate are not "very Labour". A traditional Labour selectorate would go for Dan Jarvis or Hattie or Benn, but the bunch of SWP/Greens/CPGB morons they have managed to admit to the party for the princely sum of three quid would not hear of such sensible and moderate people, they are all a bunch of Tories to them. When the members are largely a bunch of hard left nutters, the only leader that is going to get elected is a hard left nutter. I would be putting my folding on Watson as next leader because he is left enough with excellent union connections, and he is deputy leader.

Having backed airstrikes and come out for Trident Watson is now probably too rightwing for the present Labour membership

MarqueeMark · February 2016

JosiasJessop said:

Indigo said:

JosiasJessop said:
There's a great deal of handwavium going on this morning: if we leave the EU, everything will be great and it'll just work. It makes Cameron's comments seem sane.
handwavium > handwringium
No. It's yet another issue that hardline BOOers are just ignoring, saying everything will be alright, as if saying it will make it true. As we can see from the posts on here this morning.

What the hell is a "hardline BOOer"? Anyone unconvinced by the Remain arguments?

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guess who? Looking for Jeremy Corbyn’s successor

Comments