They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.
If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
How long do you think he could, or any party leader could, have resisted the public will to settle the EU question?
For as long as it takes. For about 20 years from 1965 to 1985 there were endless demands for a referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty. These demands came from the same sources as those who wanted an EU referendum - the right-wing media and Tory MPs. Governments of both parties (including Margaret Thatcher, despite her personal support for reintroduction) steadfastly resisted and eventually the issue disappeared. The EU issue would have gone the same way had Cameron shown the same level of political courage as his predecessors.
I think he thought that by having a referendum and winning it, he would put the issue to bed. His mistake was less in having the referendum but more in not putting in the work long before it took place to win it. It was all too botched, too rushed and ill thought through.
Brexit is the same. Article 50 should not have been triggered until all the hard work had been done first.
I am reluctantly coming round to the view that having made 2 catastrophic mistakes we need, as a country, to find a way of pressing the pause button rather than carrying on with a third potentially catastrophic mistake i.e. negotiating without any sort of strategy or plan or understanding in too short a time frame.
Serious question. In an environment where there are also private companies vying for the same customer base, would a publicly owned company which does not have to make a profit and is backed by the taxpayer not be in breach of EU competition rules? This is not a leading question. I just don't know.
Yes, and where do the monopolies commission come in?
Serious question. In an environment where there are also private companies vying for the same customer base, would a publicly owned company which does not have to make a profit and is backed by the taxpayer not be in breach of EU competition rules? This is not a leading question. I just don't know.
Not necessarily I don't think. So long as it was not running at a loss, though there may be some conditions on its initial funding. There are many "national" companies in the EU, from the Energy sector to Railways, and even nationalisation itself of private assets is not outlawed, so long as a market price is established and paid. (i.e. you can't forcibly nationalise an asset without compensation)
I was thinking specifically of a situation where a nationalised company is in direct competition with private companies rather than a whole sector being nationalised. Is that a situation that is common elsewhere in the EU?
Let's not forget that plenty, including frequent posters on here, didn't decide which way to vote until Cameron stated he was Remain. AFAIK none were against the referendum.
They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.
If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
How long do you think he could, or any party leader could, have resisted the public will to settle the EU question?
For as long as it takes. For about 20 years from 1965 to 1985 there were endless demands for a referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty. These demands came from the same sources as those who wanted an EU referendum - the right-wing media and Tory MPs. Governments of both parties (including Margaret Thatcher, despite her personal support for reintroduction) steadfastly resisted and eventually the issue disappeared. The EU issue would have gone the same way had Cameron shown the same level of political courage as his predecessors.
More likely that UKIP would have continued to grow like the SNP, if Cameron and others had streadfastly refused to grant a referendum on EU membership.
FWIW I think UKIP was basically a "none of the above" party - the bulk of its supporters just wanted to express anger and frustration at the world in general. The kind of people who would have voted Lib Dem before the coalition. The majority of them were not EU obsessives, which is why quite a few of them went back to Labour at the general election. Cameron, surrounded by EU obsessives in his own Party, automatically thought that UKIP supporters were cut from the same cloth and could be appeased by the promise of a referendum.
Stick that in your price freeze hat and smoke it (carbon capture rules pending)
Not for profit is all well and good. It leaves a mass of blackholes for the state to fill. Investment, incetive, losses and all the risks that come with a protected commercial position.
Hilarious that when the the plotters realised the coup was failing, they pulled the pin out of their grenade and threw it to Grant Shapps.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer chap.
What kind of idiot even joins a plot lead by Grant Shapps?
There never was a plot led by Grant Shapps.
He was meant to be ringing round and collecting names. Is that not plotting?
He was/is almost certainly privately ringing round, figuring out how many names there were/are.
As was/is every other tory MP.
That he ended up being successfully framed as the leader of the plotters indicates how powerless and removed he is from the more credible plotters.
Apart from perhaps Kim Kardashian it's difficult to think of anyone who has opened themselves up to more humiliation than Boris. There must come a point when you have made yourself so ridiculous that you are unembarrassable
Serious question. In an environment where there are also private companies vying for the same customer base, would a publicly owned company which does not have to make a profit and is backed by the taxpayer not be in breach of EU competition rules? This is not a leading question. I just don't know.
Not necessarily I don't think. So long as it was not running at a loss, though there may be some conditions on its initial funding. There are many "national" companies in the EU, from the Energy sector to Railways, and even nationalisation itself of private assets is not outlawed, so long as a market price is established and paid. (i.e. you can't forcibly nationalise an asset without compensation)
I was thinking specifically of a situation where a nationalised company is in direct competition with private companies rather than a whole sector being nationalised. Is that a situation that is common elsewhere in the EU?
Stick that in your price freeze hat and smoke it (carbon capture rules pending)
Not for profit is all well and good. It leaves a mass of blackholes for the state to fill. Investment, incetive, losses and all the risks that come with a protected commercial position.
It's worth pointing out that if this non-profit is buying energy wholesale as Sturgeon says that there will still be a hell of a lot of profit being made. In fact what is the practical difference for the customer between what Sturgeon proposes and the already existing private non-profit energy companies?
FWIW I think UKIP was basically a "none of the above" party - the bulk of its supporters just wanted to express anger and frustration at the world in general. The kind of people who would have voted Lib Dem before the coalition. The majority of them were not EU obsessives, which is why quite a few of them went back to Labour at the general election. Cameron, surrounded by EU obsessives in his own Party, automatically thought that UKIP supporters were cut from the same cloth and could be appeased by the promise of a referendum.
Then all the more credit to Nigel Farage who marshalled those NOTA people into a cohesive force rallied behind his vision of the UK leaving the EU. And Dave fell for it.
But as I say, it wasn't only Kippers who voted Leave, plenty of Lab supporters of course a ton of Cons voters also.
I think it was a legitimate act to hold one, aside from the fact that without that offer he would have lost the election to Labour.
As for the campaign, yes it was shocking, but actually it was very difficult - too difficult, as it turns out - for Remain to articulate the vision that those disenchanted voters wanted to hear (cf. Tezza/Jezza at the GE).
Serious question. In an environment where there are also private companies vying for the same customer base, would a publicly owned company which does not have to make a profit and is backed by the taxpayer not be in breach of EU competition rules? This is not a leading question. I just don't know.
Not necessarily I don't think. So long as it was not running at a loss, though there may be some conditions on its initial funding. There are many "national" companies in the EU, from the Energy sector to Railways, and even nationalisation itself of private assets is not outlawed, so long as a market price is established and paid. (i.e. you can't forcibly nationalise an asset without compensation)
I was thinking specifically of a situation where a nationalised company is in direct competition with private companies rather than a whole sector being nationalised. Is that a situation that is common elsewhere in the EU?
EDF in France is mainly state owned but competes with other private companies.
Serious question. In an environment where there are also private companies vying for the same customer base, would a publicly owned company which does not have to make a profit and is backed by the taxpayer not be in breach of EU competition rules? This is not a leading question. I just don't know.
I'm a user of Robin Hood Energy, to excellent not-for-profit energy company set up by Nottingham City Council - their customer service is really outstanding (they even rang me today to suggest switching electricity supply to another non-profit company because it would save me money on current usage). I don't think there's a legal problem unless they were actually subsidised by the council, and presumably the same would apply to the Scottish idea.
FWIW I think UKIP was basically a "none of the above" party - the bulk of its supporters just wanted to express anger and frustration at the world in general. The kind of people who would have voted Lib Dem before the coalition. The majority of them were not EU obsessives, which is why quite a few of them went back to Labour at the general election. Cameron, surrounded by EU obsessives in his own Party, automatically thought that UKIP supporters were cut from the same cloth and could be appeased by the promise of a referendum.
Then all the more credit to Nigel Farage who marshalled those NOTA people into a cohesive force rallied behind his vision of the UK leaving the EU. And Dave fell for it.
But as I say, it wasn't only Kippers who voted Leave, plenty of Lab supporters of course a ton of Cons voters also.
I think it was a legitimate act to hold one, aside from the fact that without that offer he would have lost the election to Labour.
As for the campaign, yes it was shocking, but actually it was very difficult - too difficult, as it turns out - for Remain to articulate the vision that those disenchanted voters wanted to hear (cf. Tezza/Jezza at the GE).
I agree about Farage but I think it's debatable if the referendum promise won the 2015 election for the Tories. It just didn't come up on the doorstep - I can't honestly remember anyone raising the EU with me when canvassing at any time before the referendum. There was no great demand for a referendum at the grassroots level - it was the likes of Farage and the Daily Mail that created the impression of a groundswell of popular demand which did not exist in reality.
Serious question. In an environment where there are also private companies vying for the same customer base, would a publicly owned company which does not have to make a profit and is backed by the taxpayer not be in breach of EU competition rules? This is not a leading question. I just don't know.
I'm a user of Robin Hood Energy, to excellent not-for-profit energy company set up by Nottingham City Council - their customer service is really outstanding (they even rang me today to suggest switching electricity supply to another non-profit company because it would save me money on current usage). I don't think there's a legal problem unless they were actually subsidised by the council, and presumably the same would apply to the Scottish idea.
To be fair if it was set up by NCC its subsidised by them
They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.
If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
How long do you think he could, or any party leader could, have resisted the public will to settle the EU question?
For as long as it takes. For about 20 years from 1965 to 1985 there were endless demands for a referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty. These demands came from the same sources as those who wanted an EU referendum - the right-wing media and Tory MPs. Governments of both parties (including Margaret Thatcher, despite her personal support for reintroduction) steadfastly resisted and eventually the issue disappeared. The EU issue would have gone the same way had Cameron shown the same level of political courage as his predecessors.
I think he thought that by having a referendum and winning it, he would put the issue to bed. His mistake was less in having the referendum but more in not putting in the work long before it took place to win it. It was all too botched, too rushed and ill thought through.
Brexit is the same. Article 50 should not have been triggered until all the hard work had been done first.
I am reluctantly coming round to the view that having made 2 catastrophic mistakes we need, as a country, to find a way of pressing the pause button rather than carrying on with a third potentially catastrophic mistake i.e. negotiating without any sort of strategy or plan or understanding in too short a time frame.
Article 50 should not have been triggered until all the hard work had been done first.
How? The EU refused to talk about anything until A50 was triggered.
They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.
If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
How long do you think he could, or any party leader could, have resisted the public will to settle the EU question?
For as long as it takes. For about 20 years from 1965 to 1985 there were endless demands for a referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty. These demands came from the same sources as those who wanted an EU referendum - the right-wing media and Tory MPs. Governments of both parties (including Margaret Thatcher, despite her personal support for reintroduction) steadfastly resisted and eventually the issue disappeared. The EU issue would have gone the same way had Cameron shown the same level of political courage as his predecessors.
More likely that UKIP would have continued to grow like the SNP, if Cameron and others had streadfastly refused to grant a referendum on EU membership.
FWIW I think UKIP was basically a "none of the above" party - the bulk of its supporters just wanted to express anger and frustration at the world in general. The kind of people who would have voted Lib Dem before the coalition. The majority of them were not EU obsessives, which is why quite a few of them went back to Labour at the general election. Cameron, surrounded by EU obsessives in his own Party, automatically thought that UKIP supporters were cut from the same cloth and could be appeased by the promise of a referendum.
But, the leadership of UKIP all wanted the UK to leave, and the party would have picked up a growing proportion of anti-EU Conservative and Labour voters, had the two big parties refused a referendum on EU membership. There would certainly have been ongoing defections from Conservative MP's, councillors, and members, to UKIP.
Serious question. In an environment where there are also private companies vying for the same customer base, would a publicly owned company which does not have to make a profit and is backed by the taxpayer not be in breach of EU competition rules? This is not a leading question. I just don't know.
Not necessarily I don't think. So long as it was not running at a loss, though there may be some conditions on its initial funding. There are many "national" companies in the EU, from the Energy sector to Railways, and even nationalisation itself of private assets is not outlawed, so long as a market price is established and paid. (i.e. you can't forcibly nationalise an asset without compensation)
I was thinking specifically of a situation where a nationalised company is in direct competition with private companies rather than a whole sector being nationalised. Is that a situation that is common elsewhere in the EU?
They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.
If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
How long do you think he could, or any party leader could, have resisted the public will to settle the EU question?
For as long as it takes. For about 20 years from 1965 to 1985 there were endless demands for a referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty. These demands came from the same sources as those who wanted an EU referendum - the right-wing media and Tory MPs. Governments of both parties (including Margaret Thatcher, despite her personal support for reintroduction) steadfastly resisted and eventually the issue disappeared. The EU issue would have gone the same way had Cameron shown the same level of political courage as his predecessors.
I am reluctantly coming round to the view that having made 2 catastrophic mistakes we need, as a country, to find a way of pressing the pause button rather than carrying on with a third potentially catastrophic mistake i.e. negotiating without any sort of strategy or plan or understanding in too short a time frame.
Article 50 should not have been triggered until all the hard work had been done first.
How? The EU refused to talk about anything until A50 was triggered.
In fact, Corbyn wanted Art 50 to be triggered right away
Serious question. In an environment where there are also private companies vying for the same customer base, would a publicly owned company which does not have to make a profit and is backed by the taxpayer not be in breach of EU competition rules? This is not a leading question. I just don't know.
Not necessarily I don't think. So long as it was not running at a loss, though there may be some conditions on its initial funding. There are many "national" companies in the EU, from the Energy sector to Railways, and even nationalisation itself of private assets is not outlawed, so long as a market price is established and paid. (i.e. you can't forcibly nationalise an asset without compensation)
I was thinking specifically of a situation where a nationalised company is in direct competition with private companies rather than a whole sector being nationalised. Is that a situation that is common elsewhere in the EU?
I'm not certain about elsewhere in the EU but it is fairly common in the UK, some examples include:
The BBC (and chanal 4) compete against privet TV stations.
The Met office, the Hydrographic Office and Ordnance Servay, all have privet sector competitors.
The commercial woodlands of the forestry commotion compete in the timber industry.
The port of Dover is still government owned
Move controversial the Royal Mint!
To me a privet secter competitor should be the first sine that somethings should be privatized!
Whether that's a good idea or not is debatable tbh... the plan sounds a bit like saying introducing a middle man will reduce costs... let's wait and see on that I suspect...
They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.
If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
What lost the referendum was bigly around his failed negotiation - we will never know if the polls had showed leave ahead - would the EU have given us a better deal ?
Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
How long do you think he could, or any party leader could, have resisted the public will to settle the EU question?
For as long as it takes. For about 20 years from 1965 to 1985 there were endless demands for a referendum on the reintroduction of the death penalty. These demands came from the same sources as those who wanted an EU referendum - the right-wing media and Tory MPs. Governments of both parties (including Margaret Thatcher, despite her personal support for reintroduction) steadfastly resisted and eventually the issue disappeared. The EU issue would have gone the same way had Cameron shown the same level of political courage as his predecessors.
I am reluctantly coming round to the view that having made 2 catastrophic mistakes we need, as a country, to find a way of pressing the pause button rather than carrying on with a third potentially catastrophic mistake i.e. negotiating without any sort of strategy or plan or understanding in too short a time frame.
Article 50 should not have been triggered until all the hard work had been done first.
How? The EU refused to talk about anything until A50 was triggered.
In fact, Corbyn wanted Art 50 to be triggered right away
So, even if it was mistake, then all sides are guilty (Tories, Labour and the EU).....
\
I meant the hard work to be done in Britain about what we wanted, the options, the trade offs, the costs, the timing etc - all the stuff that we appear to be woefully ignorant about it. Then we would have been more prepared once we triggered Article 50. In short, given all the stuff that needs to be done - and that 2 years is pretty short to get it all done - we would have given ourselves some more time. As it is we're learning on the job increasing the risk of ending up with nothing.
I'm well aware that that would have involved facing down some in the Tory party and also speaking some hard truths to voters about the consequences of the referendum result.
They see the continuation of the Tory party as the most significant thing they can give to the country - literally party before country.
If they think (as indeed I do) that the best thing for the country is a Conservative government, then they are not putting party before country. The party is a means to the end of a better country. This is entirely honourable, and indeed given that the alternative at the moment seems to be the most extreme shadow cabinet ever, and one with some very nasty associations, hardly controversial.
It's worth noting that any member of any Party can use that rationale to justify them putting their own party before the country.
Cameron believed that leaving the EU would be a national disaster - he said as much many times during the referendum campaign. He knowingly risked that national disaster to appease a faction within the Tory party. There is no more egregious example of putting party before country in recent British history.
What lost the referendum was bigly around his failed negotiation - we will never know if the polls had showed leave ahead - would the EU have given us a better deal ?
I'm not convinced meaningful negotiations took place, hubris and complacency lost it for Cameron
Serious question. In an environment where there are also private companies vying for the same customer base, would a publicly owned company which does not have to make a profit and is backed by the taxpayer not be in breach of EU competition rules? This is not a leading question. I just don't know.
Not necessarily I don't think. So long as it was not running at a loss, though there may be some conditions on its initial funding. There are many "national" companies in the EU, from the Energy sector to Railways, and even nationalisation itself of private assets is not outlawed, so long as a market price is established and paid. (i.e. you can't forcibly nationalise an asset without compensation)
I was thinking specifically of a situation where a nationalised company is in direct competition with private companies rather than a whole sector being nationalised. Is that a situation that is common elsewhere in the EU?
I'm not certain about elsewhere in the EU but it is fairly common in the UK, some examples include:
The BBC (and chanal 4) compete against privet TV stations.
The Met office, the Hydrographic Office and Ordnance Servay, all have privet sector competitors.
The commercial woodlands of the forestry commotion compete in the timber industry.
The port of Dover is still government owned
Move controversial the Royal Mint!
To me a privet secter competitor should be the first sine that somethings should be privatized!
I wonder how many of the privet sector competitors would be bought by hedge funds?
We're hearing that the Catalan leader's address has been put back, reportedly while party organisers hold a meeting.
Should say that since Madrid and the Police tried to prevent a free and fair referendum he's going to the polls and if his party wins then they will implement the referendum results and declare UDI.
Is Madrid going to prevent regional elections from occurring?
I assume the main problem with an open market in water is that there is no national grid unlike gas and electricity. It kind of makes competition rather more difficult.
I assume the main problem with an open market in water is that there is no national grid unlike gas and electricity. It kind of makes competition rather more difficult.
Pagan managed to utterly miss the point earlier. Post Brexit of course we can do Del's with and import food from whomever we like - that's not in dispute and is not the issue.
It's what happens on day 1 if we exit the single market that is increasingly terrifying the industry. Because that means full customs checks that HMRC say will take 5 years to prep for. Will mean massive investment in our Ports which will also take years.
The simple reality is this. No single market without having prepped - and we can't prep now we don't have enough time - means a massive slowdown in traffic in and out of the UK. Which aside from the huge cost and delays physically ties up vehicles in long queues which means not enough vehicles to import and export never mindove things round the UK. We already have a shortage of HGV vehicles and drivers, before they get sucked up by the M25 car park.
The utility companies are pretty much all running business models which subsidise those who are happy and confident haggling/switching/comparing providers with the profit from the inertia bonus from the (typically elderly / more isolated) customers who are unconfident, technologically naive and/or lack mental capacity.
It might be nice and easy for you (and me) to compare/threaten to switch/avoid the obvious scams etc etc, but it isnt for many.
It seems the main innovation that privatization has delivered in the utility markets is price gouging via inertia.
Those happy (and confident) haggling/switching/comparing providers etc are being subsidised by the (typically elderly / more isolated) customers who are unconfident, technologically naive and/or lack mental capacity and are way more prone to inertia.
It might be nice and easy for you (and me) to compare/threaten to switch/avoid the obvious scams etc etc, but it isnt for many.
It seems the main innovation that privatization has delivered in the utility markets is price gouging via inertia.
I find that a bit patronising.
My parents are in their 60s, silver surfers, using their iPhones and iPads, just like their contemporaries.
Reports there is an argument between the far left member of the coalition and its centre right leader (and Catalan president) over the wording of the statement. The coalition is extremely fragile because politically the only thing that unites the parties is independence. But they all have very different views of it. A wise government in Madrid would stand back and let the separatists eat themselves - they can declare independence, but then what? It cannot be implemented. Puigdemont is depending on yet another draconian, over-the-top PP reaction. It's a good bet that PP will oblige, because PP is stupid, but if it didn't the ball would be in Puigdemont's court (where have I heard that before?) and he would have nowhere to go.
Except I'm not sure it's the Conservatives per se who'll be scrapping Article 50. Three months before Brexit Day, at the point where it becomes clear there's not been sufficient progress on even a transitional deal, it's no longer unthinkable that we'll be into Government of National Unity territory - a ragbag coalition of half the parliamentary Conservative Party, most of Labour, plus the Lib Dems and nationalists - and that it's them who'll withdraw Article 50.
Outlandish, yes, but nothing else makes any more sense or seems more likely any more.
Those happy (and confident) haggling/switching/comparing providers etc are being subsidised by the (typically elderly / more isolated) customers who are unconfident, technologically naive and/or lack mental capacity and are way more prone to inertia.
It might be nice and easy for you (and me) to compare/threaten to switch/avoid the obvious scams etc etc, but it isnt for many.
It seems the main innovation that privatization has delivered in the utility markets is price gouging via inertia.
I find that a bit patronising.
My parents are in their 60s, silver surfers, using their iPhones and iPads, just like their contemporaries.
They know how to haggle
In my experience, retirees have far more spare time to wait on the long queues to do this sort of thing.
I imagine a visa for those in education or gainful employment will be established regardless of any deal.
What about my colleague and his German girlfriend and daughter?
She's not in gainful employment nor in education but looking after their child.
This is people's lives up in the air.
I don't know about their unique circumstances, but it sounds like she would qualify as an unmarried partner.
But you are right. We need a deal expedited, which is why the game playing about what can be discussed when is so unhelpful. The cash for trade access is the deal to be done, so why can't both be discussed at once?
Except I'm not sure it's the Conservatives per se who'll be scrapping Article 50. Three months before Brexit Day, at the point where it becomes clear there's not been progress on a transitional deal, it's no longer unthinkable that we'll be into Government of National Unity territory - a ragbag coalition of half the parliamentary Conservative Party, most of Labour, plus the Lib Dems and nationalists - and that it's them who'll withdraw Article 50.
Outlandish, yes, but nothing else makes any more sense or seems more likely any more.
I'm guessing you voted to remain, both you and Zarb-Cousin are indulging in wishful thinking here.
Those happy (and confident) haggling/switching/comparing providers etc are being subsidised by the (typically elderly / more isolated) customers who are unconfident, technologically naive and/or lack mental capacity and are way more prone to inertia.
It might be nice and easy for you (and me) to compare/threaten to switch/avoid the obvious scams etc etc, but it isnt for many.
It seems the main innovation that privatization has delivered in the utility markets is price gouging via inertia.
I find that a bit patronising.
My parents are in their 60s, silver surfers, using their iPhones and iPads, just like their contemporaries.
They know how to haggle
Still, why should they? The genius of the genuinely free market is that it only takes a few motivated consumers to keep prices down for everybody. Maybe only 10% of shoppers actively compare prices between different supermarkets, but everybody benefits (the switchers by slightly more).
But, as Pong says, the benefits of utility liberalisation and competition go almost entirely to the smarter customers, and many tariffs are essentially loss leaders in the hope that customers will end up on an standard rate.
Perhaps what we need is some sort of quasi-nationalised auto-switching tariff whereby those signing up for that get their supply based on a once-monthly (?) auction process amongst the suppliers. Martin Lewis has tried to set something similar up (an automatic group switch) within the existing framework.
I imagine a visa for those in education or gainful employment will be established regardless of any deal.
I'm happy to listen to a certain extent to complaints from or on behalf of EU citizens living here who can produce evidence that they are furiously lobbying their own governments to get the EU to start negotiating in good faith for a deal. Otherwise, world's smallest violin time.
Pagan managed to utterly miss the point earlier. Post Brexit of course we can do Del's with and import food from whomever we like - that's not in dispute and is not the issue.
It's what happens on day 1 if we exit the single market that is increasingly terrifying the industry. Because that means full customs checks that HMRC say will take 5 years to prep for. Will mean massive investment in our Ports which will also take years.
The simple reality is this. No single market without having prepped - and we can't prep now we don't have enough time - means a massive slowdown in traffic in and out of the UK. Which aside from the huge cost and delays physically ties up vehicles in long queues which means not enough vehicles to import and export never mindove things round the UK. We already have a shortage of HGV vehicles and drivers, before they get sucked up by the M25 car park.
Back on this old chestnut again?
Day 1 of an unlikely, fall back scenario, we'd let vehicles through rather than have food shortages.
I imagine a visa for those in education or gainful employment will be established regardless of any deal.
What about my colleague and his German girlfriend and daughter?
She's not in gainful employment nor in education but looking after their child.
This is people's lives up in the air.
Surely the simple answer there is that they marry ...
European citizens marrying Britons do not automatically qualify for UK citizenship under current rules and Hawkins was concerned that if she did not apply she would be forced “to join a US-style two-hour immigration queue” while the rest of her family “sail through the UK passport lane”.
Those happy (and confident) haggling/switching/comparing providers etc are being subsidised by the (typically elderly / more isolated) customers who are unconfident, technologically naive and/or lack mental capacity and are way more prone to inertia.
It might be nice and easy for you (and me) to compare/threaten to switch/avoid the obvious scams etc etc, but it isnt for many.
It seems the main innovation that privatization has delivered in the utility markets is price gouging via inertia.
I find that a bit patronising.
My parents are in their 60s, silver surfers, using their iPhones and iPads, just like their contemporaries.
Those happy (and confident) haggling/switching/comparing providers etc are being subsidised by the (typically elderly / more isolated) customers who are unconfident, technologically naive and/or lack mental capacity and are way more prone to inertia.
It might be nice and easy for you (and me) to compare/threaten to switch/avoid the obvious scams etc etc, but it isnt for many.
It seems the main innovation that privatization has delivered in the utility markets is price gouging via inertia.
I find that a bit patronising.
My parents are in their 60s, silver surfers, using their iPhones and iPads, just like their contemporaries.
They know how to haggle
If only they had renegotiated our EU terms eh?
If it was up to my Mother, she'd had seen every Roma person expelled from this country as part of the EU renegotiation.
May wanted an early reciprocal deal on citizens' rights. The EU declined, preferring to delay and demand a dose of judicial imperialism into the bargain.
I imagine a visa for those in education or gainful employment will be established regardless of any deal.
What about my colleague and his German girlfriend and daughter?
She's not in gainful employment nor in education but looking after their child.
This is people's lives up in the air.
Surely the simple answer there is that they marry ...
European citizens marrying Britons do not automatically qualify for UK citizenship under current rules and Hawkins was concerned that if she did not apply she would be forced “to join a US-style two-hour immigration queue” while the rest of her family “sail through the UK passport lane”.
Whenever I come to the UK, my wife and daughter, both US citizens with no EU passports, merely accompany me in the EU line. Never, ever been a problem.
This hack was suggested to me by the immigration officer the first time we went to the UK and we did go into the separate lines. I complained to him that we were split up as a family, he said no need to do that, just have them come through with you. Since then, we always have, never a problem.
Reports there is an argument between the far left member of the coalition and its centre right leader (and Catalan president) over the wording of the statement. The coalition is extremely fragile because politically the only thing that unites the parties is independence. But they all have very different views of it. A wise government in Madrid would stand back and let the separatists eat themselves - they can declare independence, but then what? It cannot be implemented. Puigdemont is depending on yet another draconian, over-the-top PP reaction. It's a good bet that PP will oblige, because PP is stupid, but if it didn't the ball would be in Puigdemont's court (where have I heard that before?) and he would have nowhere to go.
"The separatists have been taken care of, my master!" - Anakin Skywalker.
I imagine a visa for those in education or gainful employment will be established regardless of any deal.
What about my colleague and his German girlfriend and daughter?
She's not in gainful employment nor in education but looking after their child.
This is people's lives up in the air.
Surely the simple answer there is that they marry ...
This is part of the trouble with discussions of this type of issue online - they morph into discussions of multiple different issues simultaneously with people talking at cross purposes because they are really talking about different issues. Is the issue:
1. right to citizenship? 2. right to residency? 3. right to work? 4. right to go through the same immigration line as your spouse/parent?
It strikes me that there are easy fixes for each of those questions.
But of course Pete North is one of those who would almost rather have no Brexit than one that is not on his exact, completely unobtainable terms. Like his namesake Richard, the only thing he hates more than his political enemies are his political allies. Basically any Brexit that is not exactly on his very specific terms will, in his eyes, be a disaster.
Both Peter and Richard pushed (and I believe are still pushing) the Liechtenstein Option whereby we can take a loophole designed for accommodating a tiny country with a few hundred immigrants a year and use it as the basis for a permanent immigration policy for the UK inside the EEA. It is the ultimate in cake having and eating.
Are we missing something here as we clearly didn't hear the interview. Why should we allow people to stay if the EU wasn't to allow the same?
Our decision on how to treat people who have made their lives here for decades, who are parents of British children, should not depend on how others treat British citizens living abroad.
We could choose to take the moral high ground here regardless of whether the EU does or not. Ideally, it would be best to get a reciprocal deal. But if not I would not want my country to start deporting people who have lived here for decades and have done nothing wrong
Those happy (and confident) haggling/switching/comparing providers etc are being subsidised by the (typically elderly / more isolated) customers who are unconfident, technologically naive and/or lack mental capacity and are way more prone to inertia.
It might be nice and easy for you (and me) to compare/threaten to switch/avoid the obvious scams etc etc, but it isnt for many.
It seems the main innovation that privatization has delivered in the utility markets is price gouging via inertia.
I find that a bit patronising.
My parents are in their 60s, silver surfers, using their iPhones and iPads, just like their contemporaries.
They know how to haggle
Still, why should they? The genius of the genuinely free market is that it only takes a few motivated consumers to keep prices down for everybody. Maybe only 10% of shoppers actively compare prices between different supermarkets, but everybody benefits (the switchers by slightly more).
But, as Pong says, the benefits of utility liberalisation and competition go almost entirely to the smarter customers, and many tariffs are essentially loss leaders in the hope that customers will end up on an standard rate.
Perhaps what we need is some sort of quasi-nationalised auto-switching tariff whereby those signing up for that get their supply based on a once-monthly (?) auction process amongst the suppliers. Martin Lewis has tried to set something similar up (an automatic group switch) within the existing framework.
Perhaps what we need is some kind of nationalised electricity supplier. It would supply at cost (calculated at the public sector discount rate). It would need no price comparison websites. and would have no internal transaction costs.
Oh I forgot, we had a CEGB and Area Boards.
Tories privatised it in 1990 but left us with one supplier per region. Prices were regulated, as water still is. New Labour de-regulated in 2002. Both parties took a 'light touch' approach to mergers and takeovers.
I suspect we would rejoin before a recession got to ten years. I don't think there is any evidence to suggest a ten year recession is likely - not sure there has ever been one that long in a modern economy...
That's what you get when you have a clueless Remainer as PM. There were plenty of us including Hannan saying we should just tell all existing EU citizens in the UK that they get residency rights. If May had followed our lead the EU would have been on the backfoot from the start and one of the major hangups would have been a non event.
I imagine a visa for those in education or gainful employment will be established regardless of any deal.
What about my colleague and his German girlfriend and daughter?
She's not in gainful employment nor in education but looking after their child.
This is people's lives up in the air.
Surely the simple answer there is that they marry ...
This is part of the trouble with discussions of this type of issue online - they morph into discussions of multiple different issues simultaneously with people talking at cross purposes because they are really talking about different issues. Is the issue:
1. right to citizenship? 2. right to residency? 3. right to work? 4. right to go through the same immigration line as your spouse/parent?
It strikes me that there are easy fixes for each of those questions.
There is a meaningful distinction between the right to remain here (akin to permanent residency) and citizenship.
I have an EU wife who is self employed and on a low income, and also looks after our child. As far as I am concerned, I would only be happy with citizenship or something very close to it. Otherwise, her stay here is temporary and we have no ultimate rights - we can't come and go as we please. One scenario that I worry about: If we moved to her country, and then I got cancer or some other terminal illness (always a possibility) and needed to be treated on the NHS (as post brexit I would have no reciprocal rights) there would be no way for her to move back to Britain to care for me, as I would not meet the income requirement (£20k plus per year) to sponsor her and my son to come to Britain.
People just dont appreciate the enormity of what is happening. Millions of people are being put through hell because of Brexit. Maybe you all have so much money you just don't worry.
That's what you get when you have a clueless Remainer as PM. There were plenty of us including Hannan saying we should just tell all existing EU citizens in the UK that they get residency rights. If May had followed our lead the EU would have been on the backfoot from the start and one of the major hangups would have been a non event.
It was the worst of all worlds to go for Remainer May as Leave PM.
Are we missing something here as we clearly didn't hear the interview. Why should we allow people to stay if the EU wasn't to allow the same?
Our decision on how to treat people who have made their lives here for decades, who are parents of British children, should not depend on how others treat British citizens living abroad.
We could choose to take the moral high ground here regardless of whether the EU does or not. Ideally, it would be best to get a reciprocal deal. But if not I would not want my country to start deporting people who have lived here for decades and have done nothing wrong
But of course Pete North is one of those who would almost rather have no Brexit than one that is not on his exact, completely unobtainable terms. Like his namesake Richard, the only thing he hates more than his political enemies are his political allies. Basically any Brexit that is not exactly on his very specific terms will, in his eyes, be a disaster.
Both Peter and Richard pushed (and I believe are still pushing) the Liechtenstein Option whereby we can take a loophole designed for accommodating a tiny country with a few hundred immigrants a year and use it as the basis for a permanent immigration policy for the UK inside the EEA. It is the ultimate in cake having and eating.
On this we agree completely. The Norths don't play well with others, and for this reason have had little traction up to now. As you say, they also place too much faith in the words of treaties rather than political reality.
Bad form by the Catalan President not to give this speech in English.
Doesn't he know I'm watching this?
English is the best language in the world, combining vocab from so many diverse langauges such as Latin, French, German, Greek, Arabic, Hindi-Urdu and Tamil.
Comments
Brexit is the same. Article 50 should not have been triggered until all the hard work had been done first.
I am reluctantly coming round to the view that having made 2 catastrophic mistakes we need, as a country, to find a way of pressing the pause button rather than carrying on with a third potentially catastrophic mistake i.e. negotiating without any sort of strategy or plan or understanding in too short a time frame.
Its the outcome they object to.
Investment, incetive, losses and all the risks that come with a protected commercial position.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/state-aid
IIRC Scottish Water is state owned, so it isn't a new thing in Scotland.
FWIW I think UKIP was basically a "none of the above" party - the bulk of its supporters just wanted to express anger and frustration at the world in general. The kind of people who would have voted Lib Dem before the coalition. The majority of them were not EU obsessives, which is why quite a few of them went back to Labour at the general election. Cameron, surrounded by EU obsessives in his own Party, automatically thought that UKIP supporters were cut from the same cloth and could be appeased by the promise of a referendum.
Then all the more credit to Nigel Farage who marshalled those NOTA people into a cohesive force rallied behind his vision of the UK leaving the EU. And Dave fell for it.
But as I say, it wasn't only Kippers who voted Leave, plenty of Lab supporters of course a ton of Cons voters also.
I think it was a legitimate act to hold one, aside from the fact that without that offer he would have lost the election to Labour.
As for the campaign, yes it was shocking, but actually it was very difficult - too difficult, as it turns out - for Remain to articulate the vision that those disenchanted voters wanted to hear (cf. Tezza/Jezza at the GE).
Why isn't it like gas and electricity, where I can swap providers?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/19/uk-water-regulator-backs-plan-to-open-up-market
Is it to do with this story.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41565281
Article 50 should not have been triggered until all the hard work had been done first.
How? The EU refused to talk about anything until A50 was triggered.
http://labourlist.org/2016/06/corbyn-article-50-has-to-be-invoked-now/
So, even if it was mistake, then all sides are guilty (Tories, Labour and the EU).....
The BBC (and chanal 4) compete against privet TV stations.
The Met office, the Hydrographic Office and Ordnance Servay, all have privet sector competitors.
The commercial woodlands of the forestry commotion compete in the timber industry.
The port of Dover is still government owned
Move controversial the Royal Mint!
To me a privet secter competitor should be the first sine that somethings should be privatized!
I meant the hard work to be done in Britain about what we wanted, the options, the trade offs, the costs, the timing etc - all the stuff that we appear to be woefully ignorant about it. Then we would have been more prepared once we triggered Article 50. In short, given all the stuff that needs to be done - and that 2 years is pretty short to get it all done - we would have given ourselves some more time. As it is we're learning on the job increasing the risk of ending up with nothing.
I'm well aware that that would have involved facing down some in the Tory party and also speaking some hard truths to voters about the consequences of the referendum result.
https://twitter.com/JamesMelville/status/917784233854332931
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4966816/Harvey-Weinstein-accused-raping-Asia-Argento.html
Is Madrid going to prevent regional elections from occurring?
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/917787816129638401
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/917788180623052800
https://labourlist.org/2017/10/jade-azim-why-do-millennials-like-what-labours-selling/
One thing Andrea Leadsom got right in June/July 2016 was we should guarantee that they won't be thrown out.
http://news.sky.com/story/live-high-security-as-catalan-leader-addresses-regional-parliament-11075181
It's what happens on day 1 if we exit the single market that is increasingly terrifying the industry. Because that means full customs checks that HMRC say will take 5 years to prep for. Will mean massive investment in our Ports which will also take years.
The simple reality is this. No single market without having prepped - and we can't prep now we don't have enough time - means a massive slowdown in traffic in and out of the UK. Which aside from the huge cost and delays physically ties up vehicles in long queues which means not enough vehicles to import and export never mindove things round the UK. We already have a shortage of HGV vehicles and drivers, before they get sucked up by the M25 car park.
The utility companies are pretty much all running business models which subsidise those who are happy and confident haggling/switching/comparing providers with the profit from the inertia bonus from the (typically elderly / more isolated) customers who are unconfident, technologically naive and/or lack mental capacity.
It might be nice and easy for you (and me) to compare/threaten to switch/avoid the obvious scams etc etc, but it isnt for many.
It seems the main innovation that privatization has delivered in the utility markets is price gouging via inertia.
My parents are in their 60s, silver surfers, using their iPhones and iPads, just like their contemporaries.
They know how to haggle
Though I can't abide Matt Zarb-Cousin, I fear he's right on this:
https://twitter.com/mattzarb/status/917421476915089413
Except I'm not sure it's the Conservatives per se who'll be scrapping Article 50. Three months before Brexit Day, at the point where it becomes clear there's not been sufficient progress on even a transitional deal, it's no longer unthinkable that we'll be into Government of National Unity territory - a ragbag coalition of half the parliamentary Conservative Party, most of Labour, plus the Lib Dems and nationalists - and that it's them who'll withdraw Article 50.
Outlandish, yes, but nothing else makes any more sense or seems more likely any more.
Freedom of movement for workers in the European Union
She's not in gainful employment nor in education but looking after their child.
This is people's lives up in the air.
But you are right. We need a deal expedited, which is why the game playing about what can be discussed when is so unhelpful. The cash for trade access is the deal to be done, so why can't both be discussed at once?
But, as Pong says, the benefits of utility liberalisation and competition go almost entirely to the smarter customers, and many tariffs are essentially loss leaders in the hope that customers will end up on an standard rate.
Perhaps what we need is some sort of quasi-nationalised auto-switching tariff whereby those signing up for that get their supply based on a once-monthly (?) auction process amongst the suppliers. Martin Lewis has tried to set something similar up (an automatic group switch) within the existing framework.
Day 1 of an unlikely, fall back scenario, we'd let vehicles through rather than have food shortages.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/28/dutch-woman-with-two-british-children-told-to-leave-uk-after-24-years
Remain would have won a landslide.
This hack was suggested to me by the immigration officer the first time we went to the UK and we did go into the separate lines. I complained to him that we were split up as a family, he said no need to do that, just have them come through with you. Since then, we always have, never a problem.
http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/i-dont-like-this-brexit-but-i-will-live.html?m=1
This is part of the trouble with discussions of this type of issue online - they morph into discussions of multiple different issues simultaneously with people talking at cross purposes because they are really talking about different issues. Is the issue:
1. right to citizenship?
2. right to residency?
3. right to work?
4. right to go through the same immigration line as your spouse/parent?
It strikes me that there are easy fixes for each of those questions.
But if we can clear out EU citizens without any scruples, who next? Gypsies? Muslims? Jews?
If that's the outcome, the people to worry about are the country's poor and weak.
http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.3983/denmark-634-out-of-700-asylum-seekers-lied.html
But of course Pete North is one of those who would almost rather have no Brexit than one that is not on his exact, completely unobtainable terms. Like his namesake Richard, the only thing he hates more than his political enemies are his political allies. Basically any Brexit that is not exactly on his very specific terms will, in his eyes, be a disaster.
Both Peter and Richard pushed (and I believe are still pushing) the Liechtenstein Option whereby we can take a loophole designed for accommodating a tiny country with a few hundred immigrants a year and use it as the basis for a permanent immigration policy for the UK inside the EEA. It is the ultimate in cake having and eating.
We could choose to take the moral high ground here regardless of whether the EU does or not. Ideally, it would be best to get a reciprocal deal. But if not I would not want my country to start deporting people who have lived here for decades and have done nothing wrong
Oh I forgot, we had a CEGB and Area Boards.
Tories privatised it in 1990 but left us with one supplier per region. Prices were regulated, as water still is. New Labour de-regulated in 2002. Both parties took a 'light touch' approach to mergers and takeovers.
Doesn't he know I'm watching this?
I don't think there is any evidence to suggest a ten year recession is likely - not sure there has ever been one that long in a modern economy...
I have an EU wife who is self employed and on a low income, and also looks after our child. As far as I am concerned, I would only be happy with citizenship or something very close to it. Otherwise, her stay here is temporary and we have no ultimate rights - we can't come and go as we please. One scenario that I worry about: If we moved to her country, and then I got cancer or some other terminal illness (always a possibility) and needed to be treated on the NHS (as post brexit I would have no reciprocal rights) there would be no way for her to move back to Britain to care for me, as I would not meet the income requirement (£20k plus per year) to sponsor her and my son to come to Britain.
People just dont appreciate the enormity of what is happening. Millions of people are being put through hell because of Brexit. Maybe you all have so much money you just don't worry.