Curious perhaps that the Conservative German chancellor is so disliked by the pb.com conservative community. I suppose it’s because of refugees and immigration.
Another election will presumably delay our Brexit negotiations further. A new leader of Germany would presumably be either Schulz or Merkel... not sure there is much between them from a Brexit perspective...
Anyone who has done anything good about immigration is instinctively disliked by PB Tories. Ironically, if Merkel is gone it will be worse for UK and Brexit because she is by instinct a compromiser. Others won't be. The only non-CDU alternative is Martin Schulz.
What, exactly, is "good" about Merkel's approach?
She has:-
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men without any vetting at all from countries with a long history of terrorism at a time of increased terrorist threat to Europe. 3. As a consequence of 1 and 2 allowed the conditions to arise in which there has been a considerable increase in crime (both knife-related and sexual) by many of those she has let in. 4. Then changed tack and has said that relatives may not come thus separating families and creating an injustice towards women and children, who are likely to be more vulnerable than fit young men. 5. Created the conditions in which a quasi-fascist party has significantly increased its vote. 6. Annoyed the countries around Germany which are now being expected to bear the costs of a German policy entered into without any regard to the interests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
One can argue she pushed Brexit across the line all by herself.
I think she's the worst Western Conservative leader, by far.
Curious perhaps that the Conservative German chancellor is so disliked by the pb.com conservative community. I suppose it’s because of refugees and immigration.
Another election will presumably delay our Brexit negotiations further. A new leader of Germany would presumably be either Schulz or Merkel... not sure there is much between them from a Brexit perspective...
Anyone who has done anything good about immigration is instinctively disliked by PB Tories. Ironically, if Merkel is gone it will be worse for UK and Brexit because she is by instinct a compromiser. Others won't be. The only non-CDU alternative is Martin Schulz.
What, exactly, is "good" about Merkel's approach?
She has:-
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men without any vetting at all from countries with a long history of terrorism at a time of increased terrorist threat to Europe. 3. As a consequence of 1 and 2 allowed the conditions to arise in which there has been a considerable increase in crime (both knife-related and sexual) by many of those she has let in. 4. Then changed tack and has said that relatives may not come thus separating families and creating an injustice towards women and children, who are likely to be more vulnerable than fit young men. 5. Created the conditions in which a quasi-fascist party has significantly increased its vote. 6. Annoyed the countries around Germany which are now being expected to bear the costs of a German policy entered into without any regard to the interests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
One can argue she pushed Brexit across the line all by herself.
I think she's the worst Western Conservative leader, by far.
She's not a Conservative in any real sense of the word. Like May, she's a social democrat in the wrong party.
People in London could easily commute to Amsterdam and Paris, certainly on a weekly basis. But I wonder whether it will be made a condition of their employment that they (and their families?) need to live in those countries.
Interesting that Frankfurt did not get the EBA. The French will be pleased though. They have rather lost out in terms of bank moves.
My understanding was that the rest of the EU 27 didn't want to hand another financial institution to Germany and make it the even more powerful financial centre of the EU after our departure.
A diffusion of power between different centres is not going to help the cause of effective joined up regulation. The fact that financial expertise is going to be split across a number of different centres, even if London remains dominant, is a possible risk to the stability of the financial system. The more "joins" there are the greater the risks of things being missed. In my experience.
On topic, Labour has no need to be purposeful, coherent, generous or trustful. It only needs to sit back and watch the Conservative party disintegrate into Brexit factions, then stroll across and pick up the reins of power.
On present polling even despite the Tories problems the best Corbyn can get is a minority government not the clear overall majority your comments suggest he should get.
If we had seen the nadir of the Conservative party's problems now, I would understand your point. But things, as D:Ream didn't quite sing, can only get worse.
What is this nadir you speak of? The current Tory vote is overwhelmingly pro Brexit and anti Corbyn they are ideologically not going to vote for Corbyn Labour or the LDs.
They strongly back ending free movement and leaving the single market, the only risk is the Tories may lose a few voters back to UKIP if May makes a big payment to the EU for a FTA but then she could win back a few Remainers at the same time who went for Labour or the LDs in June.
Nobody learns. We have precisely zero idea about the next election. None.
Last time the Tories were miles ahead - outcome minority. Before that neck and neck - outcome majority. Between now and the election we have Brexit, new leaders and who knows what else. Labour's current position could signal anything.
Everyone needs to chill out and watch events unfold.
Well said and I agree - everything is crazy and no one can say with a certainty about future elections other than put their own slant on it more out of hope than expectation
Curious perhaps that the Conservative German chancellor is so disliked by the pb.com conservative community. I suppose it’s because of refugees and immigration.
Another election will presumably delay our Brexit negotiations further. A new leader of Germany would presumably be either Schulz or Merkel... not sure there is much between them from a Brexit perspective...
Anyone who has done anything good about immigration is instinctively disliked by PB Tories. Ironically, if Merkel is gone it will be worse for UK and Brexit because she is by instinct a compromiser. Others won't be. The only non-CDU alternative is Martin Schulz.
What, exactly, is "good" about Merkel's approach?
She has:-
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men without any vetting at all from countries with a long history of terrorism at a time of increased terrorist threat to Europe. 3. As a consequence of 1 and 2 allowed the conditions to arise in which there has been a considerable increase in crime (both knife-related and sexual) by many of those she has let in. 4. Then changed tack and has said that relatives may not come thus separating families and creating an injustice towards women and children, who are likely to be more vulnerable than fit young men. 5. Created the conditions in which a quasi-fascist party has significantly increased its vote. 6. Annoyed the countries around Germany which are now being expected to bear the costs of a German policy entered into without any regard to the interests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
One can argue she pushed Brexit across the line all by herself.
I think she's the worst Western Conservative leader, by far.
And all due to an unexpected meeting with a tearful young girl.
Curious perhaps that the Conservative German chancellor is so disliked by the pb.com conservative community. I suppose it’s because of refugees and immigration.
Another election will presumably delay our Brexit negotiations further. A new leader of Germany would presumably be either Schulz or Merkel... not sure there is much between them from a Brexit perspective...
Anyone who has done anything good about immigration is instinctively disliked by PB Tories. Ironically, if Merkel is gone it will be worse for UK and Brexit because she is by instinct a compromiser. Others won't be. The only non-CDU alternative is Martin Schulz.
What, exactly, is "good" about Merkel's approach?
She has:-
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men without any vetting at all from countries with a long history of terrorism at a time of increased terrorist threat to Europe. 3. As a consequence of 1 and 2 allowed the conditions to arise in which there has been a considerable increase in crime (both knife-related and sexual) by many of those she has let in. 4. Then changed tack and has said that relatives may not come thus separating families and creating an injustice towards women and children, who are likely to be more vulnerable than fit young men. 5. Created the conditions in which a quasi-fascist party has significantly increased its vote. 6. Annoyed the countries around Germany which are now being expected to bear the costs of a German policy entered into without any regard to the interests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
People in London could easily commute to Amsterdam and Paris, certainly on a weekly basis. But I wonder whether it will be made a condition of their employment that they (and their families?) need to live in those countries.
Interesting that Frankfurt did not get the EBA. The French will be pleased though. They have rather lost out in terms of bank moves.
My understanding was that the rest of the EU 27 didn't want to hand another financial institution to Germany and make it the even more powerful financial centre of the EU after our departure.
A diffusion of power between different centres is not going to help the cause of effective joined up regulation. The fact that financial expertise is going to be split across a number of different centres, even if London remains dominant, is a possible risk to the stability of the financial system. The more "joins" there are the greater the risks of things being missed. In my experience.
what if the greatest risk is the groupthink from everyone being sat together ?
People in London could easily commute to Amsterdam and Paris, certainly on a weekly basis. But I wonder whether it will be made a condition of their employment that they (and their families?) need to live in those countries.
Interesting that Frankfurt did not get the EBA. The French will be pleased though. They have rather lost out in terms of bank moves.
My understanding was that the rest of the EU 27 didn't want to hand another financial institution to Germany and make it the even more powerful financial centre of the EU after our departure.
A diffusion of power between different centres is not going to help the cause of effective joined up regulation. The fact that financial expertise is going to be split across a number of different centres, even if London remains dominant, is a possible risk to the stability of the financial system. The more "joins" there are the greater the risks of things being missed. In my experience.
Yup, the reason why the great financial crisis impacted the UK so badly was the supervision of banking was spread across different organisations rather than the BoE.
Nobody learns. We have precisely zero idea about the next election. None.
Last time the Tories were miles ahead - outcome minority. Before that neck and neck - outcome majority. Between now and the election we have Brexit, new leaders and who knows what else. Labour's current position could signal anything.
Everyone needs to chill out and watch events unfold.
+1. Bonus points for those who predict the outcome of the next but one election as well!
On topic, Labour has no need to be purposeful, coherent, generous or trustful. It only needs to sit back and watch the Conservative party disintegrate into Brexit factions, then stroll across and pick up the reins of power.
On present polling even despite the Tories problems the best Corbyn can get is a minority government not the clear overall majority your comments suggest he should get.
If we had seen the nadir of the Conservative party's problems now, I would understand your point. But things, as D:Ream didn't quite sing, can only get worse.
What evidence is there for that?
The clock is ticking and throughout EU history the one thing that can be assured is that compromise is only ever reached at the 11th hour.
Right now we have uncertainty. By the next election it's entirely possible that a deal has not only been reached but implemented and that these arguments are by then of historical concern only.
Curious perhaps that the Conservative German chancellor is so disliked by the pb.com conservative community. I suppose it’s because of refugees and immigration.
Another election will presumably delay our Brexit negotiations further. A new leader of Germany would presumably be either Schulz or Merkel... not sure there is much between them from a Brexit perspective...
Anyone who has done anything good about immigration is instinctively disliked by PB Tories. Ironically, if Merkel is gone it will be worse for UK and Brexit because she is by instinct a compromiser. Others won't be. The only non-CDU alternative is Martin Schulz.
What, exactly, is "good" about Merkel's approach?
She has:-
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men without any vetting at all from countries with a long history of terrorism at a time of increased terrorist threat to Europe. 3. As a consequence of 1 and 2 allowed the conditions to arise in which there has been a considerable increase in crime (both knife-related and sexual) by many of those she has let in. 4. Then changed tack and has said that relatives may not come thus separating families and creating an injustice towards women and children, who are likely to be more vulnerable than fit young men. 5. Created the conditions in which a quasi-fascist party has significantly increased its vote. 6. Annoyed the countries around Germany which are now being expected to bear the costs of a German policy entered into without any regard to the interests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
Can I just say what an utterly fabulous film Paddington 2 is? I just took my three-year old to see it (his first trip to the cinema) and we both loved it.
It's even better than the original. Funny, sad, and utterly endearing.
Curious perhaps that the Conservative German chancellor is so disliked by the pb.com conservative community. I suppose it’s because of refugees and immigration.
Another election will presumably delay our Brexit negotiations further. A new leader of Germany would presumably be either Schulz or Merkel... not sure there is much between them from a Brexit perspective...
Anyone who has done anything good about immigration is instinctively disliked by PB Tories. Ironically, if Merkel is gone it will be worse for UK and Brexit because she is by instinct a compromiser. Others won't be. The only non-CDU alternative is Martin Schulz.
What, exactly, is "good" about Merkel's approach?
She has:-
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men without any vetting at all from countries with a long history of terrorism at a time of increased terrorist threat to Europe. 3. As a consequence of 1 and 2 allowed the conditions to arise in which there has been a considerable increase in crime (both knife-related and sexual) by many of those she has let in. 4. Then changed tack and has said that relatives may not come thus separating families and creating an injustice towards women and children, who are likely to be more vulnerable than fit young men. 5. Created the conditions in which a quasi-fascist party has significantly increased its vote. 6. Annoyed the countries around Germany which are now being expected to bear the costs of a German policy entered into without any regard to the interests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
People in London could easily commute to Amsterdam and Paris, certainly on a weekly basis. But I wonder whether it will be made a condition of their employment that they (and their families?) need to live in those countries.
Interesting that Frankfurt did not get the EBA. The French will be pleased though. They have rather lost out in terms of bank moves.
My understanding was that the rest of the EU 27 didn't want to hand another financial institution to Germany and make it the even more powerful financial centre of the EU after our departure.
A diffusion of power between different centres is not going to help the cause of effective joined up regulation. The fact that financial expertise is going to be split across a number of different centres, even if London remains dominant, is a possible risk to the stability of the financial system. The more "joins" there are the greater the risks of things being missed. In my experience.
what if the greatest risk is the groupthink from everyone being sat together ?
Then there's one group who carry the can for their groupthink and their successors have nowhere to hide when fixing it.
Curious perhaps that the Conservative German chancellor is so disliked by the pb.com conservative community. I suppose it’s because of refugees and immigration.
Another election will presumably delay our Brexit negotiations further. A new leader of Germany would presumably be either Schulz or Merkel... not sure there is much between them from a Brexit perspective...
Anyone who has done anything good about immigration is instinctively disliked by PB Tories. Ironically, if Merkel is gone it will be worse for UK and Brexit because she is by instinct a compromiser. Others won't be. The only non-CDU alternative is Martin Schulz.
What, exactly, is "good" about Merkel's approach?
She has:-
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men without any vetting at all from countries with a long history of terrorism at a time of increased terrorist threat to Europe. 3. As a consequence of 1 and 2 allowed the conditions to arise in which there has been a considerable increase in crime (both knife-related and sexual) by many of those she has let in. 4. Then changed tack and has said that relatives may not come thus separating families and creating an injustice towards women and children, who are likely to be more vulnerable than fit young men. 5. Created the conditions in which a quasi-fascist party has significantly increased its vote. 6. Annoyed the countries around Germany which are now being expected to bear the costs of a German policy entered into without any regard to the interests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
Curious perhaps that the Conservative German chancellor is so disliked by the pb.com conservative community. I suppose it’s because of refugees and immigration.
Another election will presumably delay our Brexit negotiations further. A new leader of Germany would presumably be either Schulz or Merkel... not sure there is much between them from a Brexit perspective...
Anyone who has done anything good about immigration is instinctively disliked by PB Tories. Ironically, if Merkel is gone it will be worse for UK and Brexit because she is by instinct a compromiser. Others won't be. The only non-CDU alternative is Martin Schulz.
What, exactly, is "good" about Merkel's approach?
She has:-
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men without any vetting at all from countries with a long history of terrorism at a time of increased terrorist threat to Europe. 3. As a consequence of 1 and 2 allowed the conditions to arise in which there has been a considerable increase in crime (both knife-related and sexual) by many of those she has let in. 4. Then changed tack and has said that relatives may not come thus separating families and creating an injustice towards women and children, who are likely to be more vulnerable than fit young men. 5. Created the conditions in which a quasi-fascist party has significantly increased its vote. 6. Annoyed the countries around Germany which are now being expected to bear the costs of a German policy entered into without any regard to the interests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
Not sending out a massive invite to the whole middle east to come to Europe. Before her intervention the number of people arriving was high, but manageable, afterwards it turned into a mess.
People in London could easily commute to Amsterdam and Paris, certainly on a weekly basis. But I wonder whether it will be made a condition of their employment that they (and their families?) need to live in those countries.
Interesting that Frankfurt did not get the EBA. The French will be pleased though. They have rather lost out in terms of bank moves.
My understanding was that the rest of the EU 27 didn't want to hand another financial institution to Germany and make it the even more powerful financial centre of the EU after our departure.
A diffusion of power between different centres is not going to help the cause of effective joined up regulation. The fact that financial expertise is going to be split across a number of different centres, even if London remains dominant, is a possible risk to the stability of the financial system. The more "joins" there are the greater the risks of things being missed. In my experience.
what if the greatest risk is the groupthink from everyone being sat together ?
That is a risk. A culture of effective challenge and curiosity is needed to counter that.
But silos and ineffective sharing of information, not seeing the bigger picture and not being able to join the dots are real problems, both within regulators and banks. A lot of the problems we have seen, including some of the more egregious criminal and quasi-criminal behaviour is attributable, in part, to these issues. You can end up very easily in a situation where you spend a lot of time and energy collecting information but not enough actually reading and understanding it, let alone acting effectively on it.
I have a great regard for French regulators. Tough but effective. German regulators are utter pants. Weak. I suspect that any real talent goes to the Bundesbank rather than anywhere else.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
What about what Cameron and others proposed? Generous aid to those nations and camps which had the bulk of the refugees and a proper system of vetting etcat the camps rather than a sick and Darwininan survival of the fittest method of allowing in just fit young men and spurning and ignoring everyone else.
Germany gave paltry indifference rather than support to anyone not fit enough or rich enough to do the journey unaided.
Curious perhaps that the Conservative German chancellor is so disliked by the pb.com conservative community. I suppose it’s because of refugees and immigration.
Another election will presumably delay our Brexit negotiations further. A new leader of Germany would presumably be either Schulz or Merkel... not sure there is much between them from a Brexit perspective...
Anyone who has done anything good about immigration is instinctively disliked by PB Tories. Ironically, if Merkel is gone it will be worse for UK and Brexit because she is by instinct a compromiser. Others won't be. The only non-CDU alternative is Martin Schulz.
What, exactly, is "good" about Merkel's approach?
She has:-
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men without any vetting at all from countries with a long history of terrorism at a time of increased terrorist threat to Europe. 3. As a consequence of 1 and 2 allowed the conditions to arise in which there has been a considerable increase in crime (both knife-related and sexual) by many of those she has let in. 4. Then changed tack and has said that relatives may not come thus separating families and creating an injustice towards women and children, who are likely to be more vulnerable than fit young men. 5. Created the conditions in which a quasi-fascist party has significantly increased its vote. 6. Annoyed the countries around Germany which are now being expected to bear the costs of a German policy entered into without any regard to the interests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
True enough.
The answer is what she did subsequently, and also to follow Cameron's lead.
Not sending out a massive invite to the whole middle east to come to Europe. Before her intervention the number of people arriving was high, but manageable, afterwards it turned into a mess.
No, it was a mess well before then and throughout the Greek debt negotiations Merkel kept pointing out that migration was a much bigger issue facing Europe. She was ignored by people who instead spent their time hyperventilating about Grexit.
The immediate crisis Merkel was responding to was in Hungary.
Anyone who has done anything good about immigration is instinctively disliked by PB Tories. Ironically, if Merkel is gone it will be worse for UK and Brexit because she is by instinct a compromiser. Others won't be. The only non-CDU alternative is Martin Schulz.
What, exactly, is "good" about Merkel's approach?
She has:-
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men without any vetting at all from countries with a long history of terrorism at a time of increased terrorist threat to Europe. 3. As a consequence of 1 and 2 allowed the conditions to arise in which there has been a considerable increase in crime (both knife-related and sexual) by many of those she has let in. 4. Then changed tack and has said that relatives may not come thus separating families and creating an injustice towards women and children, who are likely to be more vulnerable than fit young men. 5. Created the conditions in which a quasi-fascist party has significantly increased its vote. 6. Annoyed the countries around Germany which are now being expected to bear the costs of a German policy entered into without any regard to the interests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
Not sending out a massive invite to the whole middle east to come to Europe. Before her intervention the number of people arriving was high, but manageable, afterwards it turned into a mess.
There were already large numbers of migrants well before she suspended the Dublin protocol. And my question still stands: what do you think she should have done with them?
Curious perhaps that the Conservative German chancellor is so disliked by the pb.com conservative community. I suppose it’s because of refugees and immigration.
Another election will presumably delay our Brexit negotiations further. A new leader of Germany would presumably be either Schulz or Merkel... not sure there is much between them from a Brexit perspective...
Anyone who has done anything good about immigration is instinctively disliked by PB Tories. Ironically, if Merkel is gone it will be worse for UK and Brexit because she is by instinct a compromiser. Others won't be. The only non-CDU alternative is Martin Schulz.
What, exactly, is "good" about Merkel's approach?
She has:-
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men withoterests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
Piffle
it's been stated many times on this board that the UK policy of supporting refugees in their own country was a better way to go
the reason we had such a migrant surge was a direct result of Merkel telling all to come to Germany prior to that there had been a low level pushfrom Africa
Merkel having created the crisis then tried to push it all onto other countries irrespective of their views
next time youre in Hugary take a trip to Merkel's folly
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
What about what Cameron and others proposed? Generous aid to those nations and camps which had the bulk of the refugees and a proper system of vetting etcat the camps rather than a sick and Darwininan survival of the fittest method of allowing in just fit young men and spurning and ignoring everyone else.
Germany gave paltry indifference rather than support to anyone not fit enough or rich enough to do the journey unaided.
I absolutely agree that was the solution that should have been adopted originally. I made that point myself very bluntly at Christmas 2013 on here (and got a fusillade of abuse for it).
But when the opportunity was missed and the migrants arrived, what then? Wishing them away was not going to work.
How is it then that over the last 20 years when the government has taken over rail franchises in Britain due to private sector failure they invariably have better punctuality, fewer customer complaints and higher revenue?
There was no better train service in the UK than the government run East Coast main line. First Class on that was like being treated as royalty.
Good. That shows how competitive pressure and intelligent regulation improves services. It doesn't show that ideologically-driven nationalisation, under pressure from producer interests, and without the threat of the franchise being removed, would do the same. Quite the opposite, of course, as we know well from experience in this country.
That would be fine if it weren't for the fact that ideologically-driven privatisation forced the more successful publicly East Coast main line run service to be given back to the private sector to screw up again!
Evidence for that claim?
The franchise was passed to Virgin Trains East Coast on 1 March 2015, following 5 years of successful operation by the DoT's company East Coast.
The punctuality measure (PPM) for East Coast by the end of its franchise 88.2%; most recent punctuality for Virgin Trains East Coast is 82.0%.
East Coast paid the government £1bn over its 5 years of operation (having taken over from National Express East Cost who defaulted on their franchise commitments). Virgin Trains East Coast committed to pay £3.3bn over 10 years. But... lo and behold, it's 90% shareholder Stagecoach is having some financial difficulties by all accounts: "On the 28 June 2017, Stagecoach made a loss when trades were down 11% due to the loss on the East Coast service and is in talks with the government with a deal expected in the next 12 months."
People in London could easily commute to Amsterdam and Paris, certainly on a weekly basis. But I wonder whether it will be made a condition of their employment that they (and their families?) need to live in those countries.
Interesting that Frankfurt did not get the EBA. The French will be pleased though. They have rather lost out in terms of bank moves.
My understanding was that the rest of the EU 27 didn't want to hand another financial institution to Germany and make it the even more powerful financial centre of the EU after our departure.
A diffusion of power between different centres is not going to help the cause of effective joined up regulation. The fact that financial expertise is going to be split across a number of different centres, even if London remains dominant, is a possible risk to the stability of the financial system. The more "joins" there are the greater the risks of things being missed. In my experience.
what if the greatest risk is the groupthink from everyone being sat together ?
Then there's one group who carry the can for their groupthink and their successors have nowhere to hide when fixing it.
but it doesnt stop the crisis and the crisis will be bigger since its unexpected
Curious perhaps that the Conservative German chancellor is so disliked by the pb.com conservative community. I suppose it’s because of refugees and immigration.
Another election will presumably delay our Brexit negotiations further. A new leader of Germany would presumably be either Schulz or Merkel... not sure there is much between them from a Brexit perspective...
Anyone who has done anything good about immigration is instinctively disliked by PB Tories. Ironically, if Merkel is gone it will be worse for UK and Brexit because she is by instinct a compromiser. Others won't be. The only non-CDU alternative is Martin Schulz.
What, exactly, is "good" about Merkel's approach?
She has:-
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men withoterests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
Piffle
it's been stated many times on this board that the UK policy of supporting refugees in their own country was a better way to go
the reason we had such a migrant surge was a direct result of Merkel telling all to come to Germany prior to that there had been a low level pushfrom Africa
Merkel having created the crisis then tried to push it all onto other countries irrespective of their views
next time youre in Hugary take a trip to Merkel's folly
There were already large numbers of migrants well before she suspended the Dublin protocol. And my question still stands: what do you think she should have done with them?
Sent them packing. It's the only way not to encourage more to come. Cameron's solution was and is the best way of handling migration and refugee issues. She should have listened to him. One needs to be hard headed about these issues.
Curious perhaps that the Conservative German chancellor is so disliked by the pb.com conservative community. I suppose it’s because of refugees and immigration.
Another election will presumably delay our Brexit negotiations further. A new leader of Germany would presumably be either Schulz or Merkel... not sure there is much between them from a Brexit perspective...
Anyone who has done anything good about immigration is instinctively disliked by PB Tories. Ironically, if Merkel is gone it will be worse for UK and Brexit because she is by instinct a compromiser. Others won't be. The only non-CDU alternative is Martin Schulz.
What, exactly, is "good" about Merkel's approach?
She has:-
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men without any vetting at all from countries with a long history of terrorism at a time of increased terrorist threat to Europe. 3. As a consequence of 1 and 2 allowed the conditions to arise in which there has been a considerable increase in crime (both knife-related and sexual) by many of those she has let in. 4. Then changed tack and has said that relatives may not come thus separating families and creating an injustice towards women and children, who are likely to be more vulnerable than fit young men. 5. Created the conditions in which a quasi-fascist party has significantly increased its vote. 6. Annoyed the countries around Germany which are now being expected to bear the costs of a German policy entered into without any regard to the interests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
What about what Cameron and others proposed? Generous aid to those nations and camps which had the bulk of the refugees and a proper system of vetting etcat the camps rather than a sick and Darwininan survival of the fittest method of allowing in just fit young men and spurning and ignoring everyone else.
Germany gave paltry indifference rather than support to anyone not fit enough or rich enough to do the journey unaided.
I absolutely agree that was the solution that should have been adopted originally. I made that point myself very bluntly at Christmas 2013 on here (and got a fusillade of abuse for it).
But when the opportunity was missed and the migrants arrived, what then? Wishing them away was not going to work.
Curious perhaps that the Conservative German chancellor is so disliked by the pb.com conservative community. I suppose it’s because of refugees and immigration.
Another election will presumably delay our Brexit negotiations further. A new leader of Germany would presumably be either Schulz or Merkel... not sure there is much between them from a Brexit perspective...
Anyone who has done anything good about immigration is instinctively disliked by PB Tories. Ironically, if Merkel is gone it will be worse for UK and Brexit because she is by instinct a compromiser. Others won't be. The only non-CDU alternative is Martin Schulz.
What, exactly, is "good" about Merkel's approach?
She has:-
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men without any vetting at all from countries with a long history of terrorism at a time of increased terrorist threat to Europe. 3. As a consequence of 1 and 2 allowed the conditions to arise in which there has been a considerable increase in crime (both knife-related and sexual) by many of those she has let in. 4. Then changed tack and has said that relatives may not come thus separating families and creating an injustice towards women and children, who are likely to be more vulnerable than fit young men. 5. Created the conditions in which a quasi-fascist party has significantly increased its vote. 6. Annoyed the countries around Germany which are now being expected to bear the costs of a German policy entered into without any regard to the interests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
They want a big Trump wall.
Say what you like about walls, but the Bulgarian and Hungarian walls have worked.
There were already large numbers of migrants well before she suspended the Dublin protocol. And my question still stands: what do you think she should have done with them?
Sent them packing. It's the only way not to encourage more to come. Cameron's solution was and is the best way of handling migration and refugee issues. She should have listened to him. One needs to be hard headed about these issues.
Packing where? That's exactly the point: there was nowhere to send them packing to.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
What about what Cameron and others proposed? Generous aid to those nations and camps which had the bulk of the refugees and a proper system of vetting etcat the camps rather than a sick and Darwininan survival of the fittest method of allowing in just fit young men and spurning and ignoring everyone else.
Germany gave paltry indifference rather than support to anyone not fit enough or rich enough to do the journey unaided.
I absolutely agree that was the solution that should have been adopted originally. I made that point myself very bluntly at Christmas 2013 on here (and got a fusillade of abuse for it).
But when the opportunity was missed and the migrants arrived, what then? Wishing them away was not going to work.
Happy 50th Birthday, by the way.
Why are you on here and not getting slaughtered?
It was last Thursday and my liver is slowly recovering from a lengthy lunch with friends yesterday.
There were already large numbers of migrants well before she suspended the Dublin protocol. And my question still stands: what do you think she should have done with them?
Sent them packing. It's the only way not to encourage more to come. Cameron's solution was and is the best way of handling migration and refugee issues. She should have listened to him. One needs to be hard headed about these issues.
Packing where? That's exactly the point: there was nowhere to send them packing to.
How is it then that over the last 20 years when the government has taken over rail franchises in Britain due to private sector failure they invariably have better punctuality, fewer customer complaints and higher revenue?
There was no better train service in the UK than the government run East Coast main line. First Class on that was like being treated as royalty.
Good. That shows how competitive pressure and intelligent regulation improves services. It doesn't show that ideologically-driven nationalisation, under pressure from producer interests, and without the threat of the franchise being removed, would do the same. Quite the opposite, of course, as we know well from experience in this country.
That would be fine if it weren't for the fact that ideologically-driven privatisation forced the more successful publicly East Coast main line run service to be given back to the private sector to screw up again!
Evidence for that claim?
The franchise was passed to Virgin Trains East Coast on 1 March 2015, following 5 years of successful operation by the DoT's company East Coast.
The punctuality measure (PPM) for East Coast by the end of its franchise 88.2%; most recent punctuality for Virgin Trains East Coast is 82.0%.
East Coast paid the government £1bn over its 5 years of operation (having taken over from National Express East Cost who defaulted on their franchise commitments). Virgin Trains East Coast committed to pay £3.3bn over 10 years. But... lo and behold, it's 90% shareholder Stagecoach is having some financial difficulties by all accounts: "On the 28 June 2017, Stagecoach made a loss when trades were down 11% due to the loss on the East Coast service and is in talks with the government with a deal expected in the next 12 months."
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
Those who came from countries such as Pakistan etc should have been returned. For those from places like Syria money could have been invested in proper camps and upgrades to existing camps within countries near Syria. And the migrants sent there for proper vetting.
I don't think it palatable to tear up existing laws and put European citizens at risk of serious crime simply because it was too much like hard work (and I accept that what I am proposing would not have been easy) to take a sensible risk-based approach and to take some hard-headed actions, like repatriation.
Furthermore, the result of her policy was that many of the most vulnerable in places like Syria who genuinely are asylum seekers and deserving of our support and a home were abandoned in favour of the strongest, the least vulnerable and, most likely, those best able to afford the payments to people traffickers. The way Europe - and I include the UK in this - has abandoned some of the most vulnerable victims of the Iraqi and Syrian civil wars has been shameful.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
What about what Cameron and others proposed? Generous aid to those nations and camps which had the bulk of the refugees and a proper system of vetting etcat the camps rather than a sick and Darwininan survival of the fittest method of allowing in just fit young men and spurning and ignoring everyone else.
Germany gave paltry indifference rather than support to anyone not fit enough or rich enough to do the journey unaided.
I absolutely agree that was the solution that should have been adopted originally. I made that point myself very bluntly at Christmas 2013 on here (and got a fusillade of abuse for it).
But when the opportunity was missed and the migrants arrived, what then? Wishing them away was not going to work.
Happy 50th Birthday, by the way.
Why are you on here and not getting slaughtered?
It was last Thursday and my liver is slowly recovering from a lengthy lunch with friends yesterday.
but it doesnt stop the crisis and the crisis will be bigger since its unexpected
Was the crisis smaller and more expected by dividing the BoE's responsibilities?
Groupthink is bad but division and a lack of accountability can lead to even more groupthink since it encourages a beaucratic box ticking line rather than anyone looking at the big picture.
1 - A policy slightly more directed towards "those who use the trains should pay for the trains". I can't see why that is controversial.
and 2 - Setting fares reasonably to reflect demand. Half of the increase you quote is inflation, and by travelling at sensible times just before or after rush hour you can at this moment book a London Leeds First Class return for tomorrow for some way below £100 - less than it was in 1995.
I would certainly agree with those who think investment needs to be delivered more evenly. On our local direct-to-London main line station it takes abut 90 minutes for people in wheelchairs to cross the platform, because they have to travel 30 minutes to a station where a lift exists, and then back again. This has been the position for around 25 years.
PS I note that that BBC article is nearly 5 years old, and somewhat cherry-picked.
It depends on when and where you travel. I paid £100 on the day for an off peak return to get to Bristol last year as I didn't have a car at the time. Then £20 in a taxi to get me to where I needed to be. It was, however, considerably quicker than the car journey would have been.
As you say it is possible to cherry pick examples, I chose that article as it was very comprehensive and reviewed trends over a long time (17 years) and was from a reliable source. However if you look at prices in the last five years they have universally increased at the either the rate of inflation or above it, continuing the trend, e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40922861
From the data it is impossible to deny the long term trend since privatisation has been towards rising fares. Moreover, there is a big difference in the price between booking in advance and buying tickets on the day. Unless you know months in advance where you are going, and can afford to waste half the day by waiting for an off-peak, train travel is extremely expensive and compares unfavourably to travel by car.
As ever the decision to travel by car, train, bus, plane is determined by a number of factors, from the convenience to the time taken to the price. Sometimes the train compares favourably. As it certainly did when I had to travel to Scotland for work, where I would far rather take the train than travel all the way out to the airport, wait in a queue, then have to make my way into town, even though it was a fair bit quicker. However, in my experience, for most UK -> UK journeys, the car tends to come out on top in terms of time, convenience and costs. However, quite literally, YMMV.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
What about what Cameron and others proposed? Generous aid to those nations and camps which had the bulk of the refugees and a proper system of vetting etcat the camps rather than a sick and Darwininan survival of the fittest method of allowing in just fit young men and spurning and ignoring everyone else.
Germany gave paltry indifference rather than support to anyone not fit enough or rich enough to do the journey unaided.
I absolutely agree that was the solution that should have been adopted originally. I made that point myself very bluntly at Christmas 2013 on here (and got a fusillade of abuse for it).
But when the opportunity was missed and the migrants arrived, what then? Wishing them away was not going to work.
Happy 50th Birthday, by the way.
Why are you on here and not getting slaughtered?
It was last Thursday and my liver is slowly recovering from a lengthy lunch with friends yesterday.
Curious perhaps that the Conservative German chancellor is so disliked by the pb.com conservative community. I suppose it’s because of refugees and immigration.
Another election will presumably delay our Brexit negotiations further. A new leader of Germany would presumably be either Schulz or Merkel... not sure there is much between them from a Brexit perspective...
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
Piffle
it's been stated many times on this board that the UK policy of supporting refugees in their own country was a better way to go
the reason we had such a migrant surge was a direct result of Merkel telling all to come to Germany prior to that there had been a low level pushfrom Africa
Merkel having created the crisis then tried to push it all onto other countries irrespective of their views
next time youre in Hugary take a trip to Merkel's folly
Another one for the "wish them away" brigade, I see.
Unsurprising to see pb's Brexiters disdaining practicalities.
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
Curious perhaps that the Conservative German chancellor is so disliked by the pb.com conservative community. I suppose it’s because of refugees and immigration.
Another election will presumably delay our Brexit negotiations further. A new leader of Germany would presumably be either Schulz or Merkel... not sure there is much between them from a Brexit perspective...
Anyone who has done anything good about immigration is instinctively disliked by PB Tories. Ironically, if Merkel is gone it will be worse for UK and Brexit because she is by instinct a compromiser. Others won't be. The only non-CDU alternative is Martin Schulz.
What, exactly, is "good" about Merkel's approach?
She has:-
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men withoterests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
Piffle
it's been stated many times on this board that the UK policy of supporting refugees in their own country was a better way to go
the reason we had such a migrant surge was a direct result of Merkel telling all to come to Germany prior to that there had been a low level pushfrom Africa
Merkel having created the crisis then tried to push it all onto other countries irrespective of their views
next time youre in Hugary take a trip to Merkel's folly
Another one for the "wish them away" brigade, I see.
Unsurprising to see pb's Brexiters disdaining practicalities.
youre famously on record as saying that while you support opening borders you wouldnt put up an immigrant yourself but would pay money so other people would
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
Those who came from countries such as Pakistan etc should have been returned. For those from places like Syria money could have been invested in proper camps and upgrades to existing camps within countries near Syria. And the migrants sent there for proper vetting.
I don't think it palatable to tear up existing laws and put European citizens at risk of serious crime simply because it was too much like hard work (and I accept that what I am proposing would not have been easy) to take a sensible risk-based approach and to take some hard-headed actions, like repatriation.
Furthermore, the result of her policy was that many of the most vulnerable in places like Syria who genuinely are asylum seekers and deserving of our support and a home were abandoned in favour of the strongest, the least vulnerable and, most likely, those best able to afford the payments to people traffickers. The way Europe - and I include the UK in this - has abandoned some of the most vulnerable victims of the Iraqi and Syrian civil wars has been shameful.
Those from places like Syria simply could not be sent back. There was no legal framework to do so (which is why the EU has spent so long negotiating with Turkey - something that the having-and-eating-cake brigade have also decried).
Vast numbers of people were traipsing across Europe beyond control. They could not be returned so the options were to welcome them in a structured manner or to let them keep traipsing beyond control. Angela Merkel chose the only sensible option at the time.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
What about what Cameron and others proposed? Generous aid to those nations and camps which had the bulk of the refugees and a proper system of vetting etcat the camps rather than a sick and Darwininan survival of the fittest method of allowing in just fit young men and spurning and ignoring everyone else.
Germany gave paltry indifference rather than support to anyone not fit enough or rich enough to do the journey unaided.
I absolutely agree that was the solution that should have been adopted originally. I made that point myself very bluntly at Christmas 2013 on here (and got a fusillade of abuse for it).
But when the opportunity was missed and the migrants arrived, what then? Wishing them away was not going to work.
Happy 50th Birthday, by the way.
Why are you on here and not getting slaughtered?
It was last Thursday and my liver is slowly recovering from a lengthy lunch with friends yesterday.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
What about what Cameron and others proposed? Generous aid to those nations and camps which had the bulk of the refugees and a proper system of vetting etcat the camps rather than a sick and Darwininan survival of the fittest method of allowing in just fit young men and spurning and ignoring everyone else.
Germany gave paltry indifference rather than support to anyone not fit enough or rich enough to do the journey unaided.
I absolutely agree that was the solution that should have been adopted originally. I made that point myself very bluntly at Christmas 2013 on here (and got a fusillade of abuse for it).
But when the opportunity was missed and the migrants arrived, what then? Wishing them away was not going to work.
Happy 50th Birthday, by the way.
Why are you on here and not getting slaughtered?
It was last Thursday and my liver is slowly recovering from a lengthy lunch with friends yesterday.
but it doesnt stop the crisis and the crisis will be bigger since its unexpected
Was the crisis smaller and more expected by dividing the BoE's responsibilities?
Groupthink is bad but division and a lack of accountability can lead to even more groupthink since it encourages a beaucratic box ticking line rather than anyone looking at the big picture.
did the joined up regulation in the US stop the crisis there ?
I would contend the crisis was more of a group think bubble - the new economy, lower risk etc - than purely regulatory. The regulators fell in line with the mood around them.
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men withoterests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
Piffle
it's been stated many times on this board that the UK policy of supporting refugees in their own country was a better way to go
the reason we had such a migrant surge was a direct result of Merkel telling all to come to Germany prior to that there had been a low level pushfrom Africa
Merkel having created the crisis then tried to push it all onto other countries irrespective of their views
next time youre in Hugary take a trip to Merkel's folly
Another one for the "wish them away" brigade, I see.
Unsurprising to see pb's Brexiters disdaining practicalities.
youre famously on record as saying that while you support opening borders you wouldnt put up an immigrant yourself but would pay money so other people would
so much for wishing away
Another Leaver myth. If you think I'd object to having one or more young fit men running around my property, you clearly have badly misjudged me.
I'm all in favour of migrants being housed appropriately. If billeting were necessary, of course I'd take my quota. But it isn't and wasn't, and there were and are more appropriate places to house migrants than with me.
It's interesting how politicians who stay in office too long never seem to get any useful advice from friends and colleagues regarding the best time to leave with dignity. First Thatcher, and now Merkel. Both of them should have stood down after about 10 years, as Tony Blair did.
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men withoterests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
Piffle
it's been stated many times on this board that the UK policy of supporting refugees in their own country was a better way to go
the reason we had such a migrant surge was a direct result of Merkel telling all to come to Germany prior to that there had been a low level pushfrom Africa
Merkel having created the crisis then tried to push it all onto other countries irrespective of their views
next time youre in Hugary take a trip to Merkel's folly
Another one for the "wish them away" brigade, I see.
Unsurprising to see pb's Brexiters disdaining practicalities.
youre famously on record as saying that while you support opening borders you wouldnt put up an immigrant yourself but would pay money so other people would
so much for wishing away
Another Leaver myth. If you think I'd object to having one or more young fit men running around my property, you clearly have badly misjudged me.
I'm all in favour of migrants being housed appropriately. If billeting were necessary, of course I'd take my quota. But it isn't and wasn't, and there were and are more appropriate places to house migrants than with me.
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
The issue is that when we did try to help people in that region - by paying Turkey to help them - people screeched about 'bribery', despite the vast amounts Turkey had spent, and continues to spend, due to the crisis.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
1. Breached all the rules/laws on asylum seekers. 2. Allowed a huge number of mostly young men withoterests or wishes of those other countries.
This is quite the opposite of a sensible immigration policy or indeed a sensible and compassionate policy towards genuine asylum seekers. It is all over the place, alternately too strict or too soft and animated by emotion and lack of thought.
Too many people think that the only fair immigration policy is one which allows in anyone who wants to come regardless of the wishes of those already in the country or the desirability of the person seeking to enter it. That's a stupidly soft-headed approach - and a dangerous one.
I understand all of these criticisms, which are frequently made. However, when one asks what Angela Merkel should have done instead, no solutions are forthcoming from those who make these criticisms.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
Piffle
it's been stated many times on this board that the UK policy of supporting refugees in their own country was a better way to go
the reason we had such a migrant surge was a direct result of Merkel telling all to come to Germany prior to that there had been a low level pushfrom Africa
Merkel having created the crisis then tried to push it all onto other countries irrespective of their views
next time youre in Hugary take a trip to Merkel's folly
Another one for the "wish them away" brigade, I see.
Unsurprising to see pb's Brexiters disdaining practicalities.
youre famously on record as saying that while you support opening borders you wouldnt put up an immigrant yourself but would pay money so other people would
so much for wishing away
Another Leaver myth. If you think I'd object to having one or more young fit men running around my property, you clearly have badly misjudged me.
I'm all in favour of migrants being housed appropriately. If billeting were necessary, of course I'd take my quota. But it isn't and wasn't, and there were and are more appropriate places to house migrants than with me.
Hmm, not sure you'd want these fit young men in your good company. Not sure it would end well for you!
It's interesting how politicians who stay in office too long never seem to get any useful advice from friends and colleagues regarding the best time to leave with dignity. First Thatcher, and now Merkel. Both of them should have stood down after about 10 years, as Tony Blair did.
Too early to say with Merkel but arguably Blair’s reputation has deteriorated far more than Thatcher’s.
Those from places like Syria simply could not be sent back. There was no legal framework to do so (which is why the EU has spent so long negotiating with Turkey - something that the having-and-eating-cake brigade have also decried).
Vast numbers of people were traipsing across Europe beyond control. They could not be returned so the options were to welcome them in a structured manner or to let them keep traipsing beyond control. Angela Merkel chose the only sensible option at the time.
No she did not. The only person who was acting sensibly over the migrant crisis was David Cameron. For all the criticism I would give him regarding his views on the EU, his decisions and actions over the migrant crisis were absolutely spot on and if only the rest of the EU had followed his line the crisis would have developed very differently and many people who died needlessly would have lived.
Putting large sums of money into relief in the countries bordering Syria, setting up systems to bring the most needy migrants into Europe in a controlled manner and making sure that there were proper and effective barriers to uncontrolled migration would all have stopped a crisis turning into a disaster. It was noteworthy that Britain gave more money to refuge relief in and around Syria than the whole of the rest of the EU combined in the lead up to the crisis and were second only to the US in the amount of support they gave.
Merkel on the other side has a serious amount of blood on her hands. Her open door policy encouraged people to risk deadly crossings of the Mediterranean and thousands died as a direct result. She should be ashamed and deserves to fall.
Those who came from countries such as Pakistan etc should have been returned. For those from places like Syria money could have been invested in proper camps and upgrades to existing camps within countries near Syria. And the migrants sent there for proper vetting.
I don't think it palatable to tear up existing laws and put European citizens at risk of serious crime simply because it was too much like hard work (and I accept that what I am proposing would not have been easy) to take a sensible risk-based approach and to take some hard-headed actions, like repatriation.
Furthermore, the result of her policy was that many of the most vulnerable in places like Syria who genuinely are asylum seekers and deserving of our support and a home were abandoned in favour of the strongest, the least vulnerable and, most likely, those best able to afford the payments to people traffickers. The way Europe - and I include the UK in this - has abandoned some of the most vulnerable victims of the Iraqi and Syrian civil wars has been shameful.
Those from places like Syria simply could not be sent back. There was no legal framework to do so (which is why the EU has spent so long negotiating with Turkey - something that the having-and-eating-cake brigade have also decried).
Vast numbers of people were traipsing across Europe beyond control. They could not be returned so the options were to welcome them in a structured manner or to let them keep traipsing beyond control. Angela Merkel chose the only sensible option at the time.
But she did not welcome them in a structured manner.
Those from Syria could have been sent to Turkey and/or the camps. But there were plenty of migrants who were not from Syria but from countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan and various African countries, who simply should have been returned to those countries. Then there should have been a proper risk-based approach to who from Syria should be let in. And my preference, to be clear, would be to give priority to those who have faced effective genocide from IS i.e. Yazidis and Iraqi and Syrian Christians.
And, for someone who was always going on about European co-operation, Germany should have consulted with other countries. Not made a unilateral decision to tear up the existing rules and then expect other countries to bear the consequences.
It's interesting how politicians who stay in office too long never seem to get any useful advice from friends and colleagues regarding the best time to leave with dignity. First Thatcher, and now Merkel. Both of them should have stood down after about 10 years, as Tony Blair did.
Dennis Thatcher urged Mrs Thatcher to stand down on her 10th anniversary as PM.
Morrissey must be an enormous disappointment to many of his fans.
"'I want Germany to be German' Morrissey attacks Merkel for destroying nation's identity
Controversial Smiths frontman Morrissey has hit out at Angela Merkel for “throwing away” the country’s culture in a furious tirade against immigration."
It's interesting how politicians who stay in office too long never seem to get any useful advice from friends and colleagues regarding the best time to leave with dignity. First Thatcher, and now Merkel.
I'm sure they get plenty of good advice about it, but it is hard to let go, particularly when there may not be obvious alternatives. And of course the very qualities that are someone's strength can, over time, also end up being the things that are their weakness, so it can be hard to judge when they've stayed too long.
Those who came from countries such as Pakistan etc should have been returned. For those from places like Syria money could have been invested in proper camps and upgrades to existing camps within countries near Syria. And the migrants sent there for proper vetting.
I don't think it palatable to tear up existing laws and put European citizens at risk of serious crime simply because it was too much like hard work (and I accept that what I am proposing would not have been easy) to take a sensible risk-based approach and to take some hard-headed actions, like repatriation.
Furthermore, the result of her policy was that many of the most vulnerable in places like Syria who genuinely are asylum seekers and deserving of our support and a home were abandoned in favour of the strongest, the least vulnerable and, most likely, those best able to afford the payments to people traffickers. The way Europe - and I include the UK in this - has abandoned some of the most vulnerable victims of the Iraqi and Syrian civil wars has been shameful.
Those from places like Syria simply could not be sent back. There was no legal framework to do so (which is why the EU has spent so long negotiating with Turkey - something that the having-and-eating-cake brigade have also decried).
Vast numbers of people were traipsing across Europe beyond control. They could not be returned so the options were to welcome them in a structured manner or to let them keep traipsing beyond control. Angela Merkel chose the only sensible option at the time.
But she did not welcome them in a structured manner.
Those from Syria could have been sent to Turkey and/or the camps. But there were plenty of migrants who were not from Syria but from countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan and various African countries, who simply should have been returned to those countries. Then there should have been a proper risk-based approach to who from Syria should be let in. And my preference, to be clear, would be to give priority to those who have faced effective genocide from IS i.e. Yazidis and Iraqi and Syrian Christians.
And, for someone who was always going on about European co-operation, Germany should have consulted with other countries. Not made a unilateral decision to tear up the existing rules and then expect other countries to bear the consequences.
Those from Syria could not have been sent to Turkey and/or the camps. There was no legal mechanism for doing so.
Those who came from countries such as Pakistan etc should have been returned. For those from places like Syria money could have been invested in proper camps and upgrades to existing camps within countries near Syria. And the migrants sent there for proper vetting.
I don't think it palatable to tear up existing laws and put European citizens at risk of serious crime simply because it was too much like hard work (and I accept that what I am proposing would not have been easy) to take a sensible risk-based approach and to take some hard-headed actions, like repatriation.
Furthermore, the result of her policy was that many of the most vulnerable in places like Syria who genuinely are asylum seekers and deserving of our support and a home were abandoned in favour of the strongest, the least vulnerable and, most likely, those best able to afford the payments to people traffickers. The way Europe - and I include the UK in this - has abandoned some of the most vulnerable victims of the Iraqi and Syrian civil wars has been shameful.
Those from places like Syria simply could not be sent back. There was no legal framework to do so (which is why the EU has spent so long negotiating with Turkey - something that the having-and-eating-cake brigade have also decried).
Vast numbers of people were traipsing across Europe beyond control. They could not be returned so the options were to welcome them in a structured manner or to let them keep traipsing beyond control. Angela Merkel chose the only sensible option at the time.
And, for someone who was always going on about European co-operation, Germany should have consulted with other countries. Not made a unilateral decision to tear up the existing rules and then expect other countries to bear the consequences.
An unusual decision, certainly, given that general attitude against unilateralism.
Those who came from countries such as Pakistan etc should have been returned. For those from places like Syria money could have been invested in proper camps and upgrades to existing camps within countries near Syria. And the migrants sent there for proper vetting.
I don't think it palatable to tear up existing laws and put European citizens at risk of serious crime simply because it was too much like hard work (and I accept that what I am proposing would not have been easy) to take a sensible risk-based approach and to take some hard-headed actions, like repatriation.
Furthermore, the result of her policy was that many of the most vulnerable in places like Syria who genuinely are asylum seekers and deserving of our support and a home were abandoned in favour of the strongest, the least vulnerable and, most likely, those best able to afford the payments to people traffickers. The way Europe - and I include the UK in this - has abandoned some of the most vulnerable victims of the Iraqi and Syrian civil wars has been shameful.
Those from places like Syria simply could not be sent back. There was no legal framework to do so (which is why the EU has spent so long negotiating with Turkey - something that the having-and-eating-cake brigade have also decried).
Vast numbers of people were traipsing across Ehe only sensible option at the time.
But she did not welcome them in a structured manner.
Those from Syria could have been sent to Turkey and/or the camps. But there were plenty of migrants who were not from Syria but from countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan and various African countries, who simply should have been returned to those countries. Then there should have been a proper risk-based approach to who from Syria should be let in. And my preference, to be clear, would be to give priority to those who have faced effective genocide from IS i.e. Yazidis and Iraqi and Syrian Christians.
And, for someone who was always going on about European co-operation, Germany should have consulted with other countries. Not made a unilateral decision to tear up the existing rules and then expect other countries to bear the consequences.
Those from Syria could not have been sent to Turkey and/or the camps. There was no legal mechanism for doing so.
there was no legal mechanism for them crossing half of Europe
On topic - should Labour form a government, the big challenge for Corbyn would be to staff it with ministers whose support he could rely on. He’s already struggling with the shadow front bench. That surely means mass reselections at some time between now and the next general election.
Those who came from countries such as Pakistan etc should have been returned. For those from places like Syria money could have been invested in proper camps and upgrades to existing camps within countries near Syria. And the migrants sent there for proper vetting.
I don't think it palatable to tear up existing laws and put European citizens at risk of serious crime simply because it was too much like hard work (and I accept that what I am proposing would not have been easy) to take a sensible risk-based approach and to take some hard-headed actions, like repatriation.
Furthermore, the result of her policy was that many of the most vulnerable in places like Syria who genuinely are asylum seekers and deserving of our support and a home were abandoned in favour of the strongest, the least vulnerable and, most likely, those best able to afford the payments to people traffickers. The way Europe - and I include the UK in this - has abandoned some of the most vulnerable victims of the Iraqi and Syrian civil wars has been shameful.
Those from places like Syria simply could not be sent back. There was no legal framework to do so (which is why the EU has spent so long negotiating with Turkey - something that the having-and-eating-cake brigade have also decried).
Vast numbers of people were traipsing across Europe beyond control. They could not be returned so the options were to welcome them in a structured manner or to let them keep traipsing beyond control. Angela Merkel chose the only sensible option at the time.
And, for someone who was always going on about European co-operation, Germany should have consulted with other countries. Not made a unilateral decision to tear up the existing rules and then expect other countries to bear the consequences.
An unusual decision, certainly, given that general attitude against unilateralism.
And then attacked Hungary when it tried to uphold the EU laws and process migrants rather than just passing them along.
Morrissey must be an enormous disappointment to many of his fans.
"'I want Germany to be German' Morrissey attacks Merkel for destroying nation's identity
Controversial Smiths frontman Morrissey has hit out at Angela Merkel for “throwing away” the country’s culture in a furious tirade against immigration."
When I was at university twenty-five years ago, I attracted anger when I said that Morrissey was a stupid, self-regarding prat. Nothing that has happened in the intervening years has persuaded me otherwise. I bet some of those arguing with me have changed their minds, though...
In the words of Judge Weeks: "To me at least he (Morrissey) appeared devious, truculent and unreliable where his own interests were at stake."
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
The issue is that when we did try to help people in that region - by paying Turkey to help them - people screeched about 'bribery', despite the vast amounts Turkey had spent, and continues to spend, due to the crisis.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
There are moral issues involved in letting in people without any vetting and putting people here at risk of serious crime. Actions also have consequences. Ask the women who were sexually assaulted. People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first. Charity starts at home.
Mrs Jellaby was satire. Not a model to be followed.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
I overheard a lady on a station platform near where I lived around the time saying: “so because some stupid kid drowned, the rest of us here in Sussex have to suffer”
On topic - should Labour form a government, the big challenge for Corbyn would be to staff it with ministers whose support he could rely on. He’s already struggling with the shadow front bench. That surely means mass reselections at some time between now and the next general election.
Given the rapid change in appreciation of all things Corbyn, publicly at least, from his more lukewarm critics, I would think if he managed to win he could find plenty of people to fill ministerial posts, people who would by that point owe those positions to him and his movement, and would surely play ball.
On topic - should Labour form a government, the big challenge for Corbyn would be to staff it with ministers whose support he could rely on. He’s already struggling with the shadow front bench. That surely means mass reselections at some time between now and the next general election.
I can’t see Corbyn doing anything of the sort. He also seems to have achieved relative stability in his shadow cabinet at last... certainly compared to the real Cabinet!
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
The issue is that when we did try to help people in that region - by paying Turkey to help them - people screeched about 'bribery', despite the vast amounts Turkey had spent, and continues to spend, due to the crisis.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
There are moral issues involved in letting in people without any vetting and putting people here at risk of serious crime. Actions also have consequences. Ask the women who were sexually assaulted. People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first. Charity starts at home.
Mrs Jellaby was satire. Not a model to be followed.
Regardless of whether or not immigration was a concern to you, Merkel's decision laid bare one of the biggest democratic deficits within the EU: namely that a single country could act unilaterally over its borders in such a way that all other countries within the EU would be affected, but would still have no say in the matter.
This is a recipe for trouble - frankly I am as terrified of the 60,000 neo-Nazis who marched in Poland last week than I am of rogue Isis supporting migrants. But they are both cheeks of the same arse.
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
The issue is that when we did try to help people in that region - by paying Turkey to help them - people screeched about 'bribery', despite the vast amounts Turkey had spent, and continues to spend, due to the crisis.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
There are moral issues involved in letting in people without any vetting and putting people here at risk of serious crime. Actions also have consequences. Ask the women who were sexually assaulted. People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first. Charity starts at home.
Mrs Jellaby was satire. Not a model to be followed.
"People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first."
That does not mean you cannot help others. Ask the people who were at risk of drowning. I would say ask the people who drowned, but that's rather hard ...
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
The issue is that when we did try to help people in that region - by paying Turkey to help them - people screeched about 'bribery', despite the vast amounts Turkey had spent, and continues to spend, due to the crisis.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
There are moral issues involved in letting in people without any vetting and putting people here at risk of serious crime. Actions also have consequences. Ask the women who were sexually assaulted. People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first. Charity starts at home.
Mrs Jellaby was satire. Not a model to be followed.
"People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first."
That does not mean you cannot help others. Ask the people who were at risk of drowning. I would say ask the people who drowned, but that's rather hard ...
The fault is of the person who put them at risk in the first place.
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
The issue is that when we did try to help people in that region - by paying Turkey to help them - people screeched about 'bribery', despite the vast amounts Turkey had spent, and continues to spend, due to the crisis.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
There are moral issues involved in letting in people without any vetting and putting people here at risk of serious crime. Actions also have consequences. Ask the women who were sexually assaulted. People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first. Charity starts at home.
Mrs Jellaby was satire. Not a model to be followed.
"People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first."
That does not mean you cannot help others. Ask the people who were at risk of drowning. I would say ask the people who drowned, but that's rather hard ...
As I said what really annoys me is that Cameron had a plan that would have worked and would have saved thousands of lives. But too many people in this country and across Europe were more interested in virtue signalling and also in attacking Cameron because he was a mean nasty Tory and couldn't possibly have the best interests of the refugees at heart.
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
The issue is that when we did try to help people in that region - by paying Turkey to help them - people screeched about 'b issues.
There are moral issues involved in letting in people without any vetting and putting people here at risk of serious crime. Actions also have consequences. Ask the women who were sexually assaulted. People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first. Charity starts at home.
Mrs Jellaby was satire. Not a model to be followed.
Regardless of whether or not immigration was a concern to you, Merkel's decision laid bare one of the biggest democratic deficits within the EU: namely that a single country could act unilaterally over its borders in such a way that all other countries within the EU would be affected, but would still have no say in the matter.
This is a recipe for trouble - frankly I am as terrified of the 60,000 neo-Nazis who marched in Poland last week than I am of rogue Isis supporting migrants. But they are both cheeks of the same arse.
it's hardly an isolated incident
Mrs Merkel is great at telling others what to do and then not doing it herself
Diesel scandal where the German Federal Government is seriously implicated
Global warming where Germany is missing all its CO2 targets and is about to open up lignite fuelled power stations
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
The issue is that when we did try to help people in that region - by paying Turkey to help them - people screeched about 'bribery', despite the vast amounts Turkey had spent, and continues to spend, due to the crisis.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
There are moral issues involved in letting in people without any vetting and putting people here at risk of serious crime. Actions also have consequences. Ask the women who were sexually assaulted. People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first. Charity starts at home.
Mrs Jellaby was satire. Not a model to be followed.
"People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first."
That does not mean you cannot help others. Ask the people who were at risk of drowning. I would say ask the people who drowned, but that's rather hard ...
As I said what really annoys me is that Cameron had a plan that would have worked and would have saved thousands of lives. But too many people in this country and across Europe were more interested in virtue signalling and also in attacking Cameron because he was a mean nasty Tory and couldn't possibly have the best interests of the refugees at heart.
And because he used the word swarming about migrants in Calais, because a single word clearly matters more than whether or not, overall, there is a decent policy in place.
Speaking of words, if Hammond sticks around we can look forward to much mirth at his no unemployed remark. The guy who saved the world, Gordon Brown, can tell him people don't let you forget something like that.
As I said what really annoys me is that Cameron had a plan that would have worked and would have saved thousands of lives. But too many people in this country and across Europe were more interested in virtue signalling and also in attacking Cameron because he was a mean nasty Tory and couldn't possibly have the best interests of the refugees at heart.
I'd have to check on the timing, but didn't Cameron have a little more latitude to do something? The crisis developed quickly, and refugees were arriving at the eastern states and Germany's doorstep. We had more of a buffer, both in terms of geography and time.
I agree Cameron needs lauding for his approach, and Germany should have done something like that sooner. But that wouldn't have done anything about the immediate pressure they were getting, and would not have stopped the flow of people for some time.
On thing no-one tackled adequately was the traffickers. I would like the UN to introduce a special international court for people smugglers of all types.
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
The issue is that when we did try to help people in that region - by paying Turkey to help them - people screeched about 'bribery', despite the vast amounts Turkey had spent, and continues to spend, due to the crisis.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
There are moral issues involved in letting in people without any vetting and putting people here at risk of serious crime. Actions also have consequences. Ask the women who were sexually assaulted. People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first. Charity starts at home.
Mrs Jellaby was satire. Not a model to be followed.
Regardless of whether or not immigration was a concern to you, Merkel's decision laid bare one of the biggest democratic deficits within the EU: namely that a single country could act unilaterally over its borders in such a way that all other countries within the EU would be affected, but would still have no say in the matter. (Snip)
The problems with BR were many, but there were mutiple things that were set against it.
When the created BR they basically just nationlised the BIg Four companies and did not create a proper company until Thattcher frightened them to death and they commited to Sectorisation. For example old manager of Midland Mainline were in the ascendent and that was in part for responsible for the closure of the Grand Central. In the South West it is the Greatwestern network that largely survived and the LWSR network was large closed down, whilch is why most of North Devon and Cornwall had no rail service.
The disasterous modernistation programme of 55 meant that the Teasury never trustred BR again, even though the modernisation programme was built to handle the Labour goverments national economic plan and the projected increase in steel in and coal. Of course the post war bounce back in heavy industries collapsed early on in the programme and well oops.
Also many of the civil servants in the Department of transport hated rail , and were solidly behind roads were our future. From an old civil service old hand I know most ministers in the 80's were far more pro rail than Thatcher herself, but she had other priorities and as long rail caused her no problems she was happy to leave them alone.
The obsession since the Nationlisation was that there was some profitable core network that could be cut back to reduce the amount of subsidy. But of course the more of the rural lines you cut the more traffic fell as there was less traffic on the main lines etc.
What ruled BR was cost control and most projects had to be justfied on reduced running costs not on it's ability to generated additional passengers, Officialy pusuring passenger growth was to be frowned upon.
The nationailised railways also suffered from vastly changing budgets that would shoot up and down with each budget.
The Privatisation of the railway was meant to continue reduce costs and not increase passengers (after all they'd be falling continously since WWII). But with fixed franchises and high lease costs the franchises had maximum incentive to increase ticket sales, also the new system of track access charges meant that budgets could be planned for in five year chunks and borrowing could be done without Treasury supervision of smaller projects and more services meant more fees for BR.
That's not to say I'd want to go back to BR, but I would like to investigate different options so there integrated operations and new structure so that the company does more stuff itself and not rely on contractors for everything, so to control costs.
As I said what really annoys me is that Cameron had a plan that would have worked and would have saved thousands of lives. But too many people in this country and across Europe were more interested in virtue signalling and also in attacking Cameron because he was a mean nasty Tory and couldn't possibly have the best interests of the refugees at heart.
I'd have to check on the timing, but didn't Cameron have a little more latitude to do something? The crisis developed quickly, and refugees were arriving at the eastern states and Germany's doorstep. We had more of a buffer, both in terms of geography and time.
I agree Cameron needs lauding for his approach, and Germany should have done something like that sooner. But that wouldn't have done anything about the immediate pressure they were getting, and would not have stopped the flow of people for some time.
On thing no-one tackled adequately was the traffickers. I would like the UN to introduce a special international court for people smugglers of all types.
It seems to me that the EU owes a big debt to Viktor Orban and other Balkan leaders who put up border fences, and took a lot of abuse for it at the time.
It is not "wishing them away" to help these people in their region. I attended a talk by Paul Collier who wrote the Bottom Billion. He pointed out there are many more people in the region than make it to Europe, and the best way to help them is to make sure the Syrian economy can be rebuilt when the war finishes, so it doesn't turn into a Somalia scenario. To do that, he recommended support for building Syrian mini-cities with economies on the borders of Syria, which can then be relocated back to the country when the civil war is over. To do that the striving young men of the region should be kept local.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
The issue is that when we did try to help people in that region - by paying Turkey to help them - people screeched about 'bribery', despite the vast amounts Turkey had spent, and continues to spend, due to the crisis.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
There are moral issues involved in letting in people without any vetting and putting people here at risk of serious crime. Actions also have consequences. Ask the women who were sexually assaulted. People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first. Charity starts at home.
Mrs Jellaby was satire. Not a model to be followed.
"People are entitled to expect their politicians to put the citizens of the country first."
That does not mean you cannot help others. Ask the people who were at risk of drowning. I would say ask the people who drowned, but that's rather hard ...
As I said what really annoys me is that Cameron had a plan that would have worked and would have saved thousands of lives. But too many people in this country and across Europe were more interested in virtue signalling and also in attacking Cameron because he was a mean nasty Tory and couldn't possibly have the best interests of the refugees at heart.
On another forum I was compared to an architect of the Final Solution for defending Cameron on this issue.
I think that's a fairly good summary. I'd just note that it was the Great Central, not Grand Central.
Also, the Matlock to Buxton line was closed for the same reason you cite: it was seen as a competitor to the west coast for Manchester services, and therefore had to be closed, even though it was not (IIRC) in the Beeching Plan to be closed.
I'd also add that the Big Four were allowed to thrive in BR times for too long. Hence why the western region bought loads of dead-end diesel-hydraulics. These do-it-our-way attitudes probably lasted for thirty years after nationalisation.
Knowing a little about the way BR worked, I'd also argue that using contractors has helped control costs. If you want to control them more, do more short-term line closures for upgrades rather than never-ending expensive night-time working.
Comments
I think she's the worst Western Conservative leader, by far.
out in the sticks no one gives a shit
They strongly back ending free movement and leaving the single market, the only risk is the Tories may lose a few voters back to UKIP if May makes a big payment to the EU for a FTA but then she could win back a few Remainers at the same time who went for Labour or the LDs in June.
Small things can have drastic consequences.
Bonus points for those who predict the outcome of the next but one election as well!
The clock is ticking and throughout EU history the one thing that can be assured is that compromise is only ever reached at the 11th hour.
Right now we have uncertainty. By the next election it's entirely possible that a deal has not only been reached but implemented and that these arguments are by then of historical concern only.
Brilliant post.
Can I just say what an utterly fabulous film Paddington 2 is? I just took my three-year old to see it (his first trip to the cinema) and we both loved it.
It's even better than the original. Funny, sad, and utterly endearing.
The migrants who reached Europe were not going to evaporate. So they were going to have to be taken in, however unpalatable that might seem. All of her decisions flowed from that inevitable conclusion.
But silos and ineffective sharing of information, not seeing the bigger picture and not being able to join the dots are real problems, both within regulators and banks. A lot of the problems we have seen, including some of the more egregious criminal and quasi-criminal behaviour is attributable, in part, to these issues. You can end up very easily in a situation where you spend a lot of time and energy collecting information but not enough actually reading and understanding it, let alone acting effectively on it.
I have a great regard for French regulators. Tough but effective. German regulators are utter pants. Weak. I suspect that any real talent goes to the Bundesbank rather than anywhere else.
Germany gave paltry indifference rather than support to anyone not fit enough or rich enough to do the journey unaided.
The immediate crisis Merkel was responding to was in Hungary.
it's been stated many times on this board that the UK policy of supporting refugees in their own country was a better way to go
the reason we had such a migrant surge was a direct result of Merkel telling all to come to Germany prior to that there had been a low level pushfrom Africa
Merkel having created the crisis then tried to push it all onto other countries irrespective of their views
next time youre in Hugary take a trip to Merkel's folly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_border_barrier
But when the opportunity was missed and the migrants arrived, what then? Wishing them away was not going to work.
The punctuality measure (PPM) for East Coast by the end of its franchise 88.2%; most recent punctuality for Virgin Trains East Coast is 82.0%.
East Coast paid the government £1bn over its 5 years of operation (having taken over from National Express East Cost who defaulted on their franchise commitments). Virgin Trains East Coast committed to pay £3.3bn over 10 years. But... lo and behold, it's 90% shareholder Stagecoach is having some financial difficulties by all accounts: "On the 28 June 2017, Stagecoach made a loss when trades were down 11% due to the loss on the East Coast service and is in talks with the government with a deal expected in the next 12 months."
Mmmm - sounds ominously familiar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Express_East_Coast
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_(train_operating_company)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains_East_Coast#Punctuality
Unsurprising to see pb's Brexiters disdaining practicalities.
Why are you on here and not getting slaughtered?
Today has been brutal.
I don't think it palatable to tear up existing laws and put European citizens at risk of serious crime simply because it was too much like hard work (and I accept that what I am proposing would not have been easy) to take a sensible risk-based approach and to take some hard-headed actions, like repatriation.
Furthermore, the result of her policy was that many of the most vulnerable in places like Syria who genuinely are asylum seekers and deserving of our support and a home were abandoned in favour of the strongest, the least vulnerable and, most likely, those best able to afford the payments to people traffickers. The way Europe - and I include the UK in this - has abandoned some of the most vulnerable victims of the Iraqi and Syrian civil wars has been shameful.
Groupthink is bad but division and a lack of accountability can lead to even more groupthink since it encourages a beaucratic box ticking line rather than anyone looking at the big picture.
As you say it is possible to cherry pick examples, I chose that article as it was very comprehensive and reviewed trends over a long time (17 years) and was from a reliable source. However if you look at prices in the last five years they have universally increased at the either the rate of inflation or above it, continuing the trend, e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40922861
From the data it is impossible to deny the long term trend since privatisation has been towards rising fares. Moreover, there is a big difference in the price between booking in advance and buying tickets on the day. Unless you know months in advance where you are going, and can afford to waste half the day by waiting for an off-peak, train travel is extremely expensive and compares unfavourably to travel by car.
As ever the decision to travel by car, train, bus, plane is determined by a number of factors, from the convenience to the time taken to the price. Sometimes the train compares favourably. As it certainly did when I had to travel to Scotland for work, where I would far rather take the train than travel all the way out to the airport, wait in a queue, then have to make my way into town, even though it was a fair bit quicker. However, in my experience, for most UK -> UK journeys, the car tends to come out on top in terms of time, convenience and costs. However, quite literally, YMMV.
I agree Merkel or another CDU Chancellor is better for Britain.
so much for wishing away
Vast numbers of people were traipsing across Europe beyond control. They could not be returned so the options were to welcome them in a structured manner or to let them keep traipsing beyond control. Angela Merkel chose the only sensible option at the time.
I would contend the crisis was more of a group think bubble - the new economy, lower risk etc - than purely regulatory. The regulators fell in line with the mood around them.
I'm all in favour of migrants being housed appropriately. If billeting were necessary, of course I'd take my quota. But it isn't and wasn't, and there were and are more appropriate places to house migrants than with me.
The truth is too many people - including some on here - do not care about those people, and want to do nothing to help them, even though inaction has very real consequences for us. And that's leaving aside the moral issues.
Putting large sums of money into relief in the countries bordering Syria, setting up systems to bring the most needy migrants into Europe in a controlled manner and making sure that there were proper and effective barriers to uncontrolled migration would all have stopped a crisis turning into a disaster. It was noteworthy that Britain gave more money to refuge relief in and around Syria than the whole of the rest of the EU combined in the lead up to the crisis and were second only to the US in the amount of support they gave.
Merkel on the other side has a serious amount of blood on her hands. Her open door policy encouraged people to risk deadly crossings of the Mediterranean and thousands died as a direct result. She should be ashamed and deserves to fall.
Those from Syria could have been sent to Turkey and/or the camps. But there were plenty of migrants who were not from Syria but from countries like Bangladesh and Pakistan and various African countries, who simply should have been returned to those countries. Then there should have been a proper risk-based approach to who from Syria should be let in. And my preference, to be clear, would be to give priority to those who have faced effective genocide from IS i.e. Yazidis and Iraqi and Syrian Christians.
And, for someone who was always going on about European co-operation, Germany should have consulted with other countries. Not made a unilateral decision to tear up the existing rules and then expect other countries to bear the consequences.
"'I want Germany to be German' Morrissey attacks Merkel for destroying nation's identity
Controversial Smiths frontman Morrissey has hit out at Angela Merkel for “throwing away” the country’s culture in a furious tirade against immigration."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/881924/Morrissey-Angela-Merkel-Germany-immigration-migrant-crisis-crime
In the words of Judge Weeks: "To me at least he (Morrissey) appeared devious, truculent and unreliable where his own interests were at stake."
Mrs Jellaby was satire. Not a model to be followed.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/11/george-freeman-why-we-need-a-new-chairman-and-team-at-cchq-to-lead-a-radical-programme-of-conservative-renewal.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/20/prime-ministers-policy-chief-resigns-days-ahead-budget-warns/
“so because some stupid kid drowned, the rest of us here in Sussex have to suffer”
this time last week nobody would have thought of asking her the question
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article170791441/Ich-fuerchte-gar-nichts.html
He also seems to have achieved relative stability in his shadow cabinet at last... certainly compared to the real Cabinet!
This is a recipe for trouble - frankly I am as terrified of the 60,000 neo-Nazis who marched in Poland last week than I am of rogue Isis supporting migrants. But they are both cheeks of the same arse.
That does not mean you cannot help others. Ask the people who were at risk of drowning. I would say ask the people who drowned, but that's rather hard ...
https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/live170690932/45-Prozent-der-Deutschen-sprechen-sich-fuer-Neuwahlen-aus.html
Mrs Merkel is great at telling others what to do and then not doing it herself
Diesel scandal where the German Federal Government is seriously implicated
Global warming where Germany is missing all its CO2 targets and is about to open up lignite fuelled power stations
Cartels
The modus operandi of the far Left is to have no respect for private property, and for force to be used against their opponents.
Speaking of words, if Hammond sticks around we can look forward to much mirth at his no unemployed remark. The guy who saved the world, Gordon Brown, can tell him people don't let you forget something like that.
These last 18 months have been an absolute shit show of an accumulator for us Cameroon Tories
I agree Cameron needs lauding for his approach, and Germany should have done something like that sooner. But that wouldn't have done anything about the immediate pressure they were getting, and would not have stopped the flow of people for some time.
On thing no-one tackled adequately was the traffickers. I would like the UN to introduce a special international court for people smugglers of all types.
I don't know the source, but it is obviously from 4chan or Reddit. Still an amusing (and NSFW) read.
When the created BR they basically just nationlised the BIg Four companies and did not create a proper company until Thattcher frightened them to death and they commited to Sectorisation. For example old manager of Midland Mainline were in the ascendent and that was in part for responsible for the closure of the Grand Central. In the South West it is the Greatwestern network that largely survived and the LWSR network was large closed down, whilch is why most of North Devon and Cornwall had no rail service.
The disasterous modernistation programme of 55 meant that the Teasury never trustred BR again, even though the modernisation programme was built to handle the Labour goverments national economic plan and the projected increase in steel in and coal. Of course the post war bounce back in heavy industries collapsed early on in the programme and well oops.
Also many of the civil servants in the Department of transport hated rail , and were solidly behind roads were our future. From an old civil service old hand I know most ministers in the 80's were far more pro rail than Thatcher herself, but she had other priorities and as long rail caused her no problems she was happy to leave them alone.
The obsession since the Nationlisation was that there was some profitable core network that could be cut back to reduce the amount of subsidy. But of course the more of the rural lines you cut the more traffic fell as there was less traffic on the main lines etc.
What ruled BR was cost control and most projects had to be justfied on reduced running costs not on it's ability to generated additional passengers, Officialy pusuring passenger growth was to be frowned upon.
The nationailised railways also suffered from vastly changing budgets that would shoot up and down with each budget.
The Privatisation of the railway was meant to continue reduce costs and not increase passengers (after all they'd be falling continously since WWII). But with fixed franchises and high lease costs the franchises had maximum incentive to increase ticket sales, also the new system of track access charges meant that budgets could be planned for in five year chunks and borrowing could be done without Treasury supervision of smaller projects and more services meant more fees for BR.
That's not to say I'd want to go back to BR, but I would like to investigate different options so there integrated operations and new structure so that the company does more stuff itself and not rely on contractors for everything, so to control costs.
I think that's a fairly good summary. I'd just note that it was the Great Central, not Grand Central.
Also, the Matlock to Buxton line was closed for the same reason you cite: it was seen as a competitor to the west coast for Manchester services, and therefore had to be closed, even though it was not (IIRC) in the Beeching Plan to be closed.
I'd also add that the Big Four were allowed to thrive in BR times for too long. Hence why the western region bought loads of dead-end diesel-hydraulics. These do-it-our-way attitudes probably lasted for thirty years after nationalisation.
Knowing a little about the way BR worked, I'd also argue that using contractors has helped control costs. If you want to control them more, do more short-term line closures for upgrades rather than never-ending expensive night-time working.
"Russia isn't a good advert for communism."
Can you name a country that is?
Clue: Sweden is not a communist country.