Mr. HYUFD, yes... although surely anyone still backing UKIP is a die hard supporter?
I suppose some might be anxious about us not really leaving the EU.
We will leave. If the Kipperati and their fellow travellers on the xenophobic right continue to obsess about freedom of movement then we might get a crap deal, but that is a different matter.
My personal solution is regional visas for London and Scotland, areas which were very pro-Remain. It works fine as a system in other countries yet the unimaginative on here dismiss it for some reason. Freedom of movement but only to jobs/residences within London and Scotland. Great idea.
I have no problem with work visas targeted at appropriate demand and from applications world wide. The issue is that we, not Brussels, will have control over it
"We need to be imaginative, given the ludicrous situation the Leavers have put us in. It's far from ideal (the current set up is better) but it could be done. Those that live or work outside London are breaking the law in the same way as any other non-EU immigrants would be.
Employers that hire them would be in breach of the law of the land if their primary place of employment and residence weren't both in London (or Scotland). Some will slip through the net, as they already do. No system is perfect."
IMO free movement is likely to remain in place in all but name, with any so-called controls little more than a meaningless sop. In return we'll be trading with the single market pretty much as-is. Even Boris now seems to agree that this is a fairly likely scenario.
Anyone seen SeanT over the past few days? Based on his last tweet Mrs Merton’s question to Debbie McGee springs to mind
Oh dear - I hope he's OK! This place isn't quite the same without him.
What he needs is an attractive young lady with a fondness for older men and forthright views on Brexit. I wonder if any have recently become available...
"But McDonnell has spoken about the possibility if imposing capital controls, a measure not seen in this country since 1979. That is not moderation, by any stretch of the imagination."
I have also tackled Dr Palmer on this issue in the past - as my small business gets around 80% of its revenue from overseas it is perhaps my biggest fear about Corbyn winning.
I suspect it will partly depend what kind of capital controls McDonnell is proposing. If it is a limit of £1 million it will be a wholly different political impact to reintroducing the days of only being allowed to take £50 on holiday. Any politician who reintroduced the latter would likely be out of office within 6 months. If it is even possible in these days of international card payments.
"But McDonnell has spoken about the possibility if imposing capital controls, a measure not seen in this country since 1979. That is not moderation, by any stretch of the imagination."
I have also tackled Dr Palmer on this issue in the past - as my small business gets around 80% of its revenue from overseas it is perhaps my biggest fear about Corbyn winning.
I suspect it will partly depend what kind of capital controls McDonnell is proposing. If it is a limit of £1 million it will be a wholly different political impact to reintroducing the days of only being allowed to take £50 on holiday. Any politician who reintroduced the latter would likely be out of office within 6 months. If it is even possible in these days of international card payments.
Of course it's possible, you just force the banks and credit card companies to impose the limits for you.
"We need to be imaginative, given the ludicrous situation the Leavers have put us in. It's far from ideal (the current set up is better) but it could be done. Those that live or work outside London are breaking the law in the same way as any other non-EU immigrants would be.
Employers that hire them would be in breach of the law of the land if their primary place of employment and residence weren't both in London (or Scotland). Some will slip through the net, as they already do. No system is perfect."
IMO free movement is likely to remain in place in all but name, with any so-called controls little more than a meaningless sop. In return we'll be trading with the single market pretty much as-is. Even Boris now seems to agree that this is a fairly likely scenario.
Well I hope you are right of course. You might be.
Much more significant than the Northern Ireland non event is the election of three hard left Momentum members to Labour's NEC. This means that for the first time in Labour's history the hard left have total control of the Labour.
[snip]
Not quite. To be in "total control of Labour", you need control of, or reliable from:
1. MPs 2. The NEC 3. Conference 4. The membership
The Corbynite faction has the NEC and the membership in the bag. Conference is broadly aligned and for the time being, MPs are quiescent. However, Corbyn is still not yet in a position to impose a new settlement on Labour in the way that Blair was.
All it needs for Labour to start unravelling is for them to start to fall behind in the polls, so that they face a worse result than 2017. Those MPs who have been quiescent won't be for long.
Not happening though is it? Indeed Corbyn sems to have topped up his spring surge:
Equally likely for the Tories to start unravelling when they realise that they are going to lose to an unlikely crossbreed of Wolfie Smith and Tom Good.
With UKIP on 4.6% and Labour just 1% ahead if post the Bolton scandal the Tories can squeeze the purples back again they could retake a poll lead without winning a single voter from Labour
Yes and if my uncle had boobies he'd be my aunt.
No, a realistic proposition given over 50% of 2015 UKIP voters went Tory in 2017
You are dismissing the prospect of their losing several s took charge.
All those voters would already have left in June last year if they put Remain diehardism ahead of fear of Corbyn and voted Labour or LD
Voters change their minds all the time for all sorts of reasons. Speaking personally I intended to vote Lib Dem right up until about 24 hours before the polling stations opened last time. I just reconsidered the situation. Your assiduous attention to the statistics is admirable in many ways, but I don't think it is making you any better informed.
The Tories are currently on 40% average they are more likely to win voters from the 5% voting UKIP who are more in tune with them ideologically than the 41% voting Corbyn Labour, that does not mean there will be exceptions but that is the fact
"But McDonnell has spoken about the possibility if imposing capital controls, a measure not seen in this country since 1979. That is not moderation, by any stretch of the imagination."
I have also tackled Dr Palmer on this issue in the past - as my small business gets around 80% of its revenue from overseas it is perhaps my biggest fear about Corbyn winning.
I suspect it will partly depend what kind of capital controls McDonnell is proposing. If it is a limit of £1 million it will be a wholly different political impact to reintroducing the days of only being allowed to take £50 on holiday. Any politician who reintroduced the latter would likely be out of office within 6 months. If it is even possible in these days of international card payments.
It is amazing that any politician seeking office is looking at capital controls
"But McDonnell has spoken about the possibility if imposing capital controls, a measure not seen in this country since 1979. That is not moderation, by any stretch of the imagination."
I have also tackled Dr Palmer on this issue in the past - as my small business gets around 80% of its revenue from overseas it is perhaps my biggest fear about Corbyn winning.
I suspect it will partly depend what kind of capital controls McDonnell is proposing. If it is a limit of £1 million it will be a wholly different political impact to reintroducing the days of only being allowed to take £50 on holiday. Any politician who reintroduced the latter would likely be out of office within 6 months. If it is even possible in these days of international card payments.
Any form of capital control would be deeply damaging. How could any business which trades cope? Why would anyone invest in the country? What other measures might follow: a 20% solidarity tax on all savings over a certain amount?
I just don't buy this idea that Corbyn/McDonnell will be more moderate than we expect. It feels to me like people believing what they hope will be true. Both Corbyn and McDonnell have been pretty consistent in their views on capitalism. It is, if you like that sort of thing, part of their charm. There is absolutely no reason to suppose they are going to change their views once they get into power. If anything they will see victory as vindication of their views and will not waste the opportunity.
They mean to change matters fundamentally and they will try do so. If you want that sort of change by all means vote for it. But be prepared for some real change and for some pretty unwelcome change. It's not going to be as now with some added niceness to poor people
Being found guilty of affray comes with a maximum three jail sentence and/or unlimited fine.
Apologies for the very late response.
That is the maximum but getting anywhere near that would go way outside the sentencing guidelines. As there was no weapon the case will almost certainly be dealt with by magistrates with a community order of some kind being the most likely outcome if he is found guilty. The minimum he could get is a band C fine and the maximum is 12 weeks custody.
Agree. The weakest part of Stokes' case is that fact that his response could be considered by the jury/magistrates to be disproportionate (he continued to attack when his opponent was already incapacitated). Yet the gay couple's aggressor was wielding a bottle – whereas Stokes was unarmed. I suspect Stokes' lawyer will focus on that factor in an attempt to neutralise the disproportionate charge against him.
The fact that Stokes was defending a pair of non-combatants from homophobic abuse is likely to play well with some – but not all – juries and magistrates.
"But McDonnell has spoken about the possibility if imposing capital controls, a measure not seen in this country since 1979. That is not moderation, by any stretch of the imagination."
I have also tackled Dr Palmer on this issue in the past - as my small business gets around 80% of its revenue from overseas it is perhaps my biggest fear about Corbyn winning.
I suspect it will partly depend what kind of capital controls McDonnell is proposing. If it is a limit of £1 million it will be a wholly different political impact to reintroducing the days of only being allowed to take £50 on holiday. Any politician who reintroduced the latter would likely be out of office within 6 months. If it is even possible in these days of international card payments.
Of course it's possible, you just force the banks and credit card companies to impose the limits for you.
How do you do that when people have multiple credit cards? With bank accounts I suppose we could revert to the days when you had to take your passport to the bank to get foreign exchange and have it stamped with the amount taken. What about people with EU passports living here? Would they be prevented from moving their money?
But think of the optics, think of the practicalities, think of the signals it sends out. It took one bland announcement about Northern Rock to lead to queues of people wanting to get their money out. Imagine what an announcement that there was a limit to what you could take abroad would do. It would single a sort of siege economy that few of us are either used to or remember. Think how pissed off people are at the idea that they might not be able to travel freely in EU and how they might react to something like this which could be perceived as amounting to the same thing.
Now I hope none of this comes to pass. But McDonnell has clearly both thought and talked about it. I tend to take him more seriously than those saying oh no he'll really be very reasonable and moderate in reality.
"But McDonnell has spoken about the possibility if imposing capital controls, a measure not seen in this country since 1979. That is not moderation, by any stretch of the imagination."
I have also tackled Dr Palmer on this issue in the past - as my small business gets around 80% of its revenue from overseas it is perhaps my biggest fear about Corbyn winning.
I suspect it will partly depend what kind of capital controls McDonnell is proposing. If it is a limit of £1 million it will be a wholly different political impact to reintroducing the days of only being allowed to take £50 on holiday. Any politician who reintroduced the latter would likely be out of office within 6 months. If it is even possible in these days of international card payments.
Of course it's possible, you just force the banks and credit card companies to impose the limits for you.
How do you do that when people have multiple credit cards? With bank accounts I suppose we could revert to the days when you had to take your passport to the bank to get foreign exchange and have it stamped with the amount taken. What about people with EU passports living here? Would they be prevented from moving their money?
But think of the optics, think of the practicalities, think of the signals it sends out. It took one bland announcement about Northern Rock to lead to queues of people wanting to get their money out. Imagine what an announcement that there was a limit to what you could take abroad would do. It would single a sort of siege economy that few of us are either used to or remember. Think how pissed off people are at the idea that they might not be able to travel freely in EU and how they might react to something like this which could be perceived as amounting to the same thing.
Now I hope none of this comes to pass. But McDonnell has clearly both thought and talked about it. I tend to take him more seriously than those saying oh no he'll really be very reasonable and moderate in reality.
Most countries have some form of exchange controls. They tend to be less developed, but I’m sure Mr Corbyn could get some practical hints from most Latin American and ex-Soviet states.
"But McDonnell has spoken about the possibility if imposing capital controls, a measure not seen in this country since 1979. That is not moderation, by any stretch of the imagination."
I have also tackled Dr Palmer on this issue in the past - as my small business gets around 80% of its revenue from overseas it is perhaps my biggest fear about Corbyn winning.
I suspect it will partly depend what kind of capital controls McDonnell is proposing. If it is a limit of £1 million it will be a wholly different political impact to reintroducing the days of only being allowed to take £50 on holiday. Any politician who reintroduced the latter would likely be out of office within 6 months. If it is even possible in these days of international card payments.
Of course it's possible, you just force the banks and credit card companies to impose the limits for you.
How do you do that when people have multiple credit cards? With bank accounts I suppose we could revert to the days when you had to take your passport to the bank to get foreign exchange and have it stamped with the amount taken. What about people with EU passports living here? Would they be prevented from moving their money?
But think of the optics, think of the practicalities, think of the signals it sends out. It took one bland announcement about Northern Rock to lead to queues of people wanting to get their money out. Imagine what an announcement that there was a limit to what you could take abroad would do. It would single a sort of siege economy that few of us are either used to or remember. Think how pissed off people are at the idea that they might not be able to travel freely in EU and how they might react to something like this which could be perceived as amounting to the same thing.
Now I hope none of this comes to pass. But McDonnell has clearly both thought and talked about it. I tend to take him more seriously than those saying oh no he'll really be very reasonable and moderate in reality.
A bitcoin 2.0 or equivalent which reverted to being a means of exchange rather than a bubble asset would severely impede any attempt at rationing our holiday money.
Being found guilty of affray comes with a maximum three jail sentence and/or unlimited fine.
Apologies for the very late response.
That is the maximum but getting anywhere near that would go way outside the sentencing guidelines. As there was no weapon the case will almost certainly be dealt with by magistrates with a community order of some kind being the most likely outcome if he is found guilty. The minimum he could get is a band C fine and the maximum is 12 weeks custody.
Agree. The weakest part of Stokes' case is that fact that his response could be considered by the jury/magistrates to be disproportionate (he continued to attack when his opponent was already incapacitated). Yet the gay couple's aggressor was wielding a bottle – whereas Stokes was unarmed. I suspect Stokes' lawyer will focus on that factor in an attempt to neutralise the disproportionate charge against him.
The fact that Stokes was defending a pair of non-combatants from homophobic abuse is likely to play well with some – but not all – juries and magistrates.
Since the maximum is a possible 3 years, I thought this would have to go to jury trial as the maximum sentence a magistrate can give for s single offence is 6 months.
Read your link. The bit with the Carter IQ is from the hoax!
No it is not, it is actually disputing the 'hoax' as it is a Republican leaning site and certainly not one favourable to Carter. Carter as the site confirms is the only President to have released his actual IQ (JFK was well overestimated he got 119 in a high school IQ test, the estimate for Carter was though close to his actual score)
If capital controls are imposed, Labour will destroy the city of London as a financial centre within a matter of months.
I hope Labour supporters are ready to defend swingeing NHS cuts when tax revenues dry up.
No, they will just impose a 90% top income tax rate no matter the further damage to the economy
And will then have to defend the swingeing cuts anyway. They really are dumber than a bag of rocks.
No they will just keeping taxing until there is little left to tax, Corbyn has no Healey willing to pursue cuts as well as tax rises, just McDonnell promising to borrow and tax the rich
Being found guilty of affray comes with a maximum three jail sentence and/or unlimited fine.
Apologies for the very late response.
That is the maximum but getting anywhere near that would go way outside the sentencing guidelines. As there was no weapon the case will almost certainly be dealt with by magistrates with a community order of some kind being the most likely outcome if he is found guilty. The minimum he could get is a band C fine and the maximum is 12 weeks custody.
Agree. The weakest part of Stokes' case is that fact that his response could be considered by the jury/magistrates to be disproportionate (he continued to attack when his opponent was already incapacitated). Yet the gay couple's aggressor was wielding a bottle – whereas Stokes was unarmed. I suspect Stokes' lawyer will focus on that factor in an attempt to neutralise the disproportionate charge against him.
The fact that Stokes was defending a pair of non-combatants from homophobic abuse is likely to play well with some – but not all – juries and magistrates.
Since the maximum is a possible 3 years, I thought this would have to go to jury trial as the maximum sentence a magistrate can give for s single offence is 6 months.
No, that is how triable either way offences work. There is one max for magistrates, a higher max for crown court n jury trials. And just to confuse things the mags can try and convict, but then send the case up for sentencing because they think their powers are inadequate.
1) Exchange controls are imposed. Transactional business flees the City first; advisory will follow.
2) Related tax revenues collapse while spending increases.
3) The Government needs cash, so issues more debt.
4) The perceived riskiness of UK debt will rise, so interest rates do too. Interest expense becomes the third-largest item in the national budget.
5) As tax revenues disappoint and the cost of borrowing rises, the Bank of England starts to buy UK government bonds to ensure adequate cash reserves. The money supply starts to run away.
6) All of the above helps to drive the value of sterling down, boosting inflation. The public sector calls for higher wages, which calls for more money printing...
7) As imports become less affordable, the State will take over the allocation of hard currency, leading to riches for a connected few and shortages of basic consumer goods.
Only a few years of this are needed to utterly and irretrievably wreck the country.
"But McDonnell has spoken about the possibility if imposing capital controls, a measure not seen in this country since 1979. That is not moderation, by any stretch of the imagination."
I have also tackled Dr Palmer on this issue in the past - as my small business gets around 80% of its revenue from overseas it is perhaps my biggest fear about Corbyn winning.
I suspect it will partly depend what kind of capital controls McDonnell is proposing. If it is a limit of £1 million it will be a wholly different political impact to reintroducing the days of only being allowed to take £50 on holiday. Any politician who reintroduced the latter would likely be out of office within 6 months. If it is even possible in these days of international card payments.
Of course it's possible, you just force the banks and credit card companies to impose the limits for you.
How do you do that when people have multiple credit cards? With bank accounts I suppose we could revert to the days when you had to take your passport to the bank to get foreign exchange and have it stamped with the amount taken. What about people with EU passports living here? Would they be prevented from moving their money?
But think of the optics, think of the practicalities, think of the signals it sends out. It took one bland announcement about Northern Rock to lead to queues of people wanting to get their money out. Imagine what an announcement that there was a limit to what you could take abroad would do. It would single a sort of siege economy that few of us are either used to or remember. Think how pissed off people are at the idea that they might not be able to travel freely in EU and how they might react to something like this which could be perceived as amounting to the same thing.
Now I hope none of this comes to pass. But McDonnell has clearly both thought and talked about it. I tend to take him more seriously than those saying oh no he'll really be very reasonable and moderate in reality.
Most countries have some form of exchange controls. They tend to be less developed, but I’m sure Mr Corbyn could get some practical hints from most Latin American and ex-Soviet states.
It’s going to be terrible, isn’t it?
How nice of the Tories to be so disorganised and make Mr Corbyn electable
1) Exchange controls are imposed. Transactional business flees the City first; advisory will follow.
2) Related tax revenues collapse while spending increases.
3) The Government needs cash, so issues more debt.
4) The perceived riskiness of UK debt will rise, so interest rates do too. Interest expense becomes the third-largest item in the national budget.
5) As tax revenues disappoint and the cost of borrowing rises, the Bank of England starts to buy UK government bonds to ensure adequate cash reserves. The money supply starts to run away.
6) All of the above helps to drive the value of sterling down, boosting inflation. The public sector calls for higher wages, which calls for more money printing...
7) As imports become less affordable, the State will take over the allocation of hard currency, leading to riches for a connected few and shortages of basic consumer goods.
Only a few years of this are needed to utterly and irretrievably wreck the country.
Alas, I am a Labour supporter but under Corbyn who is totally unfit to be prime minister, this is exactly what would happen. I very doubt if Corbyn will become prime minister -and certainly never of a majority government. He cannot win the middle England marginals he needs. But a Corbyn Labour government would almost certainly be the last Labour government for a very very long time.
The Conservatives are still struggling with their message to Remain supporters. "We hate you and despise you and consider you treacherous, now vote for us because the other lot are worse" is a tough sell.
Mr. HYUFD, yes... although surely anyone still backing UKIP is a die hard supporter?
I suppose some might be anxious about us not really leaving the EU.
We will leave. If the Kipperati and their fellow travellers on the xenophobic right continue to obsess about freedom of movement then we might get a crap deal, but that is a different matter.
My personal solution is regional visas for London and Scotland, areas which were very pro-Remain. It works fine as a system in other countries yet the unimaginative on here dismiss it for some reason. Freedom of movement but only to jobs/residences within London and Scotland. Great idea.
It would be great to see the mayor of London have to stand for both increased numbers of unskilled visas and a reduction in housing costs.
1) Exchange controls are imposed. Transactional business flees the City first; advisory will follow.
2) Related tax revenues collapse while spending increases.
3) The Government needs cash, so issues more debt.
4) The perceived riskiness of UK debt will rise, so interest rates do too. Interest expense becomes the third-largest item in the national budget.
5) As tax revenues disappoint and the cost of borrowing rises, the Bank of England starts to buy UK government bonds to ensure adequate cash reserves. The money supply starts to run away.
6) All of the above helps to drive the value of sterling down, boosting inflation. The public sector calls for higher wages, which calls for more money printing...
7) As imports become less affordable, the State will take over the allocation of hard currency, leading to riches for a connected few and shortages of basic consumer goods.
Only a few years of this are needed to utterly and irretrievably wreck the country.
And the incompetent Conservative Government has made a good start on wrecking the economy, with their unthought-through Brexit scheme.
Never mind, Mr Blue. You can always vote UKIP. Or emigrate to the USA.
The Conservatives are still struggling with their message to Remain supporters. "We hate you and despise you and consider you treacherous, now vote for us because the other lot are worse" is a tough sell.
"But McDonnell has spoken about the possibility if imposing capital controls, a measure not seen in this country since 1979. That is not moderation, by any stretch of the imagination."
I have also tackled Dr Palmer on this issue in the past - as my small business gets around 80% of its revenue from overseas it is perhaps my biggest fear about Corbyn winning.
I suspect it will partly depend what kind of capital controls McDonnell is proposing. If it is a limit of £1 million it will be a wholly different political impact to reintroducing the days of only being allowed to take £50 on holiday. Any politician who reintroduced the latter would likely be out of office within 6 months. If it is even possible in these days of international card payments.
Of course it's possible, you just force the banks and credit card companies to impose the limits for you.
How do you do that when people have multiple credit cards? With bank accounts I suppose we could revert to the days when you had to take your passport to the bank to get foreign exchange and have it stamped with the amount taken. What about people with EU passports living here? Would they be prevented from moving their money?
But think of the optics, think of the practicalities, think of the signals it sends out. It took one bland announcement about Northern Rock to lead to queues of people wanting to get their money out. Imagine what an announcement that there was a limit to what you could take abroad would do. It would single a sort of siege economy that few of us are either used to or remember. Think how pissed off people are at the idea that they might not be able to travel freely in EU and how they might react to something like this which could be perceived as amounting to the same thing.
Now I hope none of this comes to pass. But McDonnell has clearly both thought and talked about it. I tend to take him more seriously than those saying oh no he'll really be very reasonable and moderate in reality.
Most countries have some form of exchange controls. They tend to be less developed, but I’m sure Mr Corbyn could get some practical hints from most Latin American and ex-Soviet states.
It’s going to be terrible, isn’t it?
How nice of the Tories to be so disorganised and make Mr Corbyn electable
It's not their disorganisation which is the problem. It is that they are trashing their own USP re economic competence.
The Conservatives are still struggling with their message to Remain supporters. "We hate you and despise you and consider you treacherous, now vote for us because the other lot are worse" is a tough sell.
Ha. I think you're mixing up your apples and oranges there.
It is the continuity Remain cause who are making exactly this mistake with their talk of another referendum.
Interesting. I wonder if one of our Labour members with knowledge of the inner workings (Dr. Palmer?) might be kind enough to write a header on what this means for the rest of us?
I did reply downthread, but briefly:
* There is a pretty firm coalition in Labour at present of the left (40-45%?) and the "don't rock the boat" members and MPs (most of the rest). That's likely to last until either (a) Corbyn loses badly or (b) Corbyn wins and it turns out badly. The "don't rock the boat" members simply want a Labour government, and if it can be a successful one with socialist policies, that's fine.
* As David H says, Corbyn doesn't have absolute control of the party, since the unions and by extension the conference won't go along with anything too ferocious, such as mandatory reselection. Fortunately, Corbyn doesn't want to - he's quite content to lead with a left-wing shadow cabinet and a quiescent PLP
* The NEC is subject to annual election, but the current left-wing majority is likely to last until one oi the hurdles (a) or (b) above is encountered.
What does it mean for everyone else? It probably makes a Corbyn government more likely, since a clearly divided party tends to do badly. But the position remains that any conceivable Parliamentary majority will depend on MPs who are not by any stretch of the imagination far left. It's likely, therefore, that a first term Corbyn government would surprise people by its moderation, though I'm sure there would be plenty of gestures unfamiliar in recent years, notably a chill in the special relationship. A second term would be trickier, with Corbyn or his successor under more pressure to "get on with it". By that time, the Tories would either have sorted themselves out or be in terminal decline.
Thanks for the reply Nick, and yes my post crossed with another of yours earlier so apologies for that. I won’t be betting against Corbyn as Lab leader at the next GE any time soon.
"But McDonnell has spoken about the possibility if imposing capital controls, a measure not seen in this country since 1979. That is not moderation, by any stretch of the imagination."
I have also tackled Dr Palmer on this issue in the past - as my small business gets around 80% of its revenue from overseas it is perhaps my biggest fear about Corbyn winning.
I suspect it will partly depend what kind of capital controls McDonnell is proposing. If it is a limit of £1 million it will be a wholly different political impact to reintroducing the days of only being allowed to take £50 on holiday. Any politician who reintroduced the latter would likely be out of office within 6 months. If it is even possible in these days of international card payments.
Of course it's possible, you just force the banks and credit card companies to impose the limits for you.
How do you do that when people have multiple credit cards? With bank accounts I suppose we could revert to the days when you had to take your passport to the bank to get foreign exchange and have it stamped with the amount taken. What about people with EU passports living here? Would they be prevented from moving their money?
But think of the optics, think of the practicalities, think of the signals it sends out. It took one bland announcement about Northern Rock to lead to queues of people wanting to get their money out. Imagine what an announcement that there was a limit to what you could take abroad would do. It would single a sort of siege economy that few of us are either used to or remember. Think how pissed off people are at the idea that they might not be able to travel freely in EU and how they might react to something like this which could be perceived as amounting to the same thing.
Now I hope none of this comes to pass. But McDonnell has clearly both thought and talked about it. I tend to take him more seriously than those saying oh no he'll really be very reasonable and moderate in reality.
Most countries have some form of exchange controls. They tend to be less developed, but I’m sure Mr Corbyn could get some practical hints from most Latin American and ex-Soviet states.
It’s going to be terrible, isn’t it?
How nice of the Tories to be so disorganised and make Mr Corbyn electable
It's not their disorganisation which is the problem. It is that they are trashing their own USP re economic competence.
Their economic competence is fine. The problem is that Theresa May is out of her depth as PM.
Most countries have some form of exchange controls. They tend to be less developed, but I’m sure Mr Corbyn could get some practical hints from most Latin American and ex-Soviet states.
It’s going to be terrible, isn’t it?
How nice of the Tories to be so disorganised and make Mr Corbyn electable
It's not their disorganisation which is the problem. It is that they are trashing their own USP re economic competence.
Infighting in a party usually brings electoral disaster, but the trashing of the Tory USP has not really started yet. If it is all going to go pear-shaped economically then this is the year it will happen. Personally I expect this March/April to be the point where it all begins to go wrong.
The idea that being dependant on the votes of a few MPs makes you more moderate is not some immutable law of nature. It is just as likely to make you more extreme provided you can get enough votes for your measure - and you can do that by giving some of your allies something they care about even more and telling your own backbenchers that if they vote against the hated Tories will be back in. There will be a lot of pressure on Labour MPs not to rock the boat.
Replying to various posts:
- Yes, they do want to change the social model (which is currently simply broken for many people - equality of opportunity seems a joke) and to some extent the economic model (by public ownership of trains and utilities). The capital controls suggestion is based on McDonnell saying that they would need to consider all possibilities so that an incoming government wasn't caught by surprise, but he's never proposed controls and for the reasons others have said they're essentially unworkable. There are also at least 50 Labour MP who would vote against.
There are perfectly good reasons for Tories to be opposed to Labour, if they like the structure of society as it is and don't feel too bothered about the state of public services and the current levels of inequality, and if they make different choices in the hard decisions, such as housing vs green belt protection. But they are spending too much time putting up straw men and spinning fantasies around them, and that approach is well past its sell-by date. The Conservatives need to rediscover a reason for governing other than "we're not the other lot who might...", or move aside until they've worked one out. No governments last forever, and this one is palpably exhausted beyond its own interest, let alone the country's interest.
One more thought before I go out - by spinning gloom too far, Conservatives risk falling into the Project Fear trap - if you say things will be disastrous and they're merely so-so, you blow your credibility, and if you then say, "Oh well, they WILL be disastrous if he gets a second term", people don't believe it. As things stand, Corbyn merely needs to avoid kicking the Queen and banning the Daily Mail to look surprisingly good to anyone who's been following the Dreadful Warnings..
- Yes, they do want to change the social model (which is currently simply broken for many people - equality of opportunity seems a joke) and to some extent the economic model (by public ownership of trains and utilities). The capital controls suggestion is based on McDonnell saying that they would need to consider all possibilities so that an incoming government wasn't caught by surprise, but he's never proposed controls and for the reasons others have said they're essentially unworkable. There are also at least 50 Labour MP who would vote against.
There are perfectly good reasons for Tories to be opposed to Labour, if they like the structure of society as it is and don't feel too bothered about the state of public services and the current levels of inequality, and if they make different choices in the hard decisions, such as housing vs green belt protection. But they are spending too much time putting up straw men and spinning fantasies around them, and that approach is well past its sell-by date. The Conservatives need to rediscover a reason for governing other than "we're not the other lot who might...", or move aside until they've worked one out. No governments last forever, and this one is palpably exhausted beyond its own interest, let alone the country's interest.
I agree with your second paragraph particularly the second half. I think though there are reasons for voting Tory which are something other than because they like things are they are. You might not well like how things are but think that there are better ways to improve matters than the solutions offered by the Left. In May's first speech as PM she seemed to have some idea that matters were not great for ordinary people but we've seen where that has gone. Nowhere.
The trouble is the Tories seem to have forgotten what they are for, have forgotten how to argue for themselves and have forgotten how to show that they can improve matters for most people. I would like there to be a sensible alternative. I do not think Corbyn's Labour is such a sensible alternative.
I hope you are right in your first paragraph. You know your party much better than me.
I admit I am a touch sceptical. My view is that Labour MPs, when push comes to shove, have shown in the last few years that they will do absolutely nothing against what Corbyn proposes, no matter how much they might say they disapprove.
If McDonnell were to propose some form of capital controls I think Labour MPs will vote for them, no matter what they might say off the record or privately.
One more thought before I go out - by spinning gloom too far, Conservatives risk falling into the Project Fear trap - if you say things will be disastrous and they're merely so-so, you blow your credibility, and if you then say, "Oh well, they WILL be disastrous if he gets a second term", people don't believe it. As things stand, Corbyn merely needs to avoid kicking the Queen and banning the Daily Mail to look surprisingly good to anyone who's been following the Dreadful Warnings..
Absolutely agree. They have inoculated him by crying wolf rather too extravagantly.
A more forensic demolition job is needed. It's not that hard. There is plenty of material. But there is no-one with the forensic skills or ruthlessness within the Tories to do it. They really are dismal.
One more thought before I go out - by spinning gloom too far, Conservatives risk falling into the Project Fear trap - if you say things will be disastrous and they're merely so-so, you blow your credibility, and if you then say, "Oh well, they WILL be disastrous if he gets a second term", people don't believe it. As things stand, Corbyn merely needs to avoid kicking the Queen and banning the Daily Mail to look surprisingly good to anyone who's been following the Dreadful Warnings..
Absolutely agree. They have inoculated him by crying wolf rather too extravagantly.
A more forensic demolition job is needed. It's not that hard. There is plenty of material. But there is no-one with the forensic skills or ruthlessness within the Tories to do it. They really are dismal.
One more thought before I go out - by spinning gloom too far, Conservatives risk falling into the Project Fear trap - if you say things will be disastrous and they're merely so-so, you blow your credibility, and if you then say, "Oh well, they WILL be disastrous if he gets a second term", people don't believe it. As things stand, Corbyn merely needs to avoid kicking the Queen and banning the Daily Mail to look surprisingly good to anyone who's been following the Dreadful Warnings..
It is all very well to ridicule Project Fear, but you are peddling Project Nothing To Fear to us, which is what Trump got elected on. I never thought dear old Donald would turn out OK because he didn't really mean it, and I believe it still less who has stupidity and monomania running all the way through him like Brighton rock. He means what he hasbeen saying for the past 50 odd years.
One more thought before I go out - by spinning gloom too far, Conservatives risk falling into the Project Fear trap - if you say things will be disastrous and they're merely so-so, you blow your credibility, and if you then say, "Oh well, they WILL be disastrous if he gets a second term", people don't believe it. As things stand, Corbyn merely needs to avoid kicking the Queen and banning the Daily Mail to look surprisingly good to anyone who's been following the Dreadful Warnings..
Absolutely agree. They have inoculated him by crying wolf rather too extravagantly.
A more forensic demolition job is needed. It's not that hard. There is plenty of material. But there is no-one with the forensic skills or ruthlessness within the Tories to do it. They really are dismal.
They could recycle the 'Demon Eyes'.
Demon Eyes’ seemed an exaggeration at the time. But after Iraq, it seemed prescient.
The Conservatives are still struggling with their message to Remain supporters. "We hate you and despise you and consider you treacherous, now vote for us because the other lot are worse" is a tough sell.
Ha. I think you're mixing up your apples and oranges there.
It is the continuity Remain cause who are making exactly this mistake with their talk of another referendum.
Nigel Farage and Arron Banks being leading members of 'Continuity Remain'. It's true what my grandmother told me – you really do learn something new every day.
One more thought before I go out - by spinning gloom too far, Conservatives risk falling into the Project Fear trap - if you say things will be disastrous and they're merely so-so, you blow your credibility, and if you then say, "Oh well, they WILL be disastrous if he gets a second term", people don't believe it. As things stand, Corbyn merely needs to avoid kicking the Queen and banning the Daily Mail to look surprisingly good to anyone who's been following the Dreadful Warnings..
Absolutely agree. They have inoculated him by crying wolf rather too extravagantly.
A more forensic demolition job is needed. It's not that hard. There is plenty of material. But there is no-one with the forensic skills or ruthlessness within the Tories to do it. They really are dismal.
The idea that being dependant on the votes of a few MPs makes you more moderate is not some immutable law of nature. It is just as likely to make you more extreme provided you can get enough votes for your measure - and you can do that by giving some of your allies something they care about even more and telling your own backbenchers that if they vote against the hated Tories will be back in. There will be a lot of pressure on Labour MPs not to rock the boat.
Replying to various posts:
- Yes, they do want to change the social model (which is currently simply broken for many people - equality of opportunity seems a joke) and to some extent the economic model (by public ownership of trains and utilities). The capital controls suggestion is based on McDonnell saying that they would need to consider all possibilities so that an incoming government wasn't caught by surprise, but he's never proposed controls and for the reasons others have said they're essentially unworkable. There are also at least 50 Labour MP who would vote against.
There are perfectly good reasons for Tories to be opposed to Labour, if they like the structure of society as it is and don't feel too bothered about the state of public services and the current levels of inequality, and if they make different choices in the hard decisions, such as housing vs green belt protection. But they are spending too much time putting up straw men and spinning fantasies around them, and that approach is well past its sell-by date. The Conservatives need to rediscover a reason for governing other than "we're not the other lot who might...", or move aside until they've worked one out. No governments last forever, and this one is palpably exhausted beyond its own interest, let alone the country's interest.
Rail nationalisation is one idea that most of the country can get behind. The franchising system has been an abject failure.
Re: RoyalBlue's comment on how Corbynism will work.
I agree this is along the right lines, however I don't think it will take "a few years" for the damage to be done. It's more likely to happen relatively quickly - within a year or two.
The Corbyn "manifesto" - such at it is - is self-contradictory in that if he forms a government based on proposals to date, he'll be unable to carry them out because of the financial and economic disruption provoked by those proposals.
The interesting question - and ultimately most significant - is how the Corbyn government will react to the consequent social disruption.
One more thought before I go out - by spinning gloom too far, Conservatives risk falling into the Project Fear trap - if you say things will be disastrous and they're merely so-so, you blow your credibility, and if you then say, "Oh well, they WILL be disastrous if he gets a second term", people don't believe it. As things stand, Corbyn merely needs to avoid kicking the Queen and banning the Daily Mail to look surprisingly good to anyone who's been following the Dreadful Warnings..
Absolutely agree. They have inoculated him by crying wolf rather too extravagantly.
A more forensic demolition job is needed. It's not that hard. There is plenty of material. But there is no-one with the forensic skills or ruthlessness within the Tories to do it. They really are dismal.
They could recycle the 'Demon Eyes'.
Demon Eyes’ seemed an exaggeration at the time. But after Iraq, it seemed prescient.
There is plenty of stuff you can use against Corbyn and do so successfully i.e. in a way which resonates with voters. For some reason the Tories are utterly incapable of doing so.
I'm not sure why. I think it's a mix of the following:-
1. They're utterly consumed by Brexit. 2. When not consumed by Brexit they're fascinated by their own internal party travails. 2. They don't understand the need to do so. 3. They underestimate Corbyn's attractiveness to voters. 4. They've lost the ruthless focus needed to do so. 5. They have nothing to say themselves. 6. They are complacent. 7. They have forgotten how to argue for what they believe in.
The idea that being dependant on the votes of a few MPs makes you more moderate is not some immutable law of nature. It is just as likely to make you more extreme provided you can get enough votes for your measure - and you can do that by giving some of your allies something they care about even more and telling your own backbenchers that if they vote against the hated Tories will be back in. There will be a lot of pressure on Labour MPs not to rock the boat.
Replying to various posts:
- Yes, they do want to change the social model (which is currently simply broken for many people - equality of opportunity seems a joke) and to some extent the economic model (by public ownership of trains and utilities). The capital controls suggestion is based on McDonnell saying that they would need to consider all possibilities so that an incoming government wasn't caught by surprise, but he's never proposed controls and for the reasons others have said they're essentially unworkable. There are also at least 50 Labour MP who would vote against.
There are perfectly good reasons for Tories to be opposed to Labour, if they like the structure of society as it is and don't feel too bothered about the state of public services and the current levels of inequality, and if they make different choices in the hard decisions, such as housing vs green belt protection. But they are spending too much time putting up straw men and spinning fantasies around them, and that approach is well past its sell-by date. The Conservatives need to rediscover a reason for governing other than "we're not the other lot who might...", or move aside until they've worked one out. No governments last forever, and this one is palpably exhausted beyond its own interest, let alone the country's interest.
Rail nationalisation is one idea that most of the country can get behind. The franchising system has been an abject failure.
I don't feel strongly about this one way or the other.
But is this what should be a new government's priority? Of all the issues likely to be facing it?
There is plenty of stuff you can use against Corbyn and do so successfully i.e. in a way which resonates with voters. For some reason the Tories are utterly incapable of doing so.
I'm not sure why. I think it's a mix of the following:-
1. They're utterly consumed by Brexit. 2. When not consumed by Brexit they're fascinated by their own internal party travails. 2. They don't understand the need to do so. 3. They underestimate Corbyn's attractiveness to voters. 4. They've lost the ruthless focus needed to do so. 5. They have nothing to say themselves. 6. They are complacent. 7. They have forgotten how to argue for what they believe in.
There is plenty of stuff you can use against Corbyn and do so successfully i.e. in a way which resonates with voters. For some reason the Tories are utterly incapable of doing so.
I'm not sure why. I think it's a mix of the following:-
1. They're utterly consumed by Brexit. 2. When not consumed by Brexit they're fascinated by their own internal party travails. 2. They don't understand the need to do so. 3. They underestimate Corbyn's attractiveness to voters. 4. They've lost the ruthless focus needed to do so. 5. They have nothing to say themselves. 6. They are complacent. 7. They have forgotten how to argue for what they believe in.
One more thought before I go out - by spinning gloom too far, Conservatives risk falling into the Project Fear trap - if you say things will be disastrous and they're merely so-so, you blow your credibility, and if you then say, "Oh well, they WILL be disastrous if he gets a second term", people don't believe it. As things stand, Corbyn merely needs to avoid kicking the Queen and banning the Daily Mail to look surprisingly good to anyone who's been following the Dreadful Warnings..
Absolutely agree. They have inoculated him by crying wolf rather too extravagantly.
A more forensic demolition job is needed. It's not that hard. There is plenty of material. But there is no-one with the forensic skills or ruthlessness within the Tories to do it. They really are dismal.
They could recycle the 'Demon Eyes'.
Demon Eyes’ seemed an exaggeration at the time. But after Iraq, it seemed prescient.
There is plenty of stuff you can use against Corbyn and do so successfully i.e. in a way which resonates with voters. For some reason the Tories are utterly incapable of doing so.
I'm not sure why. I think it's a mix of the following:-
1. They're utterly consumed by Brexit. 2. When not consumed by Brexit they're fascinated by their own internal party travails. 2. They don't understand the need to do so. 3. They underestimate Corbyn's attractiveness to voters. 4. They've lost the ruthless focus needed to do so. 5. They have nothing to say themselves. 6. They are complacent. 7. They have forgotten how to argue for what they believe in.
Possibly, but what's the point of devoting time to this as this stage of the electoral cycle? The tories didn't devote much time or effort to pointing out that Ed Is Crap under the last but one government. The LOTO is relatively insignificant until a GE campaign kicks off, so why accord him undue prominence between GEs by going on about him?
Plus with TMay in office the last thing it's prudent to do is get into a "Your leader is useless" pissing contest.
One more thought before I go out - by spinning gloom too far, Conservatives risk falling into the Project Fear trap - if you say things will be disastrous and they're merely so-so, you blow your credibility, and if you then say, "Oh well, they WILL be disastrous if he gets a second term", people don't believe it. As things stand, Corbyn merely needs to avoid kicking the Queen and banning the Daily Mail to look surprisingly good to anyone who's been following the Dreadful Warnings..
Absolutely agree. They have inoculated him by crying wolf rather too extravagantly.
A more forensic demolition job is needed. It's not that hard. There is plenty of material. But there is no-one with the forensic skills or ruthlessness within the Tories to do it. They really are dismal.
They could recycle the 'Demon Eyes'.
Demon Eyes’ seemed an exaggeration at the time. But after Iraq, it seemed prescient.
Demon Eyes was pointless after 18 years of Tory rule, against a charismatic centrist like Blair.
In 1992 by contrast the 'Labour's tax bombshell' posters effectively won the general election for Major despite Kinnock leading most polls even during the election campaign itself
There is plenty of stuff you can use against Corbyn and do so successfully i.e. in a way which resonates with voters. For some reason the Tories are utterly incapable of doing so.
I'm not sure why. I think it's a mix of the following:-
1. They're utterly consumed by Brexit. 2. When not consumed by Brexit they're fascinated by their own internal party travails. 2. They don't understand the need to do so. 3. They underestimate Corbyn's attractiveness to voters. 4. They've lost the ruthless focus needed to do so. 5. They have nothing to say themselves. 6. They are complacent. 7. They have forgotten how to argue for what they believe in.
To be fair, Brexit is all consuming. It is a huge undertaking.
Is this the wonder deal which George was so impressed by ?
' Chancellor announces landmark £75 million deal between Carillion and Dubai World Trade Centre.
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne today (Monday 6 October) announced the first contract to be supported by UK Export Finance’s enhanced Direct Lending Facility (DLF), whilst on a regional tour of the midlands.
The availability of a £34 million loan from the Direct Lending Facility has helped Carillion to secure a significant contract with Dubai World Trade Centre LLC to provide construction services.
The Chancellor also welcomed the announcement by UK Export Finance appointing 20 financial organisations to its panel of partners to help deliver loans under the Direct Lending Facility.
Deutsche Bank have acted as partners in arranging the loan in support of the Carillion deal and will also be providing a further £34 million, guaranteed by UK Export Finance. '
Unlike some on here, I'm completely relaxed with the prospect of a Corbyn Government (if it happens). After 12 years of Conservative-led Government, it's not bad for the democratic process to deliver a change.
There are of course any number of suppositions and assumptions behind all of this - will Corbyn be Labour leader in 2022 ? Don't know, probably. What will be in the 2022 Labour Manifesto ? Don't know any more than I know what will be in the Conservative Manifesto.
It's curious to hear some of those who railed against Project Fear in the EU Referendum now playing exactly the same game with Corbyn's Labour party just as they did with Blair, Wilson and Attlee (and every Labour leader in between).
The three standard anti-Labour memes were: a) they are basically being controlled by Moscow (bit old hat but popular before 1989), b) they are controlled by the Unions (always an old Conservative favourite - Len McCluskey as the "real power" etc), c) the leader's okay but he's inexperienced and just a front for a) or b) (this was the argument used supremely unsuccessfully against Blair).
Turning it round (just for fun) - if I said, the Conservatives are basically run by Washington, they are controlled and work for the benefits of big business and while their leader's okay the really "nasty" types lurk in the background and are the real power, I imagine some on here would start to hyper-ventilate.
So until we have a much clearer of what a Corbyn Government would look like (as distinct from what we or the Daily Mail thinks it would look like) we're guessing. The 2022 Labour Manifesto will take shape from a couple of years from now so it's all a lot of shadow boxing.
There is plenty of stuff you can use against Corbyn and do so successfully i.e. in a way which resonates with voters. For some reason the Tories are utterly incapable of doing so.
I'm not sure why. I think it's a mix of the following:-
1. They're utterly consumed by Brexit. 2. When not consumed by Brexit they're fascinated by their own internal party travails. 2. They don't understand the need to do so. 3. They underestimate Corbyn's attractiveness to voters. 4. They've lost the ruthless focus needed to do so. 5. They have nothing to say themselves. 6. They are complacent. 7. They have forgotten how to argue for what they believe in.
To be fair, Brexit is all consuming. It is a huge undertaking.
I eventually plumped for remain despite being rather unenthusiastic about the EU itself and suspicious of its autocratic and federalistic agenda because I thought at worst withdrawal would cause severe economic disruption and at best merely distract us all for five years from a lot of very important but politically toxic decisions that have already been far too delayed.
There are times when I enjoy being proved right. This ain't one of them.
Is this the wonder deal which George was so impressed by ?
' Chancellor announces landmark £75 million deal between Carillion and Dubai World Trade Centre.
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne today (Monday 6 October) announced the first contract to be supported by UK Export Finance’s enhanced Direct Lending Facility (DLF), whilst on a regional tour of the midlands.
The availability of a £34 million loan from the Direct Lending Facility has helped Carillion to secure a significant contract with Dubai World Trade Centre LLC to provide construction services.
The Chancellor also welcomed the announcement by UK Export Finance appointing 20 financial organisations to its panel of partners to help deliver loans under the Direct Lending Facility.
Deutsche Bank have acted as partners in arranging the loan in support of the Carillion deal and will also be providing a further £34 million, guaranteed by UK Export Finance. '
Unlike some on here, I'm completely relaxed with the prospect of a Corbyn Government (if it happens). After 12 years of Conservative-led Government, it's not bad for the democratic process to deliver a change.
I wonder how many said that about Tsipras or Chavez.
There is plenty of stuff you can use against Corbyn and do so successfully i.e. in a way which resonates with voters. For some reason the Tories are utterly incapable of doing so.
I'm not sure why. I think it's a mix of the following:-
1. They're utterly consumed by Brexit. 2. When not consumed by Brexit they're fascinated by their own internal party travails. 2. They don't understand the need to do so. 3. They underestimate Corbyn's attractiveness to voters. 4. They've lost the ruthless focus needed to do so. 5. They have nothing to say themselves. 6. They are complacent. 7. They have forgotten how to argue for what they believe in.
I think it is just No. 2
They really don't deserve to be in government.
Trouble is neither does Corbyn.
Neither deserves a vote. I think I am past caring TBH.
The first paragraph is not quite as good as Alistair Meeks' legendary thread header on Turkish conscription but it gets an honourable mention.
I see the Chairman of Carrillion was an adviser þo the Tories on Corporate Governance and a signatory to the Labour are a danger to jobs letter.
No comment required
Given the nature of the beast many if not most of Carillion's direct jobs will probably be absorbed elsewhere.
The more pertinent worry should be - and currently doesn't seem to be - about failures among its suppliers of divers materials which might cause very significant job losses and have some very serious knock-on effects.
The idea that being dependant on the votes of a few MPs makes you more moderate is not some immutable law of nature. It is just as likely to make you more extreme provided you can get enough votes for your.... .
Replying to various posts:
- Yes, they do want to change the social model (which is currently simply broken for many people - equality of opportunity seems a joke) and to some extent the economic model (by public ownership of trains and utilities). The capital controls suggestion is based on McDonnell saying that they would need to consider all possibilities so that an incoming government wasn't caught by surprise, but he's never proposed controls and for the reasons others have said they're essentially unworkable. There are also at least 50 Labour MP who would vote against.
There are perfectly good reasons for Tories to be opposed to Labour, if they like the structure of society as it is and don't feel too bothered about the state of public services and the current levels of inequality, and if they make different choices in the hard decisions, such as housing vs green belt protection. But they are spending too much time putting up straw men and spinning fantasies around them, and that approach is well past its sell-by date. The Conservatives need to rediscover a reason for governing other than "we're not the other lot who might...", or move aside until they've worked one out. No governments last forever, and this one is palpably exhausted beyond its own interest, let alone the country's interest.
Rail nationalisation is one idea that most of the country can get behind. The franchising system has been an abject failure.
No, it hasn't.
It has enabled huge investment in the network, better service, lower subsidy of train travel by the taxpayer and, most importantly, massively reduced the power of the producer interest.
Is this the wonder deal which George was so impressed by ?
' Chancellor announces landmark £75 million deal between Carillion and Dubai World Trade Centre.
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne today (Monday 6 October) announced the first contract to be supported by UK Export Finance’s enhanced Direct Lending Facility (DLF), whilst on a regional tour of the midlands.
The availability of a £34 million loan from the Direct Lending Facility has helped Carillion to secure a significant contract with Dubai World Trade Centre LLC to provide construction services.
The Chancellor also welcomed the announcement by UK Export Finance appointing 20 financial organisations to its panel of partners to help deliver loans under the Direct Lending Facility.
Deutsche Bank have acted as partners in arranging the loan in support of the Carillion deal and will also be providing a further £34 million, guaranteed by UK Export Finance. '
So the taxpayer was effectively put on the hook for £68m so that Carillion could get a £75m contract in the Middle East.
Perhaps that counts as sound financial practice in the world of crony capitalism.
See TheWhiteRabbit's post of 5.59pm
I'll guess that Carillion's Middle Eastern business might be doing okay but that still doesn't make the above deal look unimpressive to me from a taxpayer perspective.
Its clear that Carillion were operating in a high risk manner and it doesn't need every deal to go bad for things to fall apart quickly.
The Conservatives are still struggling with their message to Remain supporters. "We hate you and despise you and consider you treacherous, now vote for us because the other lot are worse" is a tough sell.
Young voters perhaps - but remain voters? Seems May is delivering a soft Brexit potentially akin to a Brexit in name only.
Unlike some on here, I'm completely relaxed with the prospect of a Corbyn Government (if it happens). After 12 years of Conservative-led Government, it's not bad for the democratic process to deliver a change.
I wonder how many said that about Tsipras or Chavez.
If you seriously think of a Labour Government in those terms, there's not much room for discussion.
Attlee's programme in 1945 was far more radical than anything Corbyn and McDonnell will come up with. The other issue is we don't actually know what the Labour Manifesto in 2022 will look like.
Assuming it will be the 2017 version with amendments seems foolish - I'm quite happy to look at the Labour Manifesto and call it out if it is economically or socially incoherent but at the moment it's all supposition, misconception, preconception and assumption.
If you hate "socialism" you are rarely going to find a Labour manifesto more appealing than a Conservative one.
It has enabled huge investment in the network, better service, lower subsidy of train travel by the taxpayer and, most importantly, massively reduced the power of the producer interest.
To put that in context, they were already paid far more than teachers (indeed, pretty well double what the average teacher earns) for what is - quite bluntly - not an especially difficult job.
That doesn't suggest to me a reining in of the producer interest.
The first paragraph is not quite as good as Alistair Meeks' legendary thread header on Turkish conscription but it gets an honourable mention.
I see the Chairman of Carrillion was an adviser þo the Tories on Corporate Governance and a signatory to the Labour are a danger to jobs letter.
No comment required
Given the nature of the beast many if not most of Carillion's direct jobs will probably be absorbed elsewhere.
The more pertinent worry should be - and currently doesn't seem to be - about failures among its suppliers of divers materials which might cause very significant job losses and have some very serious knock-on effects.
It's the lead story on the Telegraph's website. I agree that the consequences could be severe for some.
Unlike some on here, I'm completely relaxed with the prospect of a Corbyn Government (if it happens). After 12 years of Conservative-led Government, it's not bad for the democratic process to deliver a change.
I wonder how many said that about Tsipras or Chavez.
If you seriously think of a Labour Government in those terms, there's not much room for discussion.
The first paragraph is not quite as good as Alistair Meeks' legendary thread header on Turkish conscription but it gets an honourable mention.
I see the Chairman of Carrillion was an adviser þo the Tories on Corporate Governance and a signatory to the Labour are a danger to jobs letter.
No comment required
Given the nature of the beast many if not most of Carillion's direct jobs will probably be absorbed elsewhere.
The more pertinent worry should be - and currently doesn't seem to be - about failures among its suppliers of divers materials which might cause very significant job losses and have some very serious knock-on effects.
It's the lead story on the Telegraph's website. I agree that the consequences could be severe for some.
I expect there will be consequential effects on the cost of credit insurance for business as well.
The first paragraph is not quite as good as Alistair Meeks' legendary thread header on Turkish conscription but it gets an honourable mention.
I see the Chairman of Carrillion was an adviser þo the Tories on Corporate Governance and a signatory to the Labour are a danger to jobs letter.
No comment required
Labour, the enemies of capitalism, stepped in and bailed out the banks.
Tories, the friends of small businesses, stepped back and sent the subcontractors to the wall.
But, the golden rule of British policies -- no matter who is in power -- is: all serious fraud in the UK goes unpunished.
The connections between say Fred Goodwin and Labour (remember, they knighted him) or Philip Green and the Tories are just the workings of the golden rule.
Unlike some on here, I'm completely relaxed with the prospect of a Corbyn Government (if it happens). After 12 years of Conservative-led Government, it's not bad for the democratic process to deliver a change.
There are of course any number of suppositions and assumptions behind all of this - will Corbyn be Labour leader in 2022 ? Don't know, probably. What will be in the 2022 Labour Manifesto ? Don't know any more than I know what will be in the Conservative Manifesto.
It's curious to hear some of those who railed against Project Fear in the EU Referendum now playing exactly the same game with Corbyn's Labour party just as they did with Blair, Wilson and Attlee (and every Labour leader in between).
The three standard anti-Labour memes were: a) they are basically being controlled by Moscow (bit old hat but popular before 1989), b) they are controlled by the Unions (always an old Conservative favourite - Len McCluskey as the "real power" etc), c) the leader's okay but he's inexperienced and just a front for a) or b) (this was the argument used supremely unsuccessfully against Blair).
Turning it round (just for fun) - if I said, the Conservatives are basically run by Washington, they are controlled and work for the benefits of big business and while their leader's okay the really "nasty" types lurk in the background and are the real power, I imagine some on here would start to hyper-ventilate.
So until we have a much clearer of what a Corbyn Government would look like (as distinct from what we or the Daily Mail thinks it would look like) we're guessing. The 2022 Labour Manifesto will take shape from a couple of years from now so it's all a lot of shadow boxing.
But we have some idea from last year's manifesto and from what was said at last year's Conference and what its senior politicians have been saying. So it is perfectly fair to make some sort of assessment based on what we know now as to what the range of possibilities might be.
I think you miss the 4th obvious meme against Labour: that while its heart may be in the right place its policies are either not thought through or have unintended consequences which end up causing more harm than good. That seems to me to the most realistic one since it has so often been proved to be true.
Comments
"We need to be imaginative, given the ludicrous situation the Leavers have put us in. It's far from ideal (the current set up is better) but it could be done. Those that live or work outside London are breaking the law in the same way as any other non-EU immigrants would be.
Employers that hire them would be in breach of the law of the land if their primary place of employment and residence weren't both in London (or Scotland). Some will slip through the net, as they already do. No system is perfect."
IMO free movement is likely to remain in place in all but name, with any so-called controls little more than a meaningless sop. In return we'll be trading with the single market pretty much as-is. Even Boris now seems to agree that this is a fairly likely scenario.
What he needs is an attractive young lady with a fondness for older men and forthright views on Brexit. I wonder if any have recently become available...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42696376
"But McDonnell has spoken about the possibility if imposing capital controls, a measure not seen in this country since 1979. That is not moderation, by any stretch of the imagination."
I have also tackled Dr Palmer on this issue in the past - as my small business gets around 80% of its revenue from overseas it is perhaps my biggest fear about Corbyn winning.
I suspect it will partly depend what kind of capital controls McDonnell is proposing. If it is a limit of £1 million it will be a wholly different political impact to reintroducing the days of only being allowed to take £50 on holiday. Any politician who reintroduced the latter would likely be out of office within 6 months. If it is even possible in these days of international card payments.
Perhaps you will be right. My sense is that it will be more moderate that many fear, but who knows?
I just don't buy this idea that Corbyn/McDonnell will be more moderate than we expect. It feels to me like people believing what they hope will be true. Both Corbyn and McDonnell have been pretty consistent in their views on capitalism. It is, if you like that sort of thing, part of their charm. There is absolutely no reason to suppose they are going to change their views once they get into power. If anything they will see victory as vindication of their views and will not waste the opportunity.
They mean to change matters fundamentally and they will try do so. If you want that sort of change by all means vote for it. But be prepared for some real change and for some pretty unwelcome change. It's not going to be as now with some added niceness to poor people
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~gary/iq.html
I hope Labour supporters are ready to defend swingeing NHS cuts when tax revenues dry up.
But don't forget the shocking case where YJB was cruelly head-butted...
The fact that Stokes was defending a pair of non-combatants from homophobic abuse is likely to play well with some – but not all – juries and magistrates.
But think of the optics, think of the practicalities, think of the signals it sends out. It took one bland announcement about Northern Rock to lead to queues of people wanting to get their money out. Imagine what an announcement that there was a limit to what you could take abroad would do. It would single a sort of siege economy that few of us are either used to or remember. Think how pissed off people are at the idea that they might not be able to travel freely in EU and how they might react to something like this which could be perceived as amounting to the same thing.
Now I hope none of this comes to pass. But McDonnell has clearly both thought and talked about it. I tend to take him more seriously than those saying oh no he'll really be very reasonable and moderate in reality.
It’s going to be terrible, isn’t it?
1) Exchange controls are imposed. Transactional business flees the City first; advisory will follow.
2) Related tax revenues collapse while spending increases.
3) The Government needs cash, so issues more debt.
4) The perceived riskiness of UK debt will rise, so interest rates do too. Interest expense becomes the third-largest item in the national budget.
5) As tax revenues disappoint and the cost of borrowing rises, the Bank of England starts to buy UK government bonds to ensure adequate cash reserves. The money supply starts to run away.
6) All of the above helps to drive the value of sterling down, boosting inflation. The public sector calls for higher wages, which calls for more money printing...
7) As imports become less affordable, the State will take over the allocation of hard currency, leading to riches for a connected few and shortages of basic consumer goods.
Only a few years of this are needed to utterly and irretrievably wreck the country.
It was the Tories job in 2017 to expose any Corby lies. They didn’t do it. They lost seats. Deservedly.
That’s how it works.
Arguably much less so for what happens once you have won. As May is finding out.
And as, I suspect, Labour will when/if they win.
Never mind, Mr Blue. You can always vote UKIP. Or emigrate to the USA.
Brilliantly expressed Mr Meeks!
It is the continuity Remain cause who are making exactly this mistake with their talk of another referendum.
https://www.ft.com/content/595c99a4-fa0f-11e7-9b32-d7d59aace167
EU toughens stance for Brexit transition talks
- Yes, they do want to change the social model (which is currently simply broken for many people - equality of opportunity seems a joke) and to some extent the economic model (by public ownership of trains and utilities). The capital controls suggestion is based on McDonnell saying that they would need to consider all possibilities so that an incoming government wasn't caught by surprise, but he's never proposed controls and for the reasons others have said they're essentially unworkable. There are also at least 50 Labour MP who would vote against.
There are perfectly good reasons for Tories to be opposed to Labour, if they like the structure of society as it is and don't feel too bothered about the state of public services and the current levels of inequality, and if they make different choices in the hard decisions, such as housing vs green belt protection. But they are spending too much time putting up straw men and spinning fantasies around them, and that approach is well past its sell-by date. The Conservatives need to rediscover a reason for governing other than "we're not the other lot who might...", or move aside until they've worked one out. No governments last forever, and this one is palpably exhausted beyond its own interest, let alone the country's interest.
'Why Carillion has gone into liquidation rather than administration'
https://www.ft.com/content/a4dd80be-f9f1-11e7-a492-2c9be7f3120a
The first paragraph is not quite as good as Alistair Meeks' legendary thread header on Turkish conscription but it gets an honourable mention.
The trouble is the Tories seem to have forgotten what they are for, have forgotten how to argue for themselves and have forgotten how to show that they can improve matters for most people. I would like there to be a sensible alternative. I do not think Corbyn's Labour is such a sensible alternative.
I hope you are right in your first paragraph. You know your party much better than me.
I admit I am a touch sceptical. My view is that Labour MPs, when push comes to shove, have shown in the last few years that they will do absolutely nothing against what Corbyn proposes, no matter how much they might say they disapprove.
If McDonnell were to propose some form of capital controls I think Labour MPs will vote for them, no matter what they might say off the record or privately.
A more forensic demolition job is needed. It's not that hard. There is plenty of material. But there is no-one with the forensic skills or ruthlessness within the Tories to do it. They really are dismal.
I agree this is along the right lines, however I don't think it will take "a few years" for the damage to be done. It's more likely to happen relatively quickly - within a year or two.
The Corbyn "manifesto" - such at it is - is self-contradictory in that if he forms a government based on proposals to date, he'll be unable to carry them out because of the financial and economic disruption provoked by those proposals.
The interesting question - and ultimately most significant - is how the Corbyn government will react to the consequent social disruption.
I'm not sure why. I think it's a mix of the following:-
1. They're utterly consumed by Brexit.
2. When not consumed by Brexit they're fascinated by their own internal party travails.
2. They don't understand the need to do so.
3. They underestimate Corbyn's attractiveness to voters.
4. They've lost the ruthless focus needed to do so.
5. They have nothing to say themselves.
6. They are complacent.
7. They have forgotten how to argue for what they believe in.
But is this what should be a new government's priority? Of all the issues likely to be facing it?
Trouble is neither does Corbyn.
http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~gary/iq.html
Plus with TMay in office the last thing it's prudent to do is get into a "Your leader is useless" pissing contest.
In 1992 by contrast the 'Labour's tax bombshell' posters effectively won the general election for Major despite Kinnock leading most polls even during the election campaign itself
' Chancellor announces landmark £75 million deal between Carillion and Dubai World Trade Centre.
Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne today (Monday 6 October) announced the first contract to be supported by UK Export Finance’s enhanced Direct Lending Facility (DLF), whilst on a regional tour of the midlands.
The availability of a £34 million loan from the Direct Lending Facility has helped Carillion to secure a significant contract with Dubai World Trade Centre LLC to provide construction services.
The Chancellor also welcomed the announcement by UK Export Finance appointing 20 financial organisations to its panel of partners to help deliver loans under the Direct Lending Facility.
Deutsche Bank have acted as partners in arranging the loan in support of the Carillion deal and will also be providing a further £34 million, guaranteed by UK Export Finance. '
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/first-deal-supported-by-uk-export-finances-direct-lending-facility-announced
So the taxpayer was effectively put on the hook for £68m so that Carillion could get a £75m contract in the Middle East.
Perhaps that counts as sound financial practice in the world of crony capitalism.
Unlike some on here, I'm completely relaxed with the prospect of a Corbyn Government (if it happens). After 12 years of Conservative-led Government, it's not bad for the democratic process to deliver a change.
There are of course any number of suppositions and assumptions behind all of this - will Corbyn be Labour leader in 2022 ? Don't know, probably. What will be in the 2022 Labour Manifesto ? Don't know any more than I know what will be in the Conservative Manifesto.
It's curious to hear some of those who railed against Project Fear in the EU Referendum now playing exactly the same game with Corbyn's Labour party just as they did with Blair, Wilson and Attlee (and every Labour leader in between).
The three standard anti-Labour memes were: a) they are basically being controlled by Moscow (bit old hat but popular before 1989), b) they are controlled by the Unions (always an old Conservative favourite - Len McCluskey as the "real power" etc), c) the leader's okay but he's inexperienced and just a front for a) or b) (this was the argument used supremely unsuccessfully against Blair).
Turning it round (just for fun) - if I said, the Conservatives are basically run by Washington, they are controlled and work for the benefits of big business and while their leader's okay the really "nasty" types lurk in the background and are the real power, I imagine some on here would start to hyper-ventilate.
So until we have a much clearer of what a Corbyn Government would look like (as distinct from what we or the Daily Mail thinks it would look like) we're guessing. The 2022 Labour Manifesto will take shape from a couple of years from now so it's all a lot of shadow boxing.
There are times when I enjoy being proved right. This ain't one of them.
No comment required
Let's hope Liam neeson doesn't spend half the film hankering for a nationalised rail system.
The more pertinent worry should be - and currently doesn't seem to be - about failures among its suppliers of divers materials which might cause very significant job losses and have some very serious knock-on effects.
It has enabled huge investment in the network, better service, lower subsidy of train travel by the taxpayer and, most importantly, massively reduced the power of the producer interest.
https://twitter.com/BrunoBrussels/status/953000087726252032
Its clear that Carillion were operating in a high risk manner and it doesn't need every deal to go bad for things to fall apart quickly.
' A rape case has collapsed after images emerged of the accused and his alleged victim "cuddling" in bed together.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) offered no evidence against Samson Makele at Snaresbrook Crown Court, 17 months after he was arrested.
The photos were discovered on his phone by a defence expert but had not been disclosed by police or prosecutors. '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42696986
Watch what she does - not what she says.
Attlee's programme in 1945 was far more radical than anything Corbyn and McDonnell will come up with. The other issue is we don't actually know what the Labour Manifesto in 2022 will look like.
Assuming it will be the 2017 version with amendments seems foolish - I'm quite happy to look at the Labour Manifesto and call it out if it is economically or socially incoherent but at the moment it's all supposition, misconception, preconception and assumption.
If you hate "socialism" you are rarely going to find a Labour manifesto more appealing than a Conservative one.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aslef-rail-union-ends-southern-dispute-with-14-000-pay-deal-xtxtljc87
To put that in context, they were already paid far more than teachers (indeed, pretty well double what the average teacher earns) for what is - quite bluntly - not an especially difficult job.
That doesn't suggest to me a reining in of the producer interest.
https://www.twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/309065744954580992
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42694218
Tories, the friends of small businesses, stepped back and sent the subcontractors to the wall.
But, the golden rule of British policies -- no matter who is in power -- is: all serious fraud in the UK goes unpunished.
The connections between say Fred Goodwin and Labour (remember, they knighted him) or Philip Green and the Tories are just the workings of the golden rule.
I think you miss the 4th obvious meme against Labour: that while its heart may be in the right place its policies are either not thought through or have unintended consequences which end up causing more harm than good. That seems to me to the most realistic one since it has so often been proved to be true.