That would potentially be a decisive move, but they just don't get it.
Some of them probably do get it, but it's institutionally impossible.
It's also unnecessary when maintaining a strong position is more effective.
So effective its seeing us leave.
It suits the French very well to get rid of the UK. Can't imagine any of the countries outside the EZ being overly happy though. However, I really do think it's all moot now, despite the heightened domestic excitement over the slight prospect of a second referendum.
That would potentially be a decisive move, but they just don't get it.
Some of them probably do get it, but it's institutionally impossible.
It's also unnecessary when maintaining a strong position is more effective.
So effective its seeing us leave.
It's seeing a groundswell of pro-EU grassroots activity in the UK the likes of which it has never seen before, while the Brexit elite are trapped by their own project and continue to lose the argument.
That would potentially be a decisive move, but they just don't get it.
Some of them probably do get it, but it's institutionally impossible.
It's also unnecessary when maintaining a strong position is more effective.
So effective its seeing us leave.
It suits the French very well to get rid of the UK. Can't imagine any of the countries outside the EZ being overly happy though. However, I really do think it's all moot now, despite the heightened domestic excitement over the slight prospect of a second referendum.
That would potentially be a decisive move, but they just don't get it.
Some of them probably do get it, but it's institutionally impossible.
It's also unnecessary when maintaining a strong position is more effective.
So effective its seeing us leave.
It's seeing a groundswell of pro-EU grassroots activity in the UK the likes of which it has never seen before, while the Brexit elite are trapped by their own project and continue to lose the argument.
Some "groundswell". If what we have today is a groundswell I'd hate to know what your version of apathy is.
Will Brexit still be a live issue in 2022? I suspect it will be, in that there will be parts of the country where there are concentrated Brexit losses and therefore residual "cross-ness". And it so happens, that a lot of those seats are LibDem/Conservative fights
What do you think the Conservatives' EU policy will be in 2022? Using Boris as a guide, it will likely be in favour of membership, having had a hard Brexit ruled out by reality, and a soft Brexit ruled out by politics.
I think it extremely unlikely that either of the main two parties will have "rejoin the EU" as a policy platform in my lifetime. We have made a decision, and we will stick to it.
However, I suspect however "hard" our Brexit is now, that our relationship with the EU will deepen again over time, with us ending up with a relationship with it more like Switzerland or Norway than Canada.
On balance I think you are right, but I wouldn't put it at "extremely unlikely". There are reasons why the EU exists and why we were members of it. Those reasons don't disappear just because we ticked a Leave box in a referendum. I don't think there is an outcome acceptable to the UK that doesn't involve a close relationship with the EU, which will be on their terms. Rule taking means giving up our influence and in some sense our sovereignty, which was the whole point of leaving in the first place. I am not sure we are prepared to do that. The EU does work better for us as the tyre hits the road. Against that, there will be a very big inertia against revisiting EU membership. Democracy gives you the ability to do dumb things and people will choose to do dumb things. Mediocrity will carry, I think. It's interesting to see how it plays out.
It is now clear that the EU strategy is stick and carrot to keep us in. They want to keep us in for budget, economic, and power wrt rest of world reasons.
They will hug us close and make it very easy for us to reverse the EUREF decision. On the other hand, they will make it very difficult to achieve a satisfactory BREXIT and will point out the difficulties (which they will insist are of our own making).
Come back to nurse for fear of worse. How will this play with the British public who are bored and confused with the issue? To someone with a superficial interest, it may well be very appealing.
And the car factories will shut down, the City will relocate to Frankfurt, the stock and housing markets will collapse etc etc
In the same way, a lot of people are worried about "taking back control" Tory fashion.
And I don`t think anybody could claim that this government, with May, Johnson, Gove, Davies, Fox etc is in any way a responsible one.
It's a perfectly responsible government, albeit very poor on media engagement and unfortunately prone to ministerial gaffes. It seems to be handling Brexit reasonably well in the nightmarish circumstances, and it has a Chancellor who is the epitome of responsible finances. Of course, without a majority it can't do very much about longer-term problems, but at least it's not exacerbating them. Overall, it's slightly better than the average amongst governments of the last half-century, but obviously not in the same league as Cameron's two governments. But they were quite exceptionally good.
You must be joking. Or perhaps you just think the standard is incredibly low.
May has handles Brexit appallingly, at least from the perspective of One Nation Tory-ism. Perhaps the optics look better through the lens of intra-Tory shenanigans.
Hammond is a plodder, there is no real domestic policy (and what ideas percolate through are bananas eg grammar schools). Oh, and the Foreign Secretary is an international joke. I could go on...
The standard is low. Gordon Brown, Ted Heath, Callaghan, Wilson (on the economy) all headed governments much worse than this one. Blair's record was a mixture of the very good and the disastrous, but the disaster of Iraq completely blows everything else out of the water. John Major's government was plodding, about the same overall as this one. No-one is going to claim that Douglas Home's government was much better.
As for Foreign Secretaries, yes, we have a joker at the moment, but hardly the first. I submit for your delectation Margaret Beckett and, best of all, the irredeemably comic George Brown. (Sadly, though, the Archbishop of Lima story is probably apocryphal).
What did Ma Beckett do wrong as Foreign Secretary?
I would say she was better than the perennially overrated David Miliband in that job.
Yes, Nabavi has no grounds for disparaging Margaret Beckett. She did not actively embarrass the country.
As for Brown, I would put Johnson on a par with him. Brown was a drunk, but still a serious politician and ideologically sound. Johnson is just a self-serving clown.
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
Don't bloody help Corbyn and co! They are the most shameful rabble that has ever darkened the already poor name of British politics. 'Good Corbyn' means a national disaster, and 'Bad Corbyn' will write its own vocabulary.
Poor people will queue for bread, rich people will be interned in some ghastly place in Islington and be lectured by John Prescott, Corbyn will drive around in his Leyland Corbyn - they'll make 28, but just one will be on the road at any time due to unforseen issues, and we will become a cut-off, frozen (heating on tuesdays before midday) little island that deserved everything it got when it voted for the grim awfulness that is Jeremy Corbyn.
I apologise to all concerned if I have talked Corbyn up in the above.
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
That would potentially be a decisive move, but they just don't get it.
Some of them probably do get it, but it's institutionally impossible.
It's also unnecessary when maintaining a strong position is more effective.
So effective its seeing us leave.
It's seeing a groundswell of pro-EU grassroots activity in the UK the likes of which it has never seen before, while the Brexit elite are trapped by their own project and continue to lose the argument.
Some "groundswell". If what we have today is a groundswell I'd hate to know what your version of apathy is.
Once you get outside (inner) London there is no groundswell at all. But if you are part of that London bubble you think it's all people think about and debate.
The vast majority of Brits have moved on - and they just want the government to get on with it. Opinion doesn't seem to have moved much from June 2016.
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
PMQs is going to be inneressing tomorrow.
"Jean from Tamworth has written to me about the problem of people spending their money abroad on holiday instead of on the high street..."
In the same way, a lot of people are worried about "taking back control" Tory fashion.
And I don`t think anybody could claim that this government, with May, Johnson, Gove, Davies, Fox etc is in any way a responsible one.
It's a perfectly responsible government, albeit very poor on media engagement and unfortunately prone to ministerial gaffes. It seems to be handling Brexit reasonably well in the nightmarish circumstances, and it has a Chancellor who is the epitome of responsible finances. Of course, without a majority it can't do very much about longer-term problems, but at least it's not exacerbating them. Overall, it's slightly better than the average amongst governments of the last half-century, but obviously not in the same league as Cameron's two governments. But they were quite exceptionally good.
You must be joking. Or perhaps you just think the standard is incredibly low.
May has handles Brexit appallingly, at least from the perspective of One Nation Tory-ism. Perhaps the optics look better through the lens of intra-Tory shenanigans.
Hammond is a plodder, there is no real domestic policy (and what ideas percolate through are bananas eg grammar schools). Oh, and the Foreign Secretary is an international joke. I could go on...
The standard is low. Gordon Brown, Ted Heath, Callaghan, Wilson (on the economy) all headed governments much worse than this one. Blair's record was a mixture of the very good and the disastrous, but the disaster of Iraq completely blows everything else out of the water. John Major's government was plodding, about the same overall as this one. No-one is going to claim that Douglas Home's government was much better.
As for Foreign Secretaries, yes, we have a joker at the moment, but hardly the first. I submit for your delectation Margaret Beckett and, best of all, the irredeemably comic George Brown. (Sadly, though, the Archbishop of Lima story is probably apocryphal).
This is by some margin the worst government of my lifetime.
I think there will almost certainly be a Rejoin campaign in the 2020s but I don't expect it to command more than 25-35% support. It won't be official Labour Party policy.
However, I do think that Labour will be obliged to try to unpick at least part of the "Tory" Brexit settlement, to satisfy their base.
The most drastic move there would be to abolish the DfIT and rejoin the customs union in full. Or, they may simply sign up to a lot more EU programmes and rights from outside. Possibly looking at Verhofstadht's individual "opt-in" for EU citizenship as well.
I don't see how a Govt. of any hue could acknowledge the "opt-in". What if (by way of a crazy example) the EU decided to decriminalise drugs. Could someone ignore UK drugs legislation by showing a burgundy passport and say "I only obey EU laws...."?
To be fair to the EU for a moment, that's not how EU law works.
Firstly, if you dredge through the treaties, you'll find no mention of criminal law. Now, that might theoretically change through future treaties, but right now it has no competence in that direction. It's also worth remembering that (criminal) laws prohibit, they do not declare things legal. (On the basis that anything not prohibited is legal. With the possible exception of some incredibly poorly written UK drug legislation.)
Secondly, the ECJ's cases are almost entirely concerned with the extent to which signatories comply with treaties. And - typically - it is an injured party that brings a case to the ECJ alleging their harm due to the country in question not complying with EU treaties (including, of course, all the relevant dictats that flow from the commission.)
Just as Mann tried and failed to extrapolate the future temperature of the world from half a dozen trees in Siberia, still the remainers cling to the polls that let them down so badly in the referendum.
@Brendan16 "The vast majority of Brits have moved on - and they just want the government to get on with it. Opinion doesn't seem to have moved much from June 2016."
I suspect TM & Co were too pre-occupied with the reshuffle shenanigans to be appropriately focussed on Carillion. TM appears to be a crisis magnet - creating many of them herself - but incapable of managing them.
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
PMQs is going to be inneressing tomorrow.
May needs to outline plans as to how parasitical middlemen like Carillion and a parasitically executive oligarchy can be swept away thereby restoring faith in free market capitalism.
What she can't do is defend the current situation as the optimum which has had a minor aberation.
In the same way, a lot of people are worried about "taking back control" Tory fashion.
And I don`t think anybody could claim that this government, with May, Johnson, Gove, Davies, Fox etc is in any way a responsible one.
It's a perfectly responsible government, albeit very poor on media engagement and unfortunately prone to ministerial gaffes. It seems to be handling Brexit reasonably well in the nightmarish circumstances, and it has a Chancellor who is the epitome of responsible finances. Of course, without a majority it can't do very much about longer-term problems, but at least it's not exacerbating them. Overall, it's slightly better than the average amongst governments of the last half-century, but obviously not in the same league as Cameron's two governments. But they were quite exceptionally good.
You must be joking. Or perhaps you just think the standard is incredibly low.
May has handles Brexit appallingly, at least from the perspective of One Nation Tory-ism. Perhaps the optics look better through the lens of intra-Tory shenanigans.
Hammond is a plodder, there is no real domestic policy (and what ideas percolate through are bananas eg grammar schools). Oh, and the Foreign Secretary is an international joke. I could go on...
The standard is low. Gordon Brown, Ted Heath, Callaghan, Wilson (on the economy) all headed governments much worse than this one. Blair's record was a mixture of the very good and the disastrous, but the disaster of Iraq completely blows everything else out of the water. John Major's government was plodding, about the same overall as this one. No-one is going to claim that Douglas Home's government was much better.
As for Foreign Secretaries, yes, we have a joker at the moment, but hardly the first. I submit for your delectation Margaret Beckett and, best of all, the irredeemably comic George Brown. (Sadly, though, the Archbishop of Lima story is probably apocryphal).
This is by some margin the worst government of my lifetime.
Not so keen on the May years, but I'm sure that the Cameron years were actually 'good government'. The most important aspect that they had to deal with - finances - was dealt with reasonably well, but I think Osborne was far from good, and most of the other stuff vaguely got better. In some, not insignificant part, this was due to Clegg and co.
Brown is by a long chalk the worst PM I have ever seen, but in the late 70s there were far worse governments than his (I can only really remember Callaghan's government in terms of its actions).
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
I'm with Richard on this one. The manner in which the board changed its bonus rules last summer stinks.
Don't bloody help Corbyn and co! They are the most shameful rabble that has ever darkened the already poor name of British politics. 'Good Corbyn' means a national disaster, and 'Bad Corbyn' will write its own vocabulary.
Poor people will queue for bread, rich people will be interned in some ghastly place in Islington and be lectured by John Prescott, Corbyn will drive around in his Leyland Corbyn - they'll make 28, but just one will be on the road at any time due to unforseen issues, and we will become a cut-off, frozen (heating on tuesdays before midday) little island that deserved everything it got when it voted for the grim awfulness that is Jeremy Corbyn.
I apologise to all concerned if I have talked Corbyn up in the above.
I thought we agreed that promoting Project Fear was a Bad Idea
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
Really? I find it cooks down quite easily into a narrative of government incompetence and corporate greed.
In the same way, a lot of people are worried about "taking back control" Tory fashion.
And I don`t think anybody could claim that this government, with May, Johnson, Gove, Davies, Fox etc is in any way a responsible one.
It's a perfectly responsible government, albeit very poor on media engagement and unfortunately prone to ministerial gaffes. It seems to be handling Brexit reasonably well in the nightmarish circumstances, and it has a Chancellor who is the epitome of responsible finances. Of course, without a majority it can't do very much about longer-term problems, but at least it's not exacerbating them. Overall, it's slightly better than the average amongst governments of the last half-century, but obviously not in the same league as Cameron's two governments. But they were quite exceptionally good.
You must be joking. Or perhaps you just think the standard is incredibly low.
May has handles Brexit appallingly, at least from the perspective of One Nation Tory-ism. Perhaps the optics look better through the lens of intra-Tory shenanigans.
Hammond is a plodder, there is no real domestic policy (and what ideas percolate through are bananas eg grammar schools). Oh, and the Foreign Secretary is an international joke. I could go on...
The standard is low. Gordon Brown, Ted Heath, Callaghan, Wilson (on the economy) all headed governments much worse than this one. Blair's record was a mixture of the very good and the disastrous, but the disaster of Iraq completely blows everything else out of the water. John Major's government was plodding, about the same overall as this one. No-one is going to claim that Douglas Home's government was much better.
As for Foreign Secretaries, yes, we have a joker at the moment, but hardly the first. I submit for your delectation Margaret Beckett and, best of all, the irredeemably comic George Brown. (Sadly, though, the Archbishop of Lima story is probably apocryphal).
This is by some margin the worst government of my lifetime.
Brown is by a long chalk the worst PM I have ever seen, but in the late 70s there were far worse governments than his (I can only really remember Callaghan's government in terms of its actions).
The Brown years were disastrous - RBS bailed out on the taxpayers dime, borrowing out by £80Bn+, Lisbon treaty signed , spending out of control, the worst PM ever - the list is endless. May may have poor PR but she isn't causing structural damage to the economy.
Democracy gives you the ability to do dumb things and people will choose to do dumb things. Mediocrity will carry, I think. It's interesting to see how it plays out.
Purely from a position of statecraft, it would be foolish not to give the people one last chance to revoke Article 50, otherwise our current treaty opt-outs will be gone forever. Despite what May says now, I think she'll go for it once it can no longer be said that it undermines our negotiating position.
Despite what May says now is the crucial point.There must be considerable concern in a large elements of the conservative party , that she might go for the referendum option of governing once again .
It would actually be quite a neat way to get rid of her. She could hold the referendum between the deal and Remain but stay fairly neutral. Then when Remain wins, she can resign on the basis that her deal obviously wasn't good enough to convince the people. An exact replay of Cameron's fate.
What if Leave wins?
I think Dan Hannan put it well.
The EU could kill Leave right now (and probably for good) by putting an improved looser deal on the table.
But they won't.
They thought they gave Cameron a good deal which in many ways they did. Anything substantive on that timescale for an institution with so much inertia is significant. The reality was that anything less than a fundamental renegotiation was never going to get traction. And how is the EU supposed to just give us a new deal now to stay in? Anything for us would have to be on offer for other members too having to be agreed by every member state. Potentially the whole political structure of the EU would be open to unwinding. They're not going to countenance that for the sake of British membership.
Rather than smug digs at these apparently illogical foreigners not giving us what we want whilst our own government is a shambles perhaps we ought to just accept they are our nearest neighbours, have their political imperatives just like us and work out how to get along.
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
Really? I find it cooks down quite easily into a narrative of government incompetence and corporate greed.
Not so much corporate greed as corporate folly.
I don't see where governmental incompetence applies. It may do, if important services don't get provided, but so far, it seems that public sector contracts will be fulfilled.
Just as an aside, it's interesting to see what little impact the collapse of Carillion has had in local Government but that should come as no surprise.
As an example, Surrey took on Carillion in 2003 to manage the roads in the east part of the county and it was an unmitigated disaster. In the end, the County Council sacked Carillion in 2009 and I believe other authorities had similar experiences.
The question for me is why, despite this litany of disaster and the obvious shortcomings was central Government so keen to continue to award Carillion business into the 2010s. The warning signs of a company not fit for purpose had existed for more than a decade.
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
I suspect, and this is my experience of the last two days, that the pissed off people will be private sector.
" Why do I have to follow all the regulations and pay all the taxes when those Carillion lot can fradulently trade, get millions from the taxpayer and then walk away leaving someone else to clear up the mess " sums up the viewpoint.
My god, what astounding news. What does the right to change our minds have to with anything? We always had that, even if there were questions of legal process that would have needed resolving.
Does he not have a cunning plan for the right wing clique to fight back.
First time I've ever heard anyone refer to Tony Robinson as right wing.
Decades of being left wing is no guarantee of being left wing anymore. Same reason Ken Clarke is not really a Tory despite nearly 50 years as a Tory MP.
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
Really? I find it cooks down quite easily into a narrative of government incompetence and corporate greed.
Not so much corporate greed as corporate folly.
I don't see where governmental incompetence applies. It may do, if important services don't get provided, but so far, it seems that public sector contracts will be fulfilled.
Putting new business Carillion's way as late as last summer, when pretty much every fund manager holding the shares was dumping them like hot cakes. Edit: I think I mean potatoes.
Just as Mann tried and failed to extrapolate the future temperature of the world from half a dozen trees in Siberia, still the remainers cling to the polls that let them down so badly in the referendum.
Polls are not votes.
I’d rather trust an eminent and well respected scientist like Dr Mann rather an ignorant pea-brained right-wing nobody like yourself!!
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
Really? I find it cooks down quite easily into a narrative of government incompetence and corporate greed.
Not so much corporate greed as corporate folly.
I don't see where governmental incompetence applies. It may do, if important services don't get provided, but so far, it seems that public sector contracts will be fulfilled.
Putting new business Carillion's way as late as last summer, when pretty much every fund manager holding the shares was dumping them like hot cakes. Edit: I think I mean potatoes.
That's a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't though. If the government decided they weren't going to give any more business to Carillion that would have guaranteed their failure at a time they were hoping to restructure.
Does he not have a cunning plan for the right wing clique to fight back.
All kicking off over Ann Black. The old left put to the sword.
I voted for Black and Shawcroft on NEC
She was responsible for excluding 160k new members from voting in 2016 leadership election by being the swing vote on early freeze date also the same applied on the vote in respect of Kezia and Welsh leader attending NEC.
She will not get on the left slate next time methinks.
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
Really? I find it cooks down quite easily into a narrative of government incompetence and corporate greed.
Not so much corporate greed as corporate folly.
I don't see where governmental incompetence applies. It may do, if important services don't get provided, but so far, it seems that public sector contracts will be fulfilled.
The failure to do anything about moral hazard and its lack since the banks has been a big mistake.
In the same way, a lot of people are worried about "taking back control" Tory fashion.
And I don`t think anybody could claim that this government, with May, Johnson, Gove, Davies, Fox etc is in any way a responsible one.
It's a perfectly responsible government, albeit very poor on media engagement and unfortunately prone to ministerial gaffes. It seems to be handling Brexit reasonably well in the nightmarish circumstances, and it has a Chancellor who is the epitome of responsible finances. Of course, without a majority it can't do very much about longer-term problems, but at least it's not exacerbating them. Overall, it's slightly better than the average amongst governments of the last half-century, but obviously not in the same league as Cameron's two governments. But they were quite exceptionally good.
The standard is low. Gordon Brown, Ted Heath, Callaghan, Wilson (on the economy) all headed governments much worse than this one. Blair's record was a mixture of the very good and the disastrous, but the disaster of Iraq completely blows everything else out of the water. John Major's government was plodding, about the same overall as this one. No-one is going to claim that Douglas Home's government was much better.
As for Foreign Secretaries, yes, we have a joker at the moment, but hardly the first. I submit for your delectation Margaret Beckett and, best of all, the irredeemably comic George Brown. (Sadly, though, the Archbishop of Lima story is probably apocryphal).
This is by some margin the worst government of my lifetime.
Not so keen on the May years, but I'm sure that the Cameron years were actually 'good government'. The most important aspect that they had to deal with - finances - was dealt with reasonably well, but I think Osborne was far from good, and most of the other stuff vaguely got better. In some, not insignificant part, this was due to Clegg and co.
Brown is by a long chalk the worst PM I have ever seen, but in the late 70s there were far worse governments than his (I can only really remember Callaghan's government in terms of its actions).
Don't agree that Brown was a terrible PM. To be clear he became PM in July 2007. If you want to blame him for the banking crisis it's in his role as Chancellor not PM. The general view worldwide is that the Brown government responded well once the crisis came. I would rank him higher as a PM than Chancellor.
Besides as far as I know any new business to Carillion since last summer have been done with contingencies in place (eg being a joint venture where the other party can take over if necessary).
Just as an aside, it's interesting to see what little impact the collapse of Carillion has had in local Government but that should come as no surprise.
As an example, Surrey took on Carillion in 2003 to manage the roads in the east part of the county and it was an unmitigated disaster. In the end, the County Council sacked Carillion in 2009 and I believe other authorities had similar experiences.
The question for me is why, despite this litany of disaster and the obvious shortcomings was central Government so keen to continue to award Carillion business into the 2010s. The warning signs of a company not fit for purpose had existed for more than a decade.
The bigger the level of government the bigger the type of company they prefer to deal with and the further away from the outcome they are ?
Just as Mann tried and failed to extrapolate the future temperature of the world from half a dozen trees in Siberia, still the remainers cling to the polls that let them down so badly in the referendum.
Polls are not votes.
I’d rather trust an eminent and well respected scientist like Dr Mann rather an ignorant pea-brained right-wing nobody like yourself!!
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
Really? I find it cooks down quite easily into a narrative of government incompetence and corporate greed.
Not so much corporate greed as corporate folly.
I don't see where governmental incompetence applies. It may do, if important services don't get provided, but so far, it seems that public sector contracts will be fulfilled.
Putting new business Carillion's way as late as last summer, when pretty much every fund manager holding the shares was dumping them like hot cakes. Edit: I think I mean potatoes.
Ending any business with them would simply have precipitated the collapse of the Company.
My god, what astounding news. What does the right to change our minds have to with anything? We always had that, even if there were questions of legal process that would have needed resolving.
Does he not have a cunning plan for the right wing clique to fight back.
First time I've ever heard anyone refer to Tony Robinson as right wing.
Decades of being left wing is no guarantee of being left wing anymore. Same reason Ken Clarke is not really a Tory despite nearly 50 years as a Tory MP.
We now also live in a world where Germaine Greer is not considered by some as a real feminist and too toxic for many universities SU's to allow her to speak...
If that is what the voters want, then Corbynism is what they shall have.
It is one reason that I think the Tories will in time change their mind again over EU membership.
No, Smithson jnr is right: Formal EU membership is dead, but we'll probably gradually get closer to the EU in practice.
At which point the inexorable logic of Boris applies. Why follow someone elses rules without wanting a say in them?
We can be close without simply following their rules.
Canada is close to the USA but does not have all the same rules. We will be the same.
NAFTA's pretty denuding of Canadian sovereignty. Not as much as the EU, for sure, but (Canadian) laws are constrained by ISDS tribunals. (See Monsanto vs Quebec.)
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
Really? I find it cooks down quite easily into a narrative of government incompetence and corporate greed.
Not so much corporate greed as corporate folly.
I don't see where governmental incompetence applies. It may do, if important services don't get provided, but so far, it seems that public sector contracts will be fulfilled.
The failure to do anything about moral hazard and its lack since the banks has been a big mistake.
The shareholders of Carillion will get nothing back.
Paul Mason is having an episode... twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/953364895432626181
I can't imagine how hard it must have been to keep his real views under wraps at the BBC...surprised he didn't have an on-screen wibble wibble moment when he couldn't take it anymore.
Just as an aside, it's interesting to see what little impact the collapse of Carillion has had in local Government but that should come as no surprise.
As an example, Surrey took on Carillion in 2003 to manage the roads in the east part of the county and it was an unmitigated disaster. In the end, the County Council sacked Carillion in 2009 and I believe other authorities had similar experiences.
The question for me is why, despite this litany of disaster and the obvious shortcomings was central Government so keen to continue to award Carillion business into the 2010s. The warning signs of a company not fit for purpose had existed for more than a decade.
The bigger the level of government the bigger the type of company they prefer to deal with and the further away from the outcome they are ?
Obviously the number of potential bidders for some of the enormous contracts on offer from central Government are limited - it's a universe away from fixing potholes in Caterham - but it seems a little due diligence might have been in order.
I wonder if the ability of Carillion to continue to win business was predicated on the weakness of the central Government tendering and evaluation process.
My god, what astounding news. What does the right to change our minds have to with anything? We always had that, even if there were questions of legal process that would have needed resolving.
Does he not have a cunning plan for the right wing clique to fight back.
First time I've ever heard anyone refer to Tony Robinson as right wing.
Decades of being left wing is no guarantee of being left wing anymore. Same reason Ken Clarke is not really a Tory despite nearly 50 years as a Tory MP.
Ken Clarke is much more a Tory than you think I'd say. I saw a Lib Dem review of his autobiography, a person who'd started reading the book thinking Mr Clarke was a bit of a Lib Dem. He'd certainly changed his mind by the end.
If that is what the voters want, then Corbynism is what they shall have.
It is one reason that I think the Tories will in time change their mind again over EU membership.
No, Smithson jnr is right: Formal EU membership is dead, but we'll probably gradually get closer to the EU in practice.
At which point the inexorable logic of Boris applies. Why follow someone elses rules without wanting a say in them?
We can be close without simply following their rules.
Canada is close to the USA but does not have all the same rules. We will be the same.
NAFTA's pretty denuding of Canadian sovereignty. Not as much as the EU, for sure, but (Canadian) laws are constrained by ISDS tribunals. (See Monsanto vs Quebec.)
I expect our final deal will have something akin to an ISDS.
Even the proposed EU-USA deal was going to have ISDS tribunals wasn't it? I don't think anyone would realistically suggest if we'd remained and if that deal had gone ahead that we were members of the USA.
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
I suspect, and this is my experience of the last two days, that the pissed off people will be private sector.
" Why do I have to follow all the regulations and pay all the taxes when those Carillion lot can fradulently trade, get millions from the taxpayer and then walk away leaving someone else to clear up the mess " sums up the viewpoint.
Eh? The shares went to zero....
My experience is that private sector businessmen tend to thank the stars that they're still around.
That would potentially be a decisive move, but they just don't get it.
Some of them probably do get it, but it's institutionally impossible.
It's also unnecessary when maintaining a strong position is more effective.
So effective its seeing us leave.
It's seeing a groundswell of pro-EU grassroots activity in the UK the likes of which it has never seen before, while the Brexit elite are trapped by their own project and continue to lose the argument.
Some "groundswell". If what we have today is a groundswell I'd hate to know what your version of apathy is.
Once you get outside (inner) London there is no groundswell at all. But if you are part of that London bubble you think it's all people think about and debate.
The vast majority of Brits have moved on - and they just want the government to get on with it. Opinion doesn't seem to have moved much from June 2016.
Now, I know I'm a Los Angelean now, but weren't many of the most pro-Remain constituencies in the London suburbs? Hornsey & Wood Green, Richmond Park, Twickenham, Hampstead & Kilburn...
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
Really? I find it cooks down quite easily into a narrative of government incompetence and corporate greed.
Not so much corporate greed as corporate folly.
I don't see where governmental incompetence applies. It may do, if important services don't get provided, but so far, it seems that public sector contracts will be fulfilled.
The failure to do anything about moral hazard and its lack since the banks has been a big mistake.
The shareholders of Carillion will get nothing back.
As with the banks or even earlier Marconi.
(1) Shareholders lose out (2) Employees lose out (3) Taxpayers lose out
(4) Directors walk away with millions
Perhaps if (4) didn't happen there would be less chance of (1), (2) and (3) happening as well.
In the same way, a lot of people are worried about "taking back control" Tory fashion.
And I don`t think anybody could claim that this government, with May, Johnson, Gove, Davies, Fox etc is in any way a responsible one.
It's a perfectly responsible government, albeit very poor on media engagement and unfortunately prone to ministerial gaffes. It seems to be handling Brexit reasonably well in the nightmarish circumstances, and it has a Chancellor who is the epitome of responsible finances. Of course, without a majority it can't do very much about longer-term problems, but at least it's not exacerbating them. Overall, it's slightly better than the average amongst governments of the last half-century, but obviously not in the same league as Cameron's two governments. But they were quite exceptionally good.
You must be joking. Or perhaps you just think the standard is incredibly low.
May has handles Brexit appallingly, at least from the perspective of One Nation Tory-ism. Perhaps the optics look better through the lens of intra-Tory shenanigans.
Hammond is a plodder, there is no real domestic policy (and what ideas percolate through are bananas eg grammar schools). Oh, and the Foreign Secretary is an international joke. I could go on...
The standard is low. Gordon Brown, Ted Heath, Callaghan, Wilson (on the economy) all headed governments much worse than this one. Blair's record was a mixture of the very good and the disastrous, but the disaster of Iraq completely blows everything else out of the water. John Major's government was plodding, about the same overall as this one. No-one is going to claim that Douglas Home's government was much better.
As for Foreign Secretaries, yes, we have a joker at the moment, but hardly the first. I submit for your delectation Margaret Beckett and, best of all, the irredeemably comic George Brown. (Sadly, though, the Archbishop of Lima story is probably apocryphal).
This is by some margin the worst government of my lifetime.
Welcome to the site! I congratulate you on being so literate and knowledgeable for a seven year old.
I am really looking forward to my holibobs with Jezza in charge if Justin is to be believed. £500 max spend per two weeks while I am there, going to really be able to splash out, not.
Not many of the yuff will be going large in Magaful etc.
That would last me about four days on holiday. We struggle to get through a day on less than £120/day, amazing as that might seem.
I was suggesting £500 per person - so a family of four would have £2000 to play with. Is that so unreasonable?
What is unreasonable is your belief that we should be grateful to the government for being allowed to spend some of our own money how we want.
This is NOT a statistical analysis. It is an arts graduate who has learnt how to use a plotting software package.
No self respecting statistician would produce a graph without error bars, and then deduce a trend from it.
The difference between two noisy measurements (the vertical axis) is not by itself a robust statistical estimator.
Well he certainly can't write proper code...he hard coded the data, rather than scraping from a live data source or at very least something like an xml file to make the data separate from the data processing.
Just as an aside, it's interesting to see what little impact the collapse of Carillion has had in local Government but that should come as no surprise.
As an example, Surrey took on Carillion in 2003 to manage the roads in the east part of the county and it was an unmitigated disaster. In the end, the County Council sacked Carillion in 2009 and I believe other authorities had similar experiences.
The question for me is why, despite this litany of disaster and the obvious shortcomings was central Government so keen to continue to award Carillion business into the 2010s. The warning signs of a company not fit for purpose had existed for more than a decade.
The bigger the level of government the bigger the type of company they prefer to deal with and the further away from the outcome they are ?
Obviously the number of potential bidders for some of the enormous contracts on offer from central Government are limited - it's a universe away from fixing potholes in Caterham - but it seems a little due diligence might have been in order.
I wonder if the ability of Carillion to continue to win business was predicated on the weakness of the central Government tendering and evaluation process.
I think Carillion's problem is that they were the ones who were striking bad deals, not the government.
Just as an aside, it's interesting to see what little impact the collapse of Carillion has had in local Government but that should come as no surprise.
As an example, Surrey took on Carillion in 2003 to manage the roads in the east part of the county and it was an unmitigated disaster. In the end, the County Council sacked Carillion in 2009 and I believe other authorities had similar experiences.
The question for me is why, despite this litany of disaster and the obvious shortcomings was central Government so keen to continue to award Carillion business into the 2010s. The warning signs of a company not fit for purpose had existed for more than a decade.
The bigger the level of government the bigger the type of company they prefer to deal with and the further away from the outcome they are ?
It's not complicated. Smaller companies can't afford to bid, or rather, the return vs effort is simply not worth the hassle. Government procurements tend to be...heavyweight and prolonged. Civil servants weight 'not failing' higher than 'succeeding', hence ITTs have kitchen sink + world + wife thrown in.
I am really looking forward to my holibobs with Jezza in charge if Justin is to be believed. £500 max spend per two weeks while I am there, going to really be able to splash out, not.
Not many of the yuff will be going large in Magaful etc.
That would last me about four days on holiday. We struggle to get through a day on less than £120/day, amazing as that might seem.
I was suggesting £500 per person - so a family of four would have £2000 to play with. Is that so unreasonable?
What is unreasonable is your belief that we should be grateful to the government for being allowed to spend some of our own money how we want.
Labour is an institutionally anti-semitic party. It is the party of choice for anti-semites. If it won’t look into allegations of racism - and anti-semitism is the oldest, most virulent and most murderous example of racism around - then it is not far off being a racist party irself.
Sadly, this will have few electoral disadvantages for Labour. But it should disgust decent people. Still, when Labour’s leader says that an anti-semite’s voice should be heard in Parliament, why are we surprised? The tone is set from the top.
Except the report from Jake Johnston'e is incorrect.
The Brown years were disastrous - RBS bailed out on the taxpayers dime, borrowing out by £80Bn+, Lisbon treaty signed , spending out of control, the worst PM ever - the list is endless. May may have poor PR but she isn't causing structural damage to the economy.
Just as an issue when the financial storm broke in 2008 what should Brown have done ? Should he have let RBS go under - Northern Rock there would have been serious public disorder had RBS actually closed and people had their cards refused and couldn't get cash.
That in turn would have started runs on other banks with disastrous consequences (Lloyds anyone ?). The Government had no choice but to bail out RBS. The spending problem was exacerbated as much by the lack of income as the continued spending - the collapse of tax receipts as economic activity collapsed in 2008-9 was the key to the deficit spiralling out of control.
Could Darling have brought in an Emergency Budget of stringent spending cuts and public sector wage cuts in 2009 ?
As for Lisbon, Labour had the majority in the Commons. Once the Treaty was ratified and became law, David Cameron decided there could be no retrospective referendum even if the Conservatives returned to Government.
How would a Conservative Government have dealt with Northern Rock and the consequences of the fall of Lehmann Brothers ?
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
Really? I find it cooks down quite easily into a narrative of government incompetence and corporate greed.
Not so much corporate greed as corporate folly.
I don't see where governmental incompetence applies. It may do, if important services don't get provided, but so far, it seems that public sector contracts will be fulfilled.
The failure to do anything about moral hazard and its lack since the banks has been a big mistake.
The shareholders of Carillion will get nothing back.
Tezza is learning. I genuinely thought she might actually be stupid enough to bail Carillion out.
Jeremy & McDonnell would have had a field day.
Tezza is stupid, but not that stupid.
And maybe Tezza will get smart. She could announce a Public Inquiry into the accounts, the auditors and how the company was allowed to continue to trade without full protection for the supply chain and new investors. In tandem with any criminal investigations.
Then Tezza could have pointed to the difference between Labour & Tories.
Labour bailed out the banks and paid Sir Fred's pension. The Tories didn't bail out Carillon and sent the criminals to jail.
The Brown years were disastrous - RBS bailed out on the taxpayers dime, borrowing out by £80Bn+, Lisbon treaty signed , spending out of control, the worst PM ever - the list is endless. May may have poor PR but she isn't causing structural damage to the economy.
Just as an issue when the financial storm broke in 2008 what should Brown have done ? Should he have let RBS go under - Northern Rock there would have been serious public disorder had RBS actually closed and people had their cards refused and couldn't get cash.
That in turn would have started runs on other banks with disastrous consequences (Lloyds anyone ?). The Government had no choice but to bail out RBS. The spending problem was exacerbated as much by the lack of income as the continued spending - the collapse of tax receipts as economic activity collapsed in 2008-9 was the key to the deficit spiralling out of control.
Could Darling have brought in an Emergency Budget of stringent spending cuts and public sector wage cuts in 2009 ?
As for Lisbon, Labour had the majority in the Commons. Once the Treaty was ratified and became law, David Cameron decided there could be no retrospective referendum even if the Conservatives returned to Government.
How would a Conservative Government have dealt with Northern Rock and the consequences of the fall of Lehmann Brothers ?
Retrospective referendums are not possible, the status quo ante before Brown signed Lisbon was that we had the ability to reject Lisbon and maintain our vetoes etc that Lisbon scrapped. What would a retrospective referendum on Lisbon achieved? We couldn't unilaterally retrospectively scrap Lisbon. While Labour did have a majority in the Commons it had gained that majority on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum before ratifying the EU Constitution which is what the Lisbon Treaty was.
As for spending it was already maxed out before the crash. Had the government been running a small surplus as the previous government was before the previous recession hit then we would have been able to adjust to the cyclical shock of the collapse in tax receipts a lot simpler.
The Brown years were disastrous - RBS bailed out on the taxpayers dime, borrowing out by £80Bn+, Lisbon treaty signed , spending out of control, the worst PM ever - the list is endless. May may have poor PR but she isn't causing structural damage to the economy.
How would a Conservative Government have dealt with Northern Rock and the consequences of the fall of Lehmann Brothers ?
It was too late - his continuation of his ruinous overspending from his days as chancellor continued before during and after the crash.
RBS shareholders and other creditors should have got £0.00 - not the 25p or so.
He should immediately have slashed profligate spending on entitlements etc - the £156Bn borrowing in one year has crippled us for a decade.
I am fed up of the neo liberal consensus that they support. Most of the PLP are far to the right of the membership.
Those who think Corbyn is ultra left are just wrong IMO. Just on the side of the many not the few.
Fair point, BJO and I was thinking about this today.
Why should the Labour Party be what the Conservative Party and its supporters want it to be - a pale version of the Conservative Party. To be fair, Blair won a landslide on that thesis in 1997 creating Labour as a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left but he was hugely aided by 18 years of Government and the political collapse of the Conservatives.
There is an argument a "socialist" Labour has never won - I'd argue Attlee's 1945 programme was pretty close to socialism in some aspects and would we call Harold Wilson a proto-Blairite ?
No, Labour has to be what it feels comfortable being and has to seek its own mandate on its own terms. It does need to be clear what people can expect from an incoming Labour Government and why many of use who have stagnated economically in the 2010s will do better with Labour in the 2020s.
Just as an aside, it's interesting to see what little impact the collapse of Carillion has had in local Government but that should come as no surprise.
As an example, Surrey took on Carillion in 2003 to manage the roads in the east part of the county and it was an unmitigated disaster. In the end, the County Council sacked Carillion in 2009 and I believe other authorities had similar experiences.
The question for me is why, despite this litany of disaster and the obvious shortcomings was central Government so keen to continue to award Carillion business into the 2010s. The warning signs of a company not fit for purpose had existed for more than a decade.
The bigger the level of government the bigger the type of company they prefer to deal with and the further away from the outcome they are ?
Obviously the number of potential bidders for some of the enormous contracts on offer from central Government are limited - it's a universe away from fixing potholes in Caterham - but it seems a little due diligence might have been in order.
I wonder if the ability of Carillion to continue to win business was predicated on the weakness of the central Government tendering and evaluation process.
I think Carillion's problem is that they were the ones who were striking bad deals, not the government.
' The big question is: why do companies keep bidding, if the contracts can cause so much pain?
The answer probably lies in the structure of major PPP construction deals, because they hand the contract winner a large chunk of cash upfront.
Work on construction can then begin, while contractors like Carillion may not need to start paying sub-contractors for another 120 days.
During those four months, much of the upfront payment might be used to pay other debts within the business, meaning these deals can create situations where firms have to keep winning new contracts just to keep going.
If that is what the voters want, then Corbynism is what they shall have.
It is one reason that I think the Tories will in time change their mind again over EU membership.
No, Smithson jnr is right: Formal EU membership is dead, but we'll probably gradually get closer to the EU in practice.
At which point the inexorable logic of Boris applies. Why follow someone elses rules without wanting a say in them?
We can be close without simply following their rules.
Canada is close to the USA but does not have all the same rules. We will be the same.
NAFTA's pretty denuding of Canadian sovereignty. Not as much as the EU, for sure, but (Canadian) laws are constrained by ISDS tribunals. (See Monsanto vs Quebec.)
I expect our final deal will have something akin to an ISDS.
Even the proposed EU-USA deal was going to have ISDS tribunals wasn't it? I don't think anyone would realistically suggest if we'd remained and if that deal had gone ahead that we were members of the USA.
All treaties have binding dispute resolution mechanisms that are denuding of sovereignty.
And that's OK.
What we want to avoid is a system like NAFTA, where there is a tribunal of three judges (two of which must always be American), and which hear cases in secrecy.
Germany is boosted by crippling Greece and others. The Euro is too low for Germany boosting their exporters and too high for the likes of Italy and Greece.
Philip Thompson - 'cyclical collapse in tax receipts'. You think the biggest financial crisis we have probably ever faced in this country was merely cyclical?
The Brown years were disastrous - RBS bailed out on the taxpayers dime, borrowing out by £80Bn+, Lisbon treaty signed , spending out of control, the worst PM ever - the list is endless. May may have poor PR but she isn't causing structural damage to the economy.
Just as an issue when the financial storm broke in 2008 what should Brown have done ? Should he have let RBS go under - Northern Rock there would have been serious public disorder had RBS actually closed and people had their cards refused and couldn't get cash.
That in turn would have started runs on other banks with disastrous consequences (Lloyds anyone ?). The Government had no choice but to bail out RBS. The spending problem was exacerbated as much by the lack of income as the continued spending - the collapse of tax receipts as economic activity collapsed in 2008-9 was the key to the deficit spiralling out of control.
Could Darling have brought in an Emergency Budget of stringent spending cuts and public sector wage cuts in 2009 ?
As for Lisbon, Labour had the majority in the Commons. Once the Treaty was ratified and became law, David Cameron decided there could be no retrospective referendum even if the Conservatives returned to Government.
How would a Conservative Government have dealt with Northern Rock and the consequences of the fall of Lehmann Brothers ?
It would have been a lot more serious than that.
Take one of my businesses, the astoundingly great PythonAnywhere (hosted Python in the cloud!). It banks with RBS. In the event of RBS going bust it would have been unable to pay its staff, and would have closed. Despite being a profitable business.
It was too late - his continuation of his ruinous overspending from his days as chancellor continued before during and after the crash.
RBS shareholders and other creditors should have got £0.00 - not the 25p or so.
He should immediately have slashed profligate spending on entitlements etc - the £156Bn borrowing in one year has crippled us for a decade.
Indeed but it was the revenue falling off a cliff that did the real damage. Receipts from VAT and corporation tax slumped as economic activity ground to a halt.
Darling would have been forced into an Emergency Budget with stringent spending cuts which might have exacerbated the recession which was already severe. With hindsight a shorter, more severe recession might have been the rebalancing shock we needed rather than the long drawn out agony of the "stagsterity" (new word, copyright Stodge, 16/1/18) of the 2010s.
I am really looking forward to my holibobs with Jezza in charge if Justin is to be believed. £500 max spend per two weeks while I am there, going to really be able to splash out, not.
Not many of the yuff will be going large in Magaful etc.
That would last me about four days on holiday. We struggle to get through a day on less than £120/day, amazing as that might seem.
I was suggesting £500 per person - so a family of four would have £2000 to play with. Is that so unreasonable?
What is unreasonable is your belief that we should be grateful to the government for being allowed to spend some of our own money how we want.
Labour is an institutionally anti-semitic party. It is the party of choice for anti-semites. If it won’t look into allegations of racism - and anti-semitism is the oldest, most virulent and most murderous example of racism around - then it is not far off being a racist party irself.
Sadly, this will have few electoral disadvantages for Labour. But it should disgust decent people. Still, when Labour’s leader says that an anti-semite’s voice should be heard in Parliament, why are we surprised? The tone is set from the top.
Except the report from Jake Johnston'e is incorrect.
That is why I edited my post, written before I had read the later ones, to remove my comment.
PS I hope you managed to get the help you needed for your wife.
One of the concerns from the Carillion collapse is if they are involved in providing support services for the vulnerable and these get adversely affected.
I suspect that Carillion is going to help Labour rather more than the annual 'NHS is collapsing' bollox.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
I disagree, actually - the Carillion issue isn't easy to understand in a soundbite and public sector repercussions seems to be manageable.
Really? I find it cooks down quite easily into a narrative of government incompetence and corporate greed.
Not so much corporate greed as corporate folly.
I don't see where governmental incompetence applies. It may do, if important services don't get provided, but so far, it seems that public sector contracts will be fulfilled.
The failure to do anything about moral hazard and its lack since the banks has been a big mistake.
The shareholders of Carillion will get nothing back.
Tezza is learning. I genuinely thought she might actually be stupid enough to bail Carillion out.
Jeremy & McDonnell would have had a field day.
Tezza is stupid, but not that stupid.
And maybe Tezza will get smart. She could announce a Public Inquiry into the accounts, the auditors and how the company was allowed to continue to trade without full protection for the supply chain and new investors. In tandem with any criminal investigations.
Then Tezza could have pointed to the difference between Labour & Tories.
Labour bailed out the banks and paid Sir Fred's pension. The Tories didn't bail out Carillon and sent the criminals to jail.
Tezza is probably not smart enough to do that.
Is there any evidence that the directors of Carillion broke the law? Incompetence is not (currently) a crime.
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
Brexit will be as disastrous as the profligacy and warmongering of the Brown/Blair years ?
Philip Thompson - 'cyclical collapse in tax receipts'. You think the biggest financial crisis we have probably ever faced in this country was merely cyclical?
I think recessions are part of the economic cycle and the financial crisis triggered a recession which triggers cyclical effects in governments tax receipts (down) and spending (up).
But if it wasn't the financial crisis it could have been another crisis that triggered the recession. It wasn't as if the recession was premature, it was the first one in nearly 20 years, it was due.
Early on as Chancellor he claimed to have his so-called Golden Rules and claimed to be the Iron Chancellor. Had those actually meant anything then we would have gone into the recession in much better shape and been able to adjust to it better.
Unfortunately he also claimed to have "abolished boom and bust" before having the biggest boost imaginable. In thinking he could abolish boom and bust he was absolutely delusional and meant that we were maxed out on debt during the boom and had no chance when the inevitable bust finally happened.
Philip Thompson - 'cyclical collapse in tax receipts'. You think the biggest financial crisis we have probably ever faced in this country was merely cyclical?
It shouldn't be forgotten that the recession started six months before RBS collapsed.
And while the financial crisis would have made government finances worse they would have got very bad even without it.
Additionally if the banks hadn't been so free with their lending in the 2000s then the government finances would have been worse in those years as well (and they were steadily deteriorating in any case).
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
Brexit will be as disastrous as the profligacy and warmongering of the Brown/Blair years ?
The government jostles neck and neck with John Major's second term and Gordon Brown's tenure for the dishonour of worst government of my lifetime. I think it gets the nod by a short neck: it's not quite as incoherent as those other two but its central purpose is by some way the most misguided.
What do you think the government should do? Ignore the referendum? Could try that but it would be extremely difficult. The whole thing is a hospital pass thrown by Cameron - the man who chose to hold the referendum and then had no idea how to win it - or should that be wing it?
Just as an issue when the financial storm broke in 2008 what should Brown have done ? Should he have let RBS go under - Northern Rock there would have been serious public disorder had RBS actually closed and people had their cards refused and couldn't get cash.
That in turn would have started runs on other banks with disastrous consequences (Lloyds anyone ?). The Government had no choice but to bail out RBS. The spending problem was exacerbated as much by the lack of income as the continued spending - the collapse of tax receipts as economic activity collapsed in 2008-9 was the key to the deficit spiralling out of control.
Could Darling have brought in an Emergency Budget of stringent spending cuts and public sector wage cuts in 2009 ?
As for Lisbon, Labour had the majority in the Commons. Once the Treaty was ratified and became law, David Cameron decided there could be no retrospective referendum even if the Conservatives returned to Government.
How would a Conservative Government have dealt with Northern Rock and the consequences of the fall of Lehmann Brothers ?
Lloyds were safe until the moment Brown pushed them into taking over HBOS. Barclays was the one causing agitation at the time, surprising though that may now seem. A not-very-well known part of that story is that Brown had actually tried to get HSBC to take over HBOS first and been rebuffed - Stephen Green is reported to have told Brown, 'you'll have to point a gun at my head and then you'll still have to pay me.'
The error at the time was arguably rescuing Northern Rock. Guaranteeing the deposits and letting it go quickly would have shaken the world banking system, but not destroyed it. As it was, when a bank was finally let go, it was a big one and the consequences were cataclysmic.
The real mistake however from a purely national point of view was relaxing capital requirements and relaxing the regulatory system in 1998, leaving our banks very profitable in the short term and grossly over-exposed to any downturn. And for that Brown and indeed Darling as his Chief Sec, whatever their actions in 2007-8, cannot evade responsibility. That is why although the downturn undoubtedly started in the American sub-Prime market, blaming for it for our bankers' ills was at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. Just as Lamont and Major cannot escape blame for the disastrous nature of their ERM experiment even though ultimately the effects were mostly beneficial.
Incidentally - did you ever reply to my points about Corbyn comparing himself to Tsipras and Chavez? It is one reason why I worry about him although I will admit. his rather grim habit of hanging out with mass murderers bothers me more.
Comments
They could do the same again.
In reality, the Netherlands/Scandinavia probably would go there, but France and Germany would not.
The visegrads somewhere in the middle.
https://twitter.com/chrishanretty/status/953349362003914753
As for Brown, I would put Johnson on a par with him. Brown was a drunk, but still a serious politician and ideologically sound. Johnson is just a self-serving clown.
Firstly it feeds into the 'better in public ownership' meme regarding public services and infrastructure.
Secondly it boosts the 'unacceptable face of capitalism, one rule for us and another rule for them' meme. People wont know the details (though they are indeed bad) but will think that their taxes are being used to payoff sleezy fatcats while jobs, pensions and services are cut.
Don't bloody help Corbyn and co! They are the most shameful rabble that has ever darkened the already poor name of British politics. 'Good Corbyn' means a national disaster, and 'Bad Corbyn' will write its own vocabulary.
Poor people will queue for bread, rich people will be interned in some ghastly place in Islington and be lectured by John Prescott, Corbyn will drive around in his Leyland Corbyn - they'll make 28, but just one will be on the road at any time due to unforseen issues, and we will become a cut-off, frozen (heating on tuesdays before midday) little island that deserved everything it got when it voted for the grim awfulness that is Jeremy Corbyn.
I apologise to all concerned if I have talked Corbyn up in the above.
The vast majority of Brits have moved on - and they just want the government to get on with it. Opinion doesn't seem to have moved much from June 2016.
Firstly, if you dredge through the treaties, you'll find no mention of criminal law. Now, that might theoretically change through future treaties, but right now it has no competence in that direction. It's also worth remembering that (criminal) laws prohibit, they do not declare things legal. (On the basis that anything not prohibited is legal. With the possible exception of some incredibly poorly written UK drug legislation.)
Secondly, the ECJ's cases are almost entirely concerned with the extent to which signatories comply with treaties. And - typically - it is an injured party that brings a case to the ECJ alleging their harm due to the country in question not complying with EU treaties (including, of course, all the relevant dictats that flow from the commission.)
Polls are not votes.
How does that square with this?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42710795
What she can't do is defend the current situation as the optimum which has had a minor aberation.
Brown is by a long chalk the worst PM I have ever seen, but in the late 70s there were far worse governments than his (I can only really remember Callaghan's government in terms of its actions).
Theoretically.
Rather than smug digs at these apparently illogical foreigners not giving us what we want whilst our own government is a shambles perhaps we ought to just accept they are our nearest neighbours, have their political imperatives just like us and work out how to get along.
I don't see where governmental incompetence applies. It may do, if important services don't get provided, but so far, it seems that public sector contracts will be fulfilled.
Just as an aside, it's interesting to see what little impact the collapse of Carillion has had in local Government but that should come as no surprise.
As an example, Surrey took on Carillion in 2003 to manage the roads in the east part of the county and it was an unmitigated disaster. In the end, the County Council sacked Carillion in 2009 and I believe other authorities had similar experiences.
The question for me is why, despite this litany of disaster and the obvious shortcomings was central Government so keen to continue to award Carillion business into the 2010s. The warning signs of a company not fit for purpose had existed for more than a decade.
" Why do I have to follow all the regulations and pay all the taxes when those Carillion lot can fradulently trade, get millions from the taxpayer and then walk away leaving someone else to clear up the mess " sums up the viewpoint.
She was responsible for excluding 160k new members from voting in 2016 leadership election by being the swing vote on early freeze date also the same applied on the vote in respect of Kezia and Welsh leader attending NEC.
She will not get on the left slate next time methinks.
https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/michael-mann-retracts-false-nobel-prize-claims-in-humiliating-climbdown/
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/03/there-is-no-question-that-michael-mann-lied-to-congress/
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/953364895432626181
I wonder if the ability of Carillion to continue to win business was predicated on the weakness of the central Government tendering and evaluation process.
No self respecting statistician would produce a graph without error bars, and then deduce a trend from it.
The difference between two noisy measurements (the vertical axis) is not by itself a robust statistical estimator.
Even the proposed EU-USA deal was going to have ISDS tribunals wasn't it? I don't think anyone would realistically suggest if we'd remained and if that deal had gone ahead that we were members of the USA.
I am fed up of the neo liberal consensus that they support. Most of the PLP are far to the right of the membership.
Those who think Corbyn is ultra left are just wrong IMO. Just on the side of the many not the few.
My experience is that private sector businessmen tend to thank the stars that they're still around.
(1) Shareholders lose out
(2) Employees lose out
(3) Taxpayers lose out
(4) Directors walk away with millions
Perhaps if (4) didn't happen there would be less chance of (1), (2) and (3) happening as well.
Deleted - in view of later posts.
That in turn would have started runs on other banks with disastrous consequences (Lloyds anyone ?). The Government had no choice but to bail out RBS. The spending problem was exacerbated as much by the lack of income as the continued spending - the collapse of tax receipts as economic activity collapsed in 2008-9 was the key to the deficit spiralling out of control.
Could Darling have brought in an Emergency Budget of stringent spending cuts and public sector wage cuts in 2009 ?
As for Lisbon, Labour had the majority in the Commons. Once the Treaty was ratified and became law, David Cameron decided there could be no retrospective referendum even if the Conservatives returned to Government.
How would a Conservative Government have dealt with Northern Rock and the consequences of the fall of Lehmann Brothers ?
Jeremy & McDonnell would have had a field day.
Tezza is stupid, but not that stupid.
And maybe Tezza will get smart. She could announce a Public Inquiry into the accounts, the auditors and how the company was allowed to continue to trade without full protection for the supply chain and new investors. In tandem with any criminal investigations.
Then Tezza could have pointed to the difference between Labour & Tories.
Labour bailed out the banks and paid Sir Fred's pension. The Tories didn't bail out Carillon and sent the criminals to jail.
Tezza is probably not smart enough to do that.
As for spending it was already maxed out before the crash. Had the government been running a small surplus as the previous government was before the previous recession hit then we would have been able to adjust to the cyclical shock of the collapse in tax receipts a lot simpler.
It was too late - his continuation of his ruinous overspending from his days as chancellor continued before during and after the crash.
RBS shareholders and other creditors should have got £0.00 - not the 25p or so.
He should immediately have slashed profligate spending on entitlements etc - the £156Bn borrowing in one year has crippled us for a decade.
Why should the Labour Party be what the Conservative Party and its supporters want it to be - a pale version of the Conservative Party. To be fair, Blair won a landslide on that thesis in 1997 creating Labour as a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left but he was hugely aided by 18 years of Government and the political collapse of the Conservatives.
There is an argument a "socialist" Labour has never won - I'd argue Attlee's 1945 programme was pretty close to socialism in some aspects and would we call Harold Wilson a proto-Blairite ?
No, Labour has to be what it feels comfortable being and has to seek its own mandate on its own terms. It does need to be clear what people can expect from an incoming Labour Government and why many of use who have stagnated economically in the 2010s will do better with Labour in the 2020s.
The answer probably lies in the structure of major PPP construction deals, because they hand the contract winner a large chunk of cash upfront.
Work on construction can then begin, while contractors like Carillion may not need to start paying sub-contractors for another 120 days.
During those four months, much of the upfront payment might be used to pay other debts within the business, meaning these deals can create situations where firms have to keep winning new contracts just to keep going.
Or, as it turns out, not keep going. '
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/15/the-four-contracts-that-finished-carillion-public-private-partnership
And that's OK.
What we want to avoid is a system like NAFTA, where there is a tribunal of three judges (two of which must always be American), and which hear cases in secrecy.
Take one of my businesses, the astoundingly great PythonAnywhere (hosted Python in the cloud!). It banks with RBS. In the event of RBS going bust it would have been unable to pay its staff, and would have closed. Despite being a profitable business.
Darling would have been forced into an Emergency Budget with stringent spending cuts which might have exacerbated the recession which was already severe. With hindsight a shorter, more severe recession might have been the rebalancing shock we needed rather than the long drawn out agony of the "stagsterity" (new word, copyright Stodge, 16/1/18) of the 2010s.
PS I hope you managed to get the help you needed for your wife.
One of the concerns from the Carillion collapse is if they are involved in providing support services for the vulnerable and these get adversely affected.
It's a view.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5276653/Trump-officially-obese-doctor-gives-clean-bill.html
But if it wasn't the financial crisis it could have been another crisis that triggered the recession. It wasn't as if the recession was premature, it was the first one in nearly 20 years, it was due.
Early on as Chancellor he claimed to have his so-called Golden Rules and claimed to be the Iron Chancellor. Had those actually meant anything then we would have gone into the recession in much better shape and been able to adjust to it better.
Unfortunately he also claimed to have "abolished boom and bust" before having the biggest boost imaginable. In thinking he could abolish boom and bust he was absolutely delusional and meant that we were maxed out on debt during the boom and had no chance when the inevitable bust finally happened.
And while the financial crisis would have made government finances worse they would have got very bad even without it.
Additionally if the banks hadn't been so free with their lending in the 2000s then the government finances would have been worse in those years as well (and they were steadily deteriorating in any case).
The error at the time was arguably rescuing Northern Rock. Guaranteeing the deposits and letting it go quickly would have shaken the world banking system, but not destroyed it. As it was, when a bank was finally let go, it was a big one and the consequences were cataclysmic.
The real mistake however from a purely national point of view was relaxing capital requirements and relaxing the regulatory system in 1998, leaving our banks very profitable in the short term and grossly over-exposed to any downturn. And for that Brown and indeed Darling as his Chief Sec, whatever their actions in 2007-8, cannot evade responsibility. That is why although the downturn undoubtedly started in the American sub-Prime market, blaming for it for our bankers' ills was at best disingenuous and at worst dishonest. Just as Lamont and Major cannot escape blame for the disastrous nature of their ERM experiment even though ultimately the effects were mostly beneficial.
Incidentally - did you ever reply to my points about Corbyn comparing himself to Tsipras and Chavez? It is one reason why I worry about him although I will admit. his rather grim habit of hanging out with mass murderers bothers me more.