Ah so we start today with early appearances of “Brexit loons”. See how we go. Yesterday, by lunchtime it was “Brexitaliban” and by bedtime it was Nazis. Sigh.
Surely you must agree that daring to criticise Treasury models or the performance of taxpayer funded senior civil servants is akin to what Hitler did to silence opposition to his policies in Nazi Germany?....
As you well know, the complaint is not that the models are criticised but that the integrity of those compiling them is being impugned with absolutely no evidence for doing so. And as you also well know, the "stab in the back" myth long predated Hitler's ascent to power.
You seem to be participating in a straw man convention.
Suggesting that Treasury models may not be accurate based on precedent - of which there is a lot of precedent - or because the assumptions made about the trading and tariff arrangements possible made are limited in scope in the models is a perfectly rational comment and criticism.
Simply blindingly accepting models because they produce an outcome you agree with is equally problematic - it's called conformation bias. We got PFI on the back of lots of civil service modelling.
It is The Observer - a supposedly serious paper - which has used the inflammatory headline suggesting these are tactics equivalent to what was used in Nazi Germany.
Perhaps it's also a bit rich from the head of the civil service under Tony Blair to criticise what is happening now considering how he allowed its independence to fettered.
In the end the comparisons to Nazi Germany made are offensive and ridiculous. Because in a democracy we surely retain the right to suggest that sometimes the civil service gets it wrong, is badly run or produces models that aren't accurate. Very Senior civil servants should be held accountable and be required to justify their decisions - that is why they are paid their high salaries - as should any senior bosses in local councils or elsewhere.
You again sidestep the point that the complaint is not that the model is queried but that the Treasury are being accused of fiddling the figures. And you again sidestep the point that the “stab in the back” myth predated Nazi Germany.
You’re only trashing your own integrity.
And this is why we need an independent and public enquiry into Treasury forecasting so that we can know why it so often produces complete bollox.
Incidentally wasn't the creation of the OBR deemed necessary because the Treasury was suspected of fiddling the figures to suit government purposes ?
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change. It will allow us to re-define the rules for government and state institutions. I don't know what those rules will be, but I think the answers found will be more likely to work than rules set to cover Europe from Athens to Dublin.
You are spot on about Brexit consuming all government's capacity for a decade, that is indeed a risk. There are 2 responses - either government gets bigger so it can have more governing capacity or it gets smaller, restricts its competency and lets society find its own way within a looser framework. Personally I'd favour option 2 but I understand the real concerns around that.
You do wonder just how long the sensible labour MP's are going to continue their association with the hard left and momemtum
There can be no better example of how our politics is currently bent all out of shape when Labour, the party of holocaust deniers, is sitting at 40% in the polls.
Is Labour a party of Holocaust deniers?
The faction currently in charge of the Labour party is antisemitic
Often wondered why we don't use the term Jew Hater
Didn't Joff once refer to Rod Crosby, in the dog days of RC's posting on here where the Nazism became increasingly overt, as 'the Jew baiter of Merseyside?'
tim replied to a question by Rod Crosby on where to take a girl on a first date with "It depends whether she is Ashkenazi or Sephardic".
And this is why we need an independent and public enquiry into Treasury forecasting so that we can know why it so often produces complete bollox.
Incidentally wasn't the creation of the OBR deemed necessary because the Treasury was suspected of fiddling the figures to suit government purposes ?
That seems an unlikely rationale since the government that set up the OBR was the same government which ran the Treasury. Given George Osborne's record, there may have been some badly thought-out Labour-trolling or propaganda purpose. One for the memoirs, perhaps.
But of course the story itself is nonsense. How could Johnson Gove and Mogg be planning a "coup". They simply dont have the support of Tory MPs to launch it (I am sure the story isnt suggesting that the trio is planning a literal, ie a violent seizure of power).
.
The government, Cabinet and Prime Minister are trapped in the same unstable equilibrium since June. Any of the big beasts can trigger a challenge but none of them can be sure of winning the subsequent election. If a sizeable group came together behind one champion, the arithmetic changes. That is what the headline piece is about. But nothing has happened so I'm inclined to write it off as speculation by an opponent; mischief-making rather than kite-flying.
But they dont have the numbers to seize power. They might have the numbers (48) to launch a vote of confidence in May, but it is very likely that she would win it. The Majority of Tory MPs would almost certainly prefer may to stay PM until after Brexit, and they certainly would not want her replaced by the unholy trio of Johnson, Gove and Mogg.
If Theresa May thought that, she could follow John Major's precedent and dish her opponents. It is very unlikely Theresa May would win a confidence vote. The aggregate of her rivals' supporters, added to the uncommitted who just see May as hapless, would crush her. The problem is that none of Gove, Hammond, Boris, Rudd or any of the other half dozen who see themselves as plausible contenders or caretakers can be sure of reaching Number 10, and would probably doom themselves for perpetuity. That is why we have an unstable equilibrium.
The majority who just think she is hapless would still vote for her in a confidence vote because they want her to continue until after Brexit, and they dont want Johnson and co.
The PM does not share your confidence. The trouble is that the majority which does not want Boris is not the same as the majority which does not want Gove, or the majority that does not want JRM or Hammond, Rudd or Hunt.
We are probably in agreement that the supporters of Boris, JRM, Gove etc are each a minority of Tory MPs. You are suggesting that the union of the sets of supporters are a majority. I doubt that. Supporters of Remainers such as Rudd and Hammond will not vote against May because they know their candidate has no chance with the membership. May is safe for the time being.
I am a big fan of the self denying prophecy factor being one of the biggest factors in politics -ie if something is predicted often enough and strongly enough, the very opposite will happen. People voted for Brexit in 2016 because for so long Eurosceptics were dismissed as a minority of bigots and swivel eyed fanatics that the British people would reject. People voted against the Tories in 2017 because for so long we were told that a Tory landslide was inevitable. May will survive as Tory leader (until after Brexit) because we are being told over and over that her premiership is doomed. Johnson will be never be prime minister because for years we have told that he will. This plot will never come to fruition precisely because it is all over the Sunday Times front page (imagine the assassination of Julius Caesar being all over the Ides of March Gazette " Brutus and Cassius plot coup in March"! The assassination would never have happened.
For months now we have been told that Jeremy Corbyn is a prime minister in waiting -which is why he will be waiting forever.
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change. It will allow us to re-define the rules for government and state institutions. I don't know what those rules will be, but I think the answers found will be more likely to work than rules set to cover Europe from Athens to Dublin.
You are spot on about Brexit consuming all government's capacity for a decade, that is indeed a risk. There are 2 responses - either government gets bigger so it can have more governing capacity or it gets smaller, restricts its competency and lets society find its own way within a looser framework. Personally I'd favour option 2 but I understand the real concerns around that.
As you said earlier "Almost all of the posts on PB are through the lens of people's identity politics" which you are demonstrating.
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change.
I think of it as a catalyst for change too. It will crush the Eurosceptic minority that has been a debilitating influence on our politics for 20 years and instead allow us to move on and focus on the real issues having made a definitive choice in favour of playing a full role in the EU.
I see PBers who were slipping on their own ejaculate in their rush to identify Corbyn as the terrorists' pal hours after the Manchester bombing are now trying the related 'party of Holocaust deniers' gambit.
As a famous Jocko Norman allegedly said, try, try and try again. I'm sure it'll work one of these days lads.
They also say that the Labour Party is being secretly run by the shadowy Momentum group led by Jon Lansman who is.... er... Jewish.
Suggesting that Treasury models may not be accurate based on precedent - of which there is a lot of precedent - or because the assumptions made about the trading and tariff arrangements possible made are limited in scope in the models is a perfectly rational comment and criticism.
Simply blindingly accepting models because they produce an outcome you agree with is equally problematic - it's called conformation bias. We got PFI on the back of lots of civil service modelling.
It is The Observer - a supposedly serious paper - which has used the inflammatory headline suggesting these are tactics equivalent to what was used in Nazi Germany.
Perhaps it's also a bit rich from the head of the civil service under Tony Blair to criticise what is happening now considering how he allowed its independence to fettered.
In the end the comparisons to Nazi Germany made are offensive and ridiculous. Because in a democracy we surely retain the right to suggest that sometimes the civil service gets it wrong, is badly run or produces models that aren't accurate. Very Senior civil servants should be held accountable and be required to justify their decisions - that is why they are paid their high salaries - as should any senior bosses in local councils or elsewhere.
You again sidestep the point that the complaint is not that the model is queried but that the Treasury are being accused of fiddling the figures. And you again sidestep the point that the “stab in the back” myth predated Nazi Germany.
You’re only trashing your own integrity.
And this is why we need an independent and public enquiry into Treasury forecasting so that we can know why it so often produces complete bollox.
Incidentally wasn't the creation of the OBR deemed necessary because the Treasury was suspected of fiddling the figures to suit government purposes ?
No
' George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition formed after the 2010 general election, announced the body in his first official speech. He criticised the economic and fiscal forecasts of the previous Labour government, and announced that the OBR would be responsible for publishing these independently of government in future. '
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change. It will allow us to re-define the rules for government and state institutions. I don't know what those rules will be, but I think the answers found will be more likely to work than rules set to cover Europe from Athens to Dublin.
You are spot on about Brexit consuming all government's capacity for a decade, that is indeed a risk. There are 2 responses - either government gets bigger so it can have more governing capacity or it gets smaller, restricts its competency and lets society find its own way within a looser framework. Personally I'd favour option 2 but I understand the real concerns around that.
As you said earlier "Almost all of the posts on PB are through the lens of people's identity politics" which you are demonstrating.
Of course. I'm human. I'm also interested in informed discussion and will change my position based on evidence. That's why I like PB so much. It's never boring and people are passionate. I would rather discuss ideas with people I disagree with than people who cannot be bothered to take an interest
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change.
I think of it as a catalyst for change too. It will crush the Eurosceptic minority that has been a debilitating influence on our politics for 20 years and instead allow us to move on and focus on the real issues having made a definitive choice in favour of playing a full role in the EU.
So will you be going all in on a LibDem majority at the next election ?
Still you have a point, if the UK had joined the Euro twenty years ago then the car factories wouldn't have shut down and the City wouldn't have relocated to Frankfurt.
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change.
I think of it as a catalyst for change too. It will crush the Eurosceptic minority that has been a debilitating influence on our politics for 20 years and instead allow us to move on and focus on the real issues having made a definitive choice in favour of playing a full role in the EU.
In what alternative universe are eurosceptics a "minority"
I've just watched the Andrew Marr show. Based on comments earlier in this thread I expected Marr to perform badly.
In fact he did some excellent interviews. He was very hard on Claire Kober (which is why some on here may have complained about him) but this enabled Kober to make some effective points about pragmatism versus ideology. His interview with Adams was excellent and so was the interview with Rudd. I thought Rudd did very well - much better than May. She can think on her feet, speaks with authority, and I easily can see her as a PM. An excellent show.
Yep.
Kober exemplifies one of my life lessons, which is that the Labour Party looks best viewed from a distance.
I see PBers who were slipping on their own ejaculate in their rush to identify Corbyn as the terrorists' pal hours after the Manchester bombing are now trying the related 'party of Holocaust deniers' gambit.
As a famous Jocko Norman allegedly said, try, try and try again. I'm sure it'll work one of these days lads.
They also say that the Labour Party is being secretly run by the shadowy Momentum group led by Jon Lansman who is.... er... Jewish.
Corbyn is not the Labour Party, nor are any of his faction. Any objective and thorough examination of his relationship with the IRA in the 1980s -and many of his other connections- will show alarming results. Whether people raising this issue works in the 21st century amongst an age group which wasnt alive at the time is another matter.
Corbyn is a nasty piece of work and John McDonnell is nastier. Many of his evil statements are on audio and video and are undeniable.
The point really is that people like Corbyn and McDonnell never change their spots. Give them power and they will abuse it. A year or two of a Corbyn government (which I believe wont happen), and they will be exposed for all to see, will be deeply unpopular and will be swept away "into the dustbin of history" (Trotsky).
Suggesting that Treasury models may not be accurate based on precedent - of which there is a lot of precedent - or because the assumptions made about the trading and tariff arrangements possible made are limited in scope in the models is a perfectly rational comment and criticism.
Simply blindingly accepting models because they produce an outcome you agree with is equally problematic - it's called conformation bias. We got PFI on the back of lots of civil service modelling.
It is The Observer - a supposedly serious paper - which has used the inflammatory headline suggesting these are tactics equivalent to what was used in Nazi Germany.
Perhaps it's also a bit rich from the head of the civil service under Tony Blair to criticise what is happening now considering how he allowed its independence to fettered.
In the end the comparisons to Nazi Germany made are offensive and ridiculous. Because in a democracy we surely retain the right to suggest that sometimes the civil service gets it wrong, is badly run or produces models that aren't accurate. Very Senior civil servants should be held accountable and be required to justify their decisions - that is why they are paid their high salaries - as should any senior bosses in local councils or elsewhere.
You again sidestep the point that the complaint is not that the model is queried but that the Treasury are being accused of fiddling the figures. And you again sidestep the point that the “stab in the back” myth predated Nazi Germany.
You’re only trashing your own integrity.
And this is why we need an independent and public enquiry into Treasury forecasting so that we can know why it so often produces complete bollox.
Incidentally wasn't the creation of the OBR deemed necessary because the Treasury was suspected of fiddling the figures to suit government purposes ?
No
' George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition formed after the 2010 general election, announced the body in his first official speech. He criticised the economic and fiscal forecasts of the previous Labour government, and announced that the OBR would be responsible for publishing these independently of government in future. '
In other words to get away from the Treasury's shifting 'golden rule' and 'economic cycle' claims of the Brown era.
I think that within the Treasury, as in other Departments, there will a strong bias in favour of the status quo, and things that disrupt the status quo will be seen as bad. But it's wrong to talk about "fiddling" the figures.
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change.
I think of it as a catalyst for change too. It will crush the Eurosceptic minority that has been a debilitating influence on our politics for 20 years and instead allow us to move on and focus on the real issues having made a definitive choice in favour of playing a full role in the EU.
In what alternative universe are eurosceptics a "minority"
They are among 'people like us' as opposed to 'people like them'.
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change.
I think of it as a catalyst for change too. It will crush the Eurosceptic minority that has been a debilitating influence on our politics for 20 years and instead allow us to move on and focus on the real issues having made a definitive choice in favour of playing a full role in the EU.
In what alternative universe are eurosceptics a "minority"
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change.
I think of it as a catalyst for change too. It will crush the Eurosceptic minority that has been a debilitating influence on our politics for 20 years and instead allow us to move on and focus on the real issues having made a definitive choice in favour of playing a full role in the EU.
In what alternative universe are eurosceptics a "minority"
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change.
I think of it as a catalyst for change too. It will crush the Eurosceptic minority that has been a debilitating influence on our politics for 20 years and instead allow us to move on and focus on the real issues having made a definitive choice in favour of playing a full role in the EU.
In what alternative universe are eurosceptics a "minority"
Those that want "a full role in the EU", i.e. further integration, are an even smaller minority than unreconciled Remainers. It must be sub-30%.
I wonder if it will be like French Royalists, still sure the public will come round to accepting the return of the monarchy more than a century later.
oner reminds me of Mosley more than Jeremy Corbyn -no one reminds me of his fascists more than his supporters.
I cant think of anyone who reminds me less of Oswald Mosley than Jeremy Coryby. Mosley had hugely inflated view of his own importance and his unwavering belief in himself as a man of destiny dragged him from party to party trying to catch the wave that would give him the power to 'fix everything'. The Mosley Memorandum was arguably 20 years ahead of its time. I suspect Fascism was just another wave for him (its hard not to read the mid 1930s other than through the lens of what we know Fascism ended up doing to him it was fresh and dynamic and underpinned by the belief in radical change rather than more of the same). He was initially far more enamoured of Mussolini and the Corporate State style thinking than Hitlers NAZIsm. He was a highly erudite posh boy whose drive to change the world emerged from his experience of the first war and then of the depression. He had a significant slice of Europes royal family at his first wedding and was incredibly well connected. I dont see him as a Labour figure, he was outside 'party' looking for mechanisms to deliver the radical change he believed necessary. After the mess at Olympia and the loss of support from Rothermere and the Daily Mail I think he became increasingly embittered and drifted into the anti-Semitism and later 1950s racism that people now associate with him most readily - but still a fine mind, sadly misdirected and finally damaged by ego and 'events'.
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we need to be realistic about our country it’s strengths and weaknesses. The civil service does not hire the Best and the brightest. There are some good people in it but often they are poorly managed or overwhelmed by the sea of mediocrity around them. I have seen this through the experience of my brothers one a senior tax inspector and the other a surgeon. We cannot expect the civil service to execute brexit well without good leadership. There is a risk it will go badly wrong and civil servants will lose their job and their pension but no upside for them if it goes well. Status quo is much more comfortable.
It is never a good idea to blame the workers for a failure.
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change.
I think of it as a catalyst for change too. It will crush the Eurosceptic minority that has been a debilitating influence on our politics for 20 years and instead allow us to move on and focus on the real issues having made a definitive choice in favour of playing a full role in the EU.
In what alternative universe are eurosceptics a "minority"
He was initially far more enamoured of Mussolini and the Corporate State style thinking than Hitlers NAZIsm. He was a highly erudite posh boy whose drive to change the world emerged from his experience of the first war and then of the depression. He had a significant slice of Europes royal family at his first wedding and was incredibly well connected. I dont see him as a Labour figure, he was outside 'party' looking for mechanisms to deliver the radical change he believed necessary.
Antony Flew would be enjoying these threads this morning.
And this is why we need an independent and public enquiry into Treasury forecasting so that we can know why it so often produces complete bollox.
Incidentally wasn't the creation of the OBR deemed necessary because the Treasury was suspected of fiddling the figures to suit government purposes ?
No
' George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition formed after the 2010 general election, announced the body in his first official speech. He criticised the economic and fiscal forecasts of the previous Labour government, and announced that the OBR would be responsible for publishing these independently of government in future. '
In other words to get away from the Treasury's shifting 'golden rule' and 'economic cycle' claims of the Brown era.
I think that within the Treasury, as in other Departments, there will a strong bias in favour of the status quo, and things that disrupt the status quo will be seen as bad. But it's wrong to talk about "fiddling" the figures.
I don't expect fraudulent data or models to have been used (although incompetence is a possibility) but the assumptions built into any model or forecast can be influenced by what you want the end result to be either. This can happen either deliberately or subconciously.
There are examples outside government as well - from the banks to BHS to Carillion.
There's many an accountant who to the question "what do the numbers say ?" has replied "what do you want them to say ?".
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change.
I think of it as a catalyst for change too. It will crush the Eurosceptic minority that has been a debilitating influence on our politics for 20 years and instead allow us to move on and focus on the real issues having made a definitive choice in favour of playing a full role in the EU.
In what alternative universe are eurosceptics a "minority"
Scotland?
We are all guilty of forgetting Gibraltar.
(Think how much easier all our lives would be if the Spanish did as well.)
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change.
I think of it as a catalyst for change too. It will crush the Eurosceptic minority that has been a debilitating influence on our politics for 20 years and instead allow us to move on and focus on the real issues having made a definitive choice in favour of playing a full role in the EU.
In what alternative universe are eurosceptics a "minority"
Those that want "a full role in the EU", i.e. further integration, are an even smaller minority than unreconciled Remainers. It must be sub-30%.
I wonder if it will be like French Royalists, still sure the public will come round to accepting the return of the monarchy more than a century later.
Nat Cen used to give people four options in regard to the EU. More integration, status quo, less integration, or withdrawal. Options 3 and 4 typically polled about 70%.
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change. It will allow us to re-define the rules for government and state institutions. I don't know what those rules will be, but I think the answers found will be more likely to work than rules set to cover Europe from Athens to Dublin.
You are spot on about Brexit consuming all government's capacity for a decade, that is indeed a risk. There are 2 responses - either government gets bigger so it can have more governing capacity or it gets smaller, restricts its competency and lets society find its own way within a looser framework. Personally I'd favour option 2 but I understand the real concerns around that.
As you said earlier "Almost all of the posts on PB are through the lens of people's identity politics" which you are demonstrating.
Of course. I'm human. I'm also interested in informed discussion and will change my position based on evidence. That's why I like PB so much. It's never boring and people are passionate. I would rather discuss ideas with people I disagree with than people who cannot be bothered to take an interest
And this is why we need an independent and public enquiry into Treasury forecasting so that we can know why it so often produces complete bollox.
Incidentally wasn't the creation of the OBR deemed necessary because the Treasury was suspected of fiddling the figures to suit government purposes ?
No
' George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition formed after the 2010 general election, announced the body in his first official speech. He criticised the economic and fiscal forecasts of the previous Labour government, and announced that the OBR would be responsible for publishing these independently of government in future. '
In other words to get away from the Treasury's shifting 'golden rule' and 'economic cycle' claims of the Brown era.
I think that within the Treasury, as in other Departments, there will a strong bias in favour of the status quo, and things that disrupt the status quo will be seen as bad. But it's wrong to talk about "fiddling" the figures.
I don't expect fraudulent data or models to have been used (although incompetence is a possibility) but the assumptions built into any model or forecast can be influenced by what you want the end result to be either. This can happen either deliberately or subconciously.
There are examples outside government as well - from the banks to BHS to Carillion.
There's many an accountant who to the question "what do the numbers say ?" has replied "what do you want them to say ?".
There's also the point that governments can alter policies, over the course of 15 years, in order to avoid the worst outcomes.
The whole thing's a nightmare and, I suspect, making us something of a laughing stock around the world. The nation that had it all and threw it away to go back to the thirties.
The thirties being when we rejected the fascist philosophies that underpinned governments in other European countries? The thirties being when we stood firm for individual liberties and against a centralising force in Europe?
Hopefully we will do so again but the juxtaposition is unfortunate wouldn't you agree?
Edit. - I have to go and play the organ including blowing an 8 foot horn. Have a good morning.
Yes - although Mosley was a Labour MP before he became a wannabe dictator.
(Why @OldKingCole as a remainer, chose to highlight that decade, I don't know...)
I am not OKC but I would point out that liberalism was the big loser from the clash of ideologies in the 1930s, as Stalinism and fascism agreed on their hatred of liberals. Liberalism was ascendent after the War as people said never again and liberal institutions like the EU were set up to make it happen. Liberalism is under attack again by movements such as Brexit and Trump as it is blamed for ruining people's lifestyles with globalisation and the Credit Crunch
The EU is not a force for liberalism. It’s like the Zentrum in Weimar’s Germany: Consensus, conformity and centralisation.
Just because it’s not facist or Stalinist it doesn’t mean it’s liberal
The whole thing's a nightmare and, I suspect, making us something of a laughing stock around the world. The nation that had it all and threw it away to go back to the thirties.
The thirties being when we rejected the fascist philosophies that underpinned governments in other European countries? The thirties being when we stood firm for individual liberties and against a centralising force in Europe?
Hopefully we will do so again but the juxtaposition is unfortunate wouldn't you agree?
Edit. - I have to go and play the organ including blowing an 8 foot horn. Have a good morning.
Yes - although Mosley was a Labour MP before he became a wannabe dictator.
(Why @OldKingCole as a remainer, chose to highlight that decade, I don't know...)
Yes Mosley was a Labour MP for a while, but he was actually elected as a Conservative. Not sure either fact is particularly relevant to the debate, but I wonder why you would mention one and not the other?
Because I didn't know...
According to wiki he was originally elected in 1918 as a Tory at the age of 21, but by 1922 (it doesn't say when) he had resigned the whip and successfully defended his seat as an independent against the Tories in 1922 and 1923.He joined Labour in March 1924, was elected as a Labour MP in 1926, and was a Labour Cabinet Minister in 1929-31.
Based on that it seems fair to characterise him as a Labour politician despite his youthful folly
Well youthful folly does sound like a good excuse. Who hasn't had a funny turn and ended up getting elected to parliament when they were young and carefree? At least he didn't try and start a revolution in a beer hall.
But seriously, no it isn't fair to characterise him as a primarily Labour politician. He actually joined the ILP when it was still outside the mainstream Labour Party, and resigned from the party when it became clear he wouldn't get a ministerial seat. He founded the New Party immediately on resigning. He joined the Fascists a few years later. So he managed to belong at one time or another to 5 different parties, one of which he founded himself. The only reason for dwelling on his time in the Labour Party is to reinforce the notion that many people enjoy indulging in that there is some kind of standard pathway whereby socialists end up as fascists.
TBH I have no idea! My period is the long nineteenth century - I always found the interwar period particularly dull.
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change.
I think of it as a catalyst for change too. It will crush the Eurosceptic minority that has been a debilitating influence on our politics for 20 years and instead allow us to move on and focus on the real issues having made a definitive choice in favour of playing a full role in the EU.
In what alternative universe are eurosceptics a "minority"
Scotland?
Probably not even in Scotland.
You'd have to distinguish between Euroscepticism that is a subset of vague distrust of all government and specific Euroscepticism that is an integral part of one's political and national identity; the latter is driving (let's be honest largely English) Brexit and is certainly a minority view in Scotland.'They're all shite' isn't really Euroscepticism.
I see PBers who were slipping on their own ejaculate in their rush to identify Corbyn as the terrorists' pal hours after the Manchester bombing are now trying the related 'party of Holocaust deniers' gambit.
As a famous Jocko Norman allegedly said, try, try and try again. I'm sure it'll work one of these days lads.
They also say that the Labour Party is being secretly run by the shadowy Momentum group led by Jon Lansman who is.... er... Jewish.
There is sometimes a confusion between Fascism and Nazism. All Nazis are Fascist, but not all Fascists are Nazis. Nazis are anti-Semitic, Fascists do not have to be (although some may be). Mussolini even had a Jewish mistress at one time, Margherita Sarfatti, although she left him and moved to South America when under pressure from Hitler Mussolini started his own persecutions of the Jews. Franco would have been happy to persecute Jews if it would get him other things he wanted, but as it would not have done so in the end he did nothing. And of course how often are we told the government of Israel - which when last I checked had a fairly substantial number of Jews in it - is Fascist by its critics, especially on the left?
The fact that Lansman is Jewish is not relevant to whether Momentum is a fascist organisation or not. Arguably the key thing to set against the idea it is fascist is that it still seems to be largely committed to the democratic process. It does however have unsavoury racist and authoritarian overtones that could become Fascistic in time.
The whole thing's a nightmare and, I suspect, making us something of a laughing stock around the world. The nation that had it all and threw it away to go back to the thirties.
The thirties being when we rejected the fascist philosophies that underpinned governments in other European countries? The thirties being when we stood firm for individual liberties and against a centralising force in Europe?
Hopefully we will do so again but the juxtaposition is unfortunate wouldn't you agree?
Edit. - I have to go and play the organ including blowing an 8 foot horn. Have a good morning.
Yes - although Mosley was a Labour MP before he became a wannabe dictator.
(Why @OldKingCole as a remainer, chose to highlight that decade, I don't know...)
Yes Mosley was a Labour MP for a while, but he was actually elected as a Conservative. Not sure either fact is particularly relevant to the debate, but I wonder why you would mention one and not the other?
Because I didn't know...
According to wiki he was originally elected in 1918 as a Tory at the age of 21, but by 1922 (it doesn't say when) he had resigned the whip and successfully defended his seat as an independent against the Tories in 1922 and 1923.He joined Labour in March 1924, was elected as a Labour MP in 1926, and was a Labour Cabinet Minister in 1929-31.
Based on that it seems fair to characterise him as a Labour politician despite his youthful folly
You didn't know? Is that another area of politics that doesn't interest you?
The whole thing's a nightmare and, I suspect, making us something of a laughing stock around the world. The nation that had it all and threw it away to go back to the thirties.
The thirties being when we rejected the fascist philosophies that underpinned governments in other European countries? The thirties being when we stood firm for individual liberties and against a centralising force in Europe?
Hopefully we will do so again but the juxtaposition is unfortunate wouldn't you agree?
Edit. - I have to go and play the organ including blowing an 8 foot horn. Have a good morning.
Yes - although Mosley was a Labour MP before he became a wannabe dictator.
(Why @OldKingCole as a remainer, chose to highlight that decade, I don't know...)
I am not OKC but I would point out that liberalism was the big loser from the clash of ideologies in the 1930s, as Stalinism and fascism agreed on their hatred of liberals. Liberalism was ascendent after the War as people said never again and liberal institutions like the EU were set up to make it happen. Liberalism is under attack again by movements such as Brexit and Trump as it is blamed for ruining people's lifestyles with globalisation and the Credit Crunch
The EU is not a force for liberalism. It’s like the Zentrum in Weimar’s Germany: Consensus, conformity and centralisation.
Just because it’s not facist or Stalinist it doesn’t mean it’s liberal
It always seems to be assumed that the EU exists now in its final form; I see no reason to believe that that will be thae case. In particular it seems to me that the Parliament will gradually achieve greater powers at the expense of the Council of Ministers and of the Commission. Yes there is a democratic deficit, but not, I suggest much greater than in the UK.
I see PBers who were slipping on their own ejaculate in their rush to identify Corbyn as the terrorists' pal hours after the Manchester bombing are now trying the related 'party of Holocaust deniers' gambit.
As a famous Jocko Norman allegedly said, try, try and try again. I'm sure it'll work one of these days lads.
They also say that the Labour Party is being secretly run by the shadowy Momentum group led by Jon Lansman who is.... er... Jewish.
Corbyn is not the Labour Party, nor are any of his faction. Any objective and thorough examination of his relationship with the IRA in the 1980s -and many of his other connections- will show alarming results. Whether people raising this issue works in the 21st century amongst an age group which wasnt alive at the time is another matter.
Corbyn is a nasty piece of work and John McDonnell is nastier. Many of his evil statements are on audio and video and are undeniable.
The point really is that people like Corbyn and McDonnell never change their spots. Give them power and they will abuse it. A year or two of a Corbyn government (which I believe wont happen), and they will be exposed for all to see, will be deeply unpopular and will be swept away "into the dustbin of history" (Trotsky).
The most likely outcome for the next election is a minority Corbyn government with C&S from SNP and LDs. The LDs in particular will be a moderating influence as they will only support sensible pragmatic legislation.
Liberals support a free market in ideas and are suspicious of conformity. On the role of government, liberals are agnostic and do not believe "private good, public bad" or the reverse. Government has a role in some areas (defence) and not in others (fashion goods). The boundary is flexible and pragmatic and informed by innovative ideas and reasoned debate, not by the ideology of the left or right.
I see PBers who were slipping on their own ejaculate in their rush to identify Corbyn as the terrorists' pal hours after the Manchester bombing are now trying the related 'party of Holocaust deniers' gambit.
As a famous Jocko Norman allegedly said, try, try and try again. I'm sure it'll work one of these days lads.
They also say that the Labour Party is being secretly run by the shadowy Momentum group led by Jon Lansman who is.... er... Jewish.
There is sometimes a confusion between Fascism and Nazism. All Nazis are Fascist, but not all Fascists are Nazis. Nazis are anti-Semitic, Fascists do not have to be (although some may be). Mussolini even had a Jewish mistress at one time, Margherita Sarfatti, although she left him and moved to South America when under pressure from Hitler Mussolini started his own persecutions of the Jews. Franco would have been happy to persecute Jews if it would get him other things he wanted, but as it would not have done so in the end he did nothing. And of course how often are we told the government of Israel - which when last I checked had a fairly substantial number of Jews in it - is Fascist by its critics, especially on the left?
The fact that Lansman is Jewish is not relevant to whether Momentum is a fascist organisation or not. Arguably the key thing to set against the idea it is fascist is that it still seems to be largely committed to the democratic process. It does however have unsavoury racist and authoritarian overtones that could become Fascistic in time.
Franco was a very pragmatic dictator. He gave refuge to Jews as a form of insurance, in case the Axis lost.
The whole thing's a nightmare and, I suspect, making us something of a laughing stock around the world. The nation that had it all and threw it away to go back to the thirties.
The thirties being when we rejected the fascist philosophies that underpinned governments in other European countries? The thirties being when we stood firm for individual liberties and against a centralising force in Europe?
Hopefully we will do so again but the juxtaposition is unfortunate wouldn't you agree?
Edit. - I have to go and play the organ including blowing an 8 foot horn. Have a good morning.
Yes - although Mosley was a Labour MP before he became a wannabe dictator.
(Why @OldKingCole as a remainer, chose to highlight that decade, I don't know...)
Yes Mosley was a Labour MP for a while, but he was actually elected as a Conservative. Not sure either fact is particularly relevant to the debate, but I wonder why you would mention one and not the other?
Because I didn't know...
According to wiki he was originally elected in 1918 as a Tory at the age of 21, but by 1922 (it doesn't say when) he had resigned the whip and successfully defended his seat as an independent against the Tories in 1922 and 1923.He joined Labour in March 1924, was elected as a Labour MP in 1926, and was a Labour Cabinet Minister in 1929-31.
Based on that it seems fair to characterise him as a Labour politician despite his youthful folly
You didn't know? Is that another area of politics that doesn't interest you?
Nothing about the interwar period is interesting!
Clearly you have never heard of the Rector of Stiffkey.
It's pronounced 'Stewkey' but it's aposite to pronounce it phonetically given the context..
Some interesting research from the 70's US indicating that republicans were more attractive than lefties. Might well have been true then as the Republican brand attracted the monied and educated gene pool.
But looking at the crowds of illiterate inbred notrights chanting "lock her up" at many of Trump stump speeches I think we can safely assume things have changed.
Ah so we start today with early appearances of “Brexit loons”. See how we go. Yesterday, by lunchtime it was “Brexitaliban” and by bedtime it was Nazis. Sigh.
senior civil servants is akin to what Hitler did to silence opposition to his policies in Nazi Germany?....
As you well know, the complaint is not that the models are criticised but that the integrity of those compiling them is being impugned with absolutely no evidence for doing so. And as you also well know, the "stab in the back" myth long predated Hitler's ascent to power.
You seem to be participating in a straw man convention.
Suggesting that Treasury models may not be accurate based on precedent - of which there is a lot of precedent - or because the assumptions made about the trading and tariff arrangements possible made are limited in scope in the models is a perfectly rational comment and criticism.
Simply blindingly accepting models because they produce an outcome you agree with is equally problematic - it's called conformation bias. We got PFI on the back of lots of civil service modelling.
It is The Observer - a supposedly serious paper - which has used the inflammatory headline suggesting these are tactics equivalent to what was used in Nazi Germany.
Perhaps it's also a bit rich from the head of the civil service under Tony Blair to criticise what is happening now considering how he allowed its independence to fettered.
In the end the comparisons to Nazi Germany made are offensive and ridiculous. Because in a democracy we surely retain the right to suggest that sometimes the civil service gets it wrong, is badly run or produces models that aren't accurate. Very Senior civil servants should be held accountable and be required to justify their decisions - that is why they are paid their high salaries - as should any senior bosses in local councils or elsewhere.
You again sidestep the point that the complaint is not that the model is queried but that the Treasury are being accused of fiddling the figures. And you again sidestep the point that the “stab in the back” myth predated Nazi Germany.
You’re only trashing your own integrity.
And this is why we need an independent and public enquiry into Treasury forecasting so that we can know why it so often produces complete bollox.
Incidentally wasn't the creation of the OBR deemed necessary because the Treasury was suspected of fiddling the figures to suit government purposes ?
No
The Treasury has a model. Whoever controls the inputs (ultimately the Chancellor) controls the outputs
Some interesting research from the 70's US indicating that republicans were more attractive than lefties. Might well have been true then as the Republican brand attracted the monied and educated gene pool.
But looking at the crowds of illiterate inbred notrights chanting "lock her up" at many of Trump stump speeches I think we can safely assume things have changed.
Well, Melania and Ivanka are very good-looking. Americans have got fatter over 40 years, but Republican women probably care more about enhancing their looks than Democratic women do.
Some interesting research from the 70's US indicating that republicans were more attractive than lefties. Might well have been true then as the Republican brand attracted the monied and educated gene pool.
But looking at the crowds of illiterate inbred notrights chanting "lock her up" at many of Trump stump speeches I think we can safely assume things have changed.
Well, Melania and Ivanka are very good-looking. Americans have got fatter over 40 years, but Republican women probably care more about enhancing their looks than Democratic women do.
The American South has far worst obesity than the rest of the US. That suggests Republicans are the larger bellied.
The whole thing's a nightmare and, I suspect, making us something of a laughing stock around the world. The nation that had it all and threw it away to go back to the thirties.
The thirties being when we rejected the fascist philosophies that underpinned governments in other European countries? The thirties being when we stood firm for individual liberties and against a centralising force in Europe?
Hopefully we will do so again but the juxtaposition is unfortunate wouldn't you agree?
Edit. - I have to go and play the organ including blowing an 8 foot horn. Have a good morning.
Yes - although Mosley was a Labour MP before he became a wannabe dictator.
(Why @OldKingCole as a remainer, chose to highlight that decade, I don't know...)
I am not OKC but I would point out that liberalism was the big loser from the clash of ideologies in the 1930s, as Stalinism and fascism agreed on their hatred of liberals. Liberalism was ascendent after the War as people said never again and liberal institutions like the EU were set up to make it happen. Liberalism is under attack again by movements such as Brexit and Trump as it is blamed for ruining people's lifestyles with globalisation and the Credit Crunch
The EU is not a force for liberalism. It’s like the Zentrum in Weimar’s Germany: Consensus, conformity and centralisation.
Just because it’s not facist or Stalinist it doesn’t mean it’s liberal
It always seems to be assumed that the EU exists now in its final form; I see no reason to believe that that will be thae case. In particular it seems to me that the Parliament will gradually achieve greater powers at the expense of the Council of Ministers and of the Commission. Yes there is a democratic deficit, but not, I suggest much greater than in the UK.
Disagree. Until there are proper pan-European political parties there is a deficit because a voter can’t vote for s party that can set the agenda (because there are none). It’s the same problem with PR - too much power to the parties and too little to the voters
Some interesting research from the 70's US indicating that republicans were more attractive than lefties. Might well have been true then as the Republican brand attracted the monied and educated gene pool.
But looking at the crowds of illiterate inbred notrights chanting "lock her up" at many of Trump stump speeches I think we can safely assume things have changed.
Well, Melania and Ivanka are very good-looking. Americans have got fatter over 40 years, but Republican women probably care more about enhancing their looks than Democratic women do.
I doubt very much Melania and Ivanka are ideological Republicans.
Unfortunately I have a soft spot for Melania who is a stunningly attractive woman...Ivanka doesn't float my boat. She looks really quite odd.
The whole thing's a nightmare and, I suspect, making us something of a laughing stock around the world. The nation that had it all and threw it away to go back to the thirties.
The thirties being when we rejected the fascist philosophies that underpinned governments in other European countries? The thirties being when we stood firm for individual liberties and against a centralising force in Europe?
Hopefully we will do so again but the juxtaposition is unfortunate wouldn't you agree?
Edit. - I have to go and play the organ including blowing an 8 foot horn. Have a good morning.
Yes - although Mosley was a Labour MP before he became a wannabe dictator.
(Why @OldKingCole as a remainer, chose to highlight that decade, I don't know...)
Yes Mosley was a Labour MP for a while, but he was actually elected as a Conservative. Not sure either fact is particularly relevant to the debate, but I wonder why you would mention one and not the other?
Because I didn't know...
According to wiki he was originally elected in 1918 as a Tory at the age of 21, but by 1922 (it doesn't say when) he had resigned the whip and successfully defended his seat as an independent against the Tories in 1922 and 1923.He joined Labour in March 1924, was elected as a Labour MP in 1926, and was a Labour Cabinet Minister in 1929-31.
Based on that it seems fair to characterise him as a Labour politician despite his youthful folly
You didn't know? Is that another area of politics that doesn't interest you?
Nothing about the interwar period is interesting!
Clearly you have never heard of the Rector of Stiffkey.
It's pronounced 'Stewkey' but it's aposite to pronounce it phonetically given the context..
A randy priest is nothing exceptional
Although Annie Horniman was an appropriate name...
Some interesting research from the 70's US indicating that republicans were more attractive than lefties. Might well have been true then as the Republican brand attracted the monied and educated gene pool.
But looking at the crowds of illiterate inbred notrights chanting "lock her up" at many of Trump stump speeches I think we can safely assume things have changed.
Well, Melania and Ivanka are very good-looking. Americans have got fatter over 40 years, but Republican women probably care more about enhancing their looks than Democratic women do.
The American South has far worst obesity than the rest of the US. That suggests Republicans are the larger bellied.
Obesity in the US and UK are closely linked to poverty. Unhealthy food is cheap food in our society.
African Americans are 1.5 times more likely to be obese than the general US population. Hardly a major Republican voting demographic - but a large share of the electorate in the Deep South compared to the rest of the US.
I see PBers who were slipping on their own ejaculate in their rush to identify Corbyn as the terrorists' pal hours after the Manchester bombing are now trying the related 'party of Holocaust deniers' gambit.
As a famous Jocko Norman allegedly said, try, try and try again. I'm sure it'll work one of these days lads.
They also say that the Labour Party is being secretly run by the shadowy Momentum group led by Jon Lansman who is.... er... Jewish.
There is sometimes a confusion between Fascism and Nazism. All Nazis are Fascist, but not all Fascists are Nazis. Nazis are anti-Semitic, Fascists do not have to be (although some may be). Mussolini even had a Jewish mistress at one time, Margherita Sarfatti, although she left him and moved to South America when under pressure from Hitler Mussolini started his own persecutions of the Jews. Franco would have been happy to persecute Jews if it would get him other things he wanted, but as it would not have done so in the end he did nothing. And of course how often are we told the government of Israel - which when last I checked had a fairly substantial number of Jews in it - is Fascist by its critics, especially on the left?
The fact that Lansman is Jewish is not relevant to whether Momentum is a fascist organisation or not. Arguably the key thing to set against the idea it is fascist is that it still seems to be largely committed to the democratic process. It does however have unsavoury racist and authoritarian overtones that could become Fascistic in time.
Franco was a very pragmatic dictator. He gave refuge to Jews as a form of insurance, in case the Axis lost.
I do not think Franco had it in him to pursue a bigger, bolder sort of ideological puritanism.
He was probably fourth or fifth in command when the coup was launched, and all of those above were more charismatic.
I see PBers who were slipping on their own ejaculate in their rush to identify Corbyn as the terrorists' pal hours after the Manchester bombing are now trying the related 'party of Holocaust deniers' gambit.
As a famous Jocko Norman allegedly said, try, try and try again. I'm sure it'll work one of these days lads.
They also say that the Labour Party is being secretly run by the shadowy Momentum group led by Jon Lansman who is.... er... Jewish.
There is sometimes a confusion between Fascism and Nazism. All Nazis are Fascist, but not all Fascists are Nazis. Nazis are anti-Semitic, Fascists do not have to be (although some may be). Mussolini even had a Jewish mistress at one time, Margherita Sarfatti, although she left him and moved to South America when under pressure from Hitler Mussolini started his own persecutions of the Jews. Franco would have been happy to persecute Jews if it would get him other things he wanted, but as it would not have done so in the end he did nothing. And of course how often are we told the government of Israel - which when last I checked had a fairly substantial number of Jews in it - is Fascist by its critics, especially on the left?
The fact that Lansman is Jewish is not relevant to whether Momentum is a fascist organisation or not. Arguably the key thing to set against the idea it is fascist is that it still seems to be largely committed to the democratic process. It does however have unsavoury racist and authoritarian overtones that could become Fascistic in time.
There is a tendency for any kind of Fascism to end up anti-Semitic because one if the sniff tests for Fascism is its need to define an enemy within who are 'other' than 'us' and need to be removed as a barrier to 'us' achieving our potential destiny - the Jews are often an easy fit.
But isnt Labours problem more about its view that Palestinians = Good, Israel = Bad (and our fault) in the middle East which has somehow ended up conflating Israel with Jewishness
I see PBers who were slipping on their own ejaculate in their rush to identify Corbyn as the terrorists' pal hours after the Manchester bombing are now trying the related 'party of Holocaust deniers' gambit.
As a famous Jocko Norman allegedly said, try, try and try again. I'm sure it'll work one of these days lads.
They also say that the Labour Party is being secretly run by the shadowy Momentum group led by Jon Lansman who is.... er... Jewish.
There is sometimes a confusion between Fascism and Nazism. All Nazis are Fascist, but not all Fascists are Nazis. Nazis are anti-Semitic, Fascists do not have to be (although some may be). Mussolini even had a Jewish mistress at one time, Margherita Sarfatti, although she left him and moved to South America when under pressure from Hitler Mussolini started his own persecutions of the Jews. Franco would have been happy to persecute Jews if it would get him other things he wanted, but as it would not have done so in the end he did nothing. And of course how often are we told the government of Israel - which when last I checked had a fairly substantial number of Jews in it - is Fascist by its critics, especially on the left?
The fact that Lansman is Jewish is not relevant to whether Momentum is a fascist organisation or not. Arguably the key thing to set against the idea it is fascist is that it still seems to be largely committed to the democratic process. It does however have unsavoury racist and authoritarian overtones that could become Fascistic in time.
Franco was a very pragmatic dictator. He gave refuge to Jews as a form of insurance, in case the Axis lost.
Was Spain one of the Axis powers? I'd always thought it slightly odd that Hitler seemed to have made no real effort to ally with Franco (or with Japan for that matter). Perhaps it is as well that the Nazis believed their own propaganda.
I see PBers who were slipping on their own ejaculate in their rush to identify Corbyn as the terrorists' pal hours after the Manchester bombing are now trying the related 'party of Holocaust deniers' gambit.
As a famous Jocko Norman allegedly said, try, try and try again. I'm sure it'll work one of these days lads.
They also say that the Labour Party is being secretly run by the shadowy Momentum group led by Jon Lansman who is.... er... Jewish.
There is sometimes a confusion between Fascism and Nazism. All Nazis are Fascist, but not all Fascists are Nazis. Nazis are anti-Semitic, Fascists do not have to be (although some may be). Mussolini even had a Jewish mistress at one time, Margherita Sarfatti, although she left him and moved to South America when under pressure from Hitler Mussolini started his own persecutions of the Jews. Franco would have been happy to persecute Jews if it would get him other things he wanted, but as it would not have done so in the end he did nothing. And of course how often are we told the government of Israel - which when last I checked had a fairly substantial number of Jews in it - is Fascist by its critics, especially on the left?
The fact that Lansman is Jewish is not relevant to whether Momentum is a fascist organisation or not. Arguably the key thing to set against the idea it is fascist is that it still seems to be largely committed to the democratic process. It does however have unsavoury racist and authoritarian overtones that could become Fascistic in time.
Franco was a very pragmatic dictator. He gave refuge to Jews as a form of insurance, in case the Axis lost.
Was Spain one of the Axis powers? I'd always thought it slightly odd that Hitler seemed to have made no real effort to ally with Franco (or with Japan for that matter). Perhaps it is as well that the Nazis believed their own propaganda.
In short, Franco set Spain's price too high. In particular, Franco made regaining territories in Africa a red line. The Rif war had been a national embarrassment, and the Army of Africa held some of Franco's most loyal supporters, so perhaps not too surprising.
The whole thing's a nightmare and, I suspect, making us something of a laughing stock around the world. The nation that had it all and threw it away to go back to the thirties.
The thirties being when we rejected the fascist philosophies that underpinned governments in other European countries? The thirties being when we stood firm for individual liberties and against a centralising force in Europe?
Hopefully we will do so again but the juxtaposition is unfortunate wouldn't you agree?
Edit. - I have to go and play the organ including blowing an 8 foot horn. Have a good morning.
Yes - although Mosley was a Labour MP before he became a wannabe dictator.
(Why @OldKingCole as a remainer, chose to highlight that decade, I don't know...)
Yes Mosley was a Labour MP for a while, but he was actually elected as a Conservative. Not sure either fact is particularly relevant to the debate, but I wonder why you would mention one and not the other?
Because I didn't know...
According to wiki he was originally elected in 1918 as a Tory at the age of 21, but by 1922 (it doesn't say when) he had resigned the whip and successfully defended his seat as an independent against the Tories in 1922 and 1923.He joined Labour in March 1924, was elected as a Labour MP in 1926, and was a Labour Cabinet Minister in 1929-31.
Based on that it seems fair to characterise him as a Labour politician despite his youthful folly
You didn't know? Is that another area of politics that doesn't interest you?
Nothing about the interwar period is interesting!
Clearly you have never heard of the Rector of Stiffkey.
It's pronounced 'Stewkey' but it's aposite to pronounce it phonetically given the context..
A randy priest is nothing exceptional
Although Annie Horniman was an appropriate name...
I see PBers who were slipping on their own ejaculate in their rush to identify Corbyn as the terrorists' pal hours after the Manchester bombing are now trying the related 'party of Holocaust deniers' gambit.
As a famous Jocko Norman allegedly said, try, try and try again. I'm sure it'll work one of these days lads.
They also say that the Labour Party is being secretly run by the shadowy Momentum group led by Jon Lansman who is.... er... Jewish.
There is sometimes a confusion between Fascism and Nazism. All Nazis are Fascist, but not all Fascists are Nazis. Nazis are anti-Semitic, Fascists do not have to be (although some may be). Mussolini even had a Jewish mistress at one time, Margherita Sarfatti, although she left him and moved to South America when under pressure from Hitler Mussolini started his own persecutions of the Jews. Franco would have been happy to persecute Jews if it would get him other things he wanted, but as it would not have done so in the end he did nothing. And of course how often are we told the government of Israel - which when last I checked had a fairly substantial number of Jews in it - is Fascist by its critics, especially on the left?
The fact that Lansman is Jewish is not relevant to whether Momentum is a fascist organisation or not. Arguably the key thing to set against the idea it is fascist is that it still seems to be largely committed to the democratic process. It does however have unsavoury racist and authoritarian overtones that could become Fascistic in time.
Franco was a very pragmatic dictator. He gave refuge to Jews as a form of insurance, in case the Axis lost.
I do not think Franco had it in him to pursue a bigger, bolder sort of ideological puritanism.
He was probably fourth or fifth in command when the coup was launched, and all of those above were more charismatic.
But for chance Spain could have come under the leadership of Sanjurjo or Primo de Rivera.
The whole thing's a nightmare and, I suspect, making us something of a laughing stock around the world. The nation that had it all and threw it away to go back to the thirties.
The thirties being when we rejected the fascist philosophies that underpinned governments in other European countries? The thirties being when we stood firm for individual liberties and against a centralising force in Europe?
Hopefully we will do so again but the juxtaposition is unfortunate wouldn't you agree?
Edit. - I have to go and play the organ including blowing an 8 foot horn. Have a good morning.
Yes - although Mosley was a Labour MP before he became a wannabe dictator.
(Why @OldKingCole as a remainer, chose to highlight that decade, I don't know...)
I am not OKC but I would point out that liberalism was the big loser from the clash of ideologies in the 1930s, as Stalinism and fascism agreed on their hatred of liberals. Liberalism was ascendent after the War as people said never again and liberal institutions like the EU were set up to make it happen. Liberalism is under attack again by movements such as Brexit and Trump as it is blamed for ruining people's lifestyles with globalisation and the Credit Crunch
The EU is not a force for liberalism. It’s like the Zentrum in Weimar’s Germany: Consensus, conformity and centralisation.
Just because it’s not facist or Stalinist it doesn’t mean it’s liberal
It always seems to be assumed that the EU exists now in its final form; I see no reason to believe that that will be thae case. In particular it seems to me that the Parliament will gradually achieve greater powers at the expense of the Council of Ministers and of the Commission. Yes there is a democratic deficit, but not, I suggest much greater than in the UK.
Disagree. Until there are proper pan-European political parties there is a deficit because a voter can’t vote for s party that can set the agenda (because there are none). It’s the same problem with PR - too much power to the parties and too little to the voters
Curiously I agree; my point was that pan European institutions are evolving as we watch, and that includes political parties.
I see PBers who were slipping on their own ejaculate in their rush to identify Corbyn as the terrorists' pal hours after the Manchester bombing are now trying the related 'party of Holocaust deniers' gambit.
As a famous Jocko Norman allegedly said, try, try and try again. I'm sure it'll work one of these days lads.
They also say that the Labour Party is being secretly run by the shadowy Momentum group led by Jon Lansman who is.... er... Jewish.
There is sometimes a confusion between Fascism and Nazism. All Nazis are Fascist, but not all Fascists are Nazis. Nazis are anti-Semitic, Fascists do not have to be (although some may be). Mussolini even had a Jewish mistress at one time, Margherita Sarfatti, although she left him and moved to South America when under pressure from Hitler Mussolini started his own persecutions of the Jews. Franco would have been happy to persecute Jews if it would get him other things he wanted, but as it would not have done so in the end he did nothing. And of course how often are we told the government of Israel - which when last I checked had a fairly substantial number of Jews in it - is Fascist by its critics, especially on the left?
The fact that Lansman is Jewish is not relevant to whether Momentum is a fascist organisation or not. Arguably the key thing to set against the idea it is fascist is that it still seems to be largely committed to the democratic process. It does however have unsavoury racist and authoritarian overtones that could become Fascistic in time.
Franco was a very pragmatic dictator. He gave refuge to Jews as a form of insurance, in case the Axis lost.
Was Spain one of the Axis powers? I'd always thought it slightly odd that Hitler seemed to have made no real effort to ally with Franco (or with Japan for that matter). Perhaps it is as well that the Nazis believed their own propaganda.
He made strenuous efforts in 1940/41 to get Franco to join his war. Franco entirely agreed in principle, while raising one practical objection after another. He did send a Division of fascist volunteers to the Eastern front, though.
Germany's defeat entirely cancelled the debts that the Nationalists had incurred to them during the Civil War.
Franco was a very pragmatic dictator. He gave refuge to Jews as a form of insurance, in case the Axis lost.
Was Spain one of the Axis powers? I'd always thought it slightly odd that Hitler seemed to have made no real effort to ally with Franco (or with Japan for that matter). Perhaps it is as well that the Nazis believed their own propaganda.
In short, Franco set Spain's price too high. In particular, Franco made regaining territories in Africa a red line. The Rif war had been a national embarrassment, and the Army of Africa held some of Franco's most loyal supporters, so perhaps not too surprising.
The neutrality of Franco's Spain was also helped by the British Government's decision to throw money at him to keep him out of WWII. It was one of the unsung British achievements of WWII and utterly crucial: if Spain had gone Axis, then that's Gibraltar gone and the Med is a Fascist lake.
The whole thing's a nightmare and, I suspect, making us something of a laughing stock around the world. The nation that had it all and threw it away to go back to the thirties.
The thirties being when we rejected the fascist philosophies that underpinned governments in other European countries? The thirties being when we stood firm for individual liberties and against a centralising force in Europe?
Hopefully we will do so again but the juxtaposition is unfortunate wouldn't you agree?
Edit. - I have to go and play the organ including blowing an 8 foot horn. Have a good morning.
Yes - although Mosley was a Labour MP before he became a wannabe dictator.
(Why @OldKingCole as a remainer, chose to highlight that decade, I don't know...)
I am not OKC but I would point out that liberalism was the big loser from the clash of ideologies in the 1930s, as Stalinism and fascism agreed on their hatred of liberals. Liberalism was ascendent after the War as people said never again and liberal institutions like the EU were set up to make it happen. Liberalism is under attack again by movements such as Brexit and Trump as it is blamed for ruining people's lifestyles with globalisation and the Credit Crunch
The EU is not a force for liberalism. It’s like the Zentrum in Weimar’s Germany: Consensus, conformity and centralisation.
Just because it’s not facist or Stalinist it doesn’t mean it’s liberal
It always seems to be assumed that the EU exists now in its final form; I see no reason to believe that that will be thae case. In particular it seems to me that the Parliament will gradually achieve greater powers at the expense of the Council of Ministers and of the Commission. Yes there is a democratic deficit, but not, I suggest much greater than in the UK.
Disagree. Until there are proper pan-European political parties there is a deficit because a voter can’t vote for s party that can set the agenda (because there are none). It’s the same problem with PR - too much power to the parties and too little to the voters
Curiously I agree; my point was that pan European institutions are evolving as we watch, and that includes political parties.
Not while one of their leaders prefers to lead his national party (thinking of Schultz)
Disagree. Until there are proper pan-European political parties there is a deficit because a voter can’t vote for s party that can set the agenda (because there are none). It’s the same problem with PR - too much power to the parties and too little to the voters
But now you're assuming that the existing pan-European parties aren't "real" parties. That assumption only holds if you think political parties are single organisations with a single register of personal members, as opposed to a looser set of affiliated member parties. That's arguably not true of the British Conservative party (until recent reorganisations: perhaps somebody can remind me?) or of the American Democratic Party (which is an association of state parties), and is arguably irrelevant in an Eastern European sense, which doesn't have a longstanding tradition of political parties period and to whom the list system is more comprehensible.
Stop thinking the world organises itself in the same way that the UK or US does. The world is weird, and so are we...
Labour's Jewish problem has been conflated by losing the support of intellectual Jews following the political rise of Islamism...the likes of Nick Cohen and his ilk who discovered to their dismay that some parts of Labour were lending a sympathetic ear to some 'orrible, facist, anti semites living within Islamic groups..
Even for an old school lefty like myself the Israel question poses existential questions as Israel resorts to ever more hardline positions to counter the Islamic terrorist threat within the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah....
I re-watched the Battle of Algiers the other day detailing the Islamic Algerian uprising against the French in the 50's...an unsentimental, surprisingly objective masterpiece and still undoubtedly the greatest work about military Islamism I have ever seen.
Franco was a very pragmatic dictator. He gave refuge to Jews as a form of insurance, in case the Axis lost.
Was Spain one of the Axis powers? I'd always thought it slightly odd that Hitler seemed to have made no real effort to ally with Franco (or with Japan for that matter). Perhaps it is as well that the Nazis believed their own propaganda.
In short, Franco set Spain's price too high. In particular, Franco made regaining territories in Africa a red line. The Rif war had been a national embarrassment, and the Army of Africa held some of Franco's most loyal supporters, so perhaps not too surprising.
The neutrality of Franco's Spain was also helped by the British Government's decision to throw money at him to keep him out of WWII. It was one of the unsung British achievements of WWII and utterly crucial: if Spain had gone Axis, then that's Gibraltar gone and the Med is a Fascist lake.
A Fascist lake with opportunities for Atlantropa which makes even Boris's bridge over the Channel look small minded - I think in the Man In The High Castle that project has been completed.
Disagree. Until there are proper pan-European political parties there is a deficit because a voter can’t vote for s party that can set the agenda (because there are none). It’s the same problem with PR - too much power to the parties and too little to the voters
But now you're assuming that the existing pan-European parties aren't "real" parties. That assumption only holds if you think political parties are single organisations with a single register of personal members, as opposed to a looser set of affiliated member parties. That's arguably not true of the British Conservative party (until recent reorganisations: perhaps somebody can remind me?) or of the American Democratic Party (which is an association of state parties), and is arguably irrelevant in an Eastern European sense, which doesn't have a longstanding tradition of political parties period and to whom the list system is more comprehensible.
Stop thinking the world organises itself in the same way that the UK or US does. The world is weird, and so are we...
My understanding was the main blocks in the EP are groupings of national parties.
If that is the case then a UK voter can't determine the policy of whichever grouping their respective party belongs to. There is no guarantee that the manifesto they vote for will represent the settled view of the pan-European grouping.
The difference with the UK model is that the coalition of parties agrees a common manifesto so the voters know what they are voting for (albeit with no guarantee that manifesto will be implemented)
Disagree. Until there are proper pan-European political parties there is a deficit because a voter can’t vote for s party that can set the agenda (because there are none). It’s the same problem with PR - too much power to the parties and too little to the voters
But now you're assuming that the existing pan-European parties aren't "real" parties. That assumption only holds if you think political parties are single organisations with a single register of personal members, as opposed to a looser set of affiliated member parties. That's arguably not true of the British Conservative party (until recent reorganisations: perhaps somebody can remind me?) or of the American Democratic Party (which is an association of state parties), and is arguably irrelevant in an Eastern European sense, which doesn't have a longstanding tradition of political parties period and to whom the list system is more comprehensible.
Stop thinking the world organises itself in the same way that the UK or US does. The world is weird, and so are we...
My understanding was the main blocks in the EP are groupings of national parties.
If that is the case then a UK voter can't determine the policy of whichever grouping their respective party belongs to. There is no guarantee that the manifesto they vote for will represent the settled view of the pan-European grouping.
The difference with the UK model is that the coalition of parties agrees a common manifesto so the voters know what they are voting for (albeit with no guarantee that manifesto will be implemented)
The choice is clear.
We can play a role in developing Europe, or we can turn our backs on the Community.
By turning our backs we would forfeit our right to influence what happens in the Community.
But what happens in the Community will inevitably affect us.
The European Community is a powerful group of nations.
With Britain as a member, it is more powerful; without Britain it will still be powerful.
We can play a leading role in Europe, but if that leadership is not forthcoming Europe will develop without Britain.
Britain, if she denounced a treaty, cannot then complain if Europe develops in conflict with Britain's interests.
Not while one of their leaders prefers to lead his national party (thinking of Schultz)
Schulz resigned as an MEP and Antonio Tajani has been President of the European Parliament for over a year.
That was my point: Schulz preferred to lead the SDP in Germany vs be President of the European Parliament (and, I think, the head of the socialist grouping in the EP).
While that is the case you don't really have pan-European parties.
Franco was a very pragmatic dictator. He gave refuge to Jews as a form of insurance, in case the Axis lost.
Was Spain one of the Axis powers? I'd always thought it slightly odd that Hitler seemed to have made no real effort to ally with Franco (or with Japan for that matter). Perhaps it is as well that the Nazis believed their own propaganda.
In short, Franco set Spain's price too high. In particular, Franco made regaining territories in Africa a red line. The Rif war had been a national embarrassment, and the Army of Africa held some of Franco's most loyal supporters, so perhaps not too surprising.
The neutrality of Franco's Spain was also helped by the British Government's decision to throw money at him to keep him out of WWII. It was one of the unsung British achievements of WWII and utterly crucial: if Spain had gone Axis, then that's Gibraltar gone and the Med is a Fascist lake.
A Fascist lake with opportunities for Atlantropa which makes even Boris's bridge over the Channel look small minded - I think in the Man In The High Castle that project has been completed.
A characteristically optimistic headline from TSE, I thought.
But I'm not convinced the optimism of the "if" is merited. Right now uncertainty is all that's keeping the Conservative party together. We currently have Schrodinger's Brexit. No-one knows whether it'll be soft or hard until Mrs May opens the box, and until then, the two factions in the Conservatives can co-exist.
That ends as soon as the box opens. From then on, how do Rudd and Rees-Mogg, Patel and Soubry, co-exist in the same party? I can't see it. Cameron and May have managed to sunder the longest-lasting coalition in British politics.
If one thing does preserve the Conservatives it will be FPTP - the sheer unlikelihood of a splinter party getting a foothold under our electoral system. But if you want an interesting thought experiment, ask yourself how a three-way Alliance - an Umunna-led SDP, Swinson-led LibDems (or, more likely, Layla Moran-led), and a Clarkeite One Nation Tory party - might fare at the next election against Corbyn-led Labour and JRM-led Conservatives.
Labour's Jewish problem has been conflated by losing the support of intellectual Jews following the political rise of Islamism...the likes of Nick Cohen and his ilk who discovered to their dismay that some parts of Labour were lending a sympathetic ear to some 'orrible, facist, anti semites living within Islamic groups..
Even for an old school lefty like myself the Israel question poses existential questions as Israel resorts to ever more hardline positions to counter the Islamic terrorist threat within the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah....
I re-watched the Battle of Algiers the other day detailing the Islamic Algerian uprising against the French in the 50's...an unsentimental, surprisingly objective masterpiece and still undoubtedly the greatest work about military Islamism I have ever seen.
That war raises interesting questions about how far a minority is entitled to go to defend itself from persecution. The French (and Algerian Jews) faced genocide in a free Algeria, but they were undoubtedly a fairly small minority, whose survival depended on denying freedom to the majority. But the same is true of the Rwandan Tutsi.
Disagree. Until there are proper pan-European political parties there is a deficit because a voter can’t vote for s party that can set the agenda (because there are none). It’s the same problem with PR - too much power to the parties and too little to the voters
But now you're assuming that the existing pan-European parties aren't "real" parties. That assumption only holds if you think political parties are single organisations with a single register of personal members, as opposed to a looser set of affiliated member parties. That's arguably not true of the British Conservative party (until recent reorganisations: perhaps somebody can remind me?) or of the American Democratic Party (which is an association of state parties), and is arguably irrelevant in an Eastern European sense, which doesn't have a longstanding tradition of political parties period and to whom the list system is more comprehensible.
Stop thinking the world organises itself in the same way that the UK or US does. The world is weird, and so are we...
My understanding was the main blocks in the EP are groupings of national parties.
If that is the case then a UK voter can't determine the policy of whichever grouping their respective party belongs to. There is no guarantee that the manifesto they vote for will represent the settled view of the pan-European grouping.
The difference with the UK model is that the coalition of parties agrees a common manifesto so the voters know what they are voting for (albeit with no guarantee that manifesto will be implemented)
The choice is clear.
We can play a role in developing Europe, or we can turn our backs on the Community.
By turning our backs we would forfeit our right to influence what happens in the Community.
But what happens in the Community will inevitably affect us.
The European Community is a powerful group of nations.
With Britain as a member, it is more powerful; without Britain it will still be powerful.
We can play a leading role in Europe, but if that leadership is not forthcoming Europe will develop without Britain.
Britain, if she denounced a treaty, cannot then complain if Europe develops in conflict with Britain's interests.
- Margaret Thatcher
Sure. The European Community was a good thing. But not the same as the European Union.
I see PBers who were slipping on their own ejaculate in their rush to identify Corbyn as the terrorists' pal hours after the Manchester bombing are now trying the related 'party of Holocaust deniers' gambit.
As a famous Jocko Norman allegedly said, try, try and try again. I'm sure it'll work one of these days lads.
They also say that the Labour Party is being secretly run by the shadowy Momentum group led by Jon Lansman who is.... er... Jewish.
There is sometimes a confusion between Fascism and Nazism. All Nazis are Fascist, but not all Fascists are Nazis. Nazis are anti-Semitic, Fascists do not have to be (although some may be). Mussolini even had a Jewish mistress at one time, Margherita Sarfatti, although she left him and moved to South America when under pressure from Hitler Mussolini started his own persecutions of the Jews. Franco would have been happy to persecute Jews if it would get him other things he wanted, but as it would not have done so in the end he did nothing. And of course how often are we told the government of Israel - which when last I checked had a fairly substantial number of Jews in it - is Fascist by its critics, especially on the left?
The fact that Lansman is Jewish is not relevant to whether Momentum is a fascist organisation or not. Arguably the key thing to set against the idea it is fascist is that it still seems to be largely committed to the democratic process. It does however have unsavoury racist and authoritarian overtones that could become Fascistic in time.
Franco was a very pragmatic dictator. He gave refuge to Jews as a form of insurance, in case the Axis lost.
Was Spain one of the Axis powers? I'd always thought it slightly odd that Hitler seemed to have made no real effort to ally with Franco (or with Japan for that matter). Perhaps it is as well that the Nazis believed their own propaganda.
He made strenuous efforts in 1940/41 to get Franco to join his war. Franco entirely agreed in principle, while raising one practical objection after another. He did send a Division of fascist volunteers to the Eastern front, though.
Germany's defeat entirely cancelled the debts that the Nationalists had incurred to them during the Civil War.
They'd already paid it several times over, but there you go.
Disagree. Until there are proper pan-European political parties there is a deficit because a voter can’t vote for s party that can set the agenda (because there are none). It’s the same problem with PR - too much power to the parties and too little to the voters
But now you're assuming that the existing pan-European parties aren't "real" parties. That assumption only holds if you think political parties are single organisations with a single register of personal members, as opposed to a looser set of affiliated member parties. That's arguably not true of the British Conservative party (until recent reorganisations: perhaps somebody can remind me?) or of the American Democratic Party (which is an association of state parties), and is arguably irrelevant in an Eastern European sense, which doesn't have a longstanding tradition of political parties period and to whom the list system is more comprehensible.
Stop thinking the world organises itself in the same way that the UK or US does. The world is weird, and so are we...
My understanding was the main blocks in the EP are groupings of national parties.
If that is the case then a UK voter can't determine the policy of whichever grouping their respective party belongs to. There is no guarantee that the manifesto they vote for will represent the settled view of the pan-European grouping.
The difference with the UK model is that the coalition of parties agrees a common manifesto so the voters know what they are voting for (albeit with no guarantee that manifesto will be implemented)
Fair point, but you can see the way the wind is blowing on this one...
Disagree. Until there are proper pan-European political parties there is a deficit because a voter can’t vote for s party that can set the agenda (because there are none). It’s the same problem with PR - too much power to the parties and too little to the voters
But now you're assuming that the existing pan-European parties aren't "real" parties. That assumption only holds if you think political parties are single organisations with a single register of personal members, as opposed to a looser set of affiliated member parties. That's arguably not true of the British Conservative party (until recent reorganisations: perhaps somebody can remind me?) or of the American Democratic Party (which is an association of state parties), and is arguably irrelevant in an Eastern European sense, which doesn't have a longstanding tradition of political parties period and to whom the list system is more comprehensible.
Stop thinking the world organises itself in the same way that the UK or US does. The world is weird, and so are we...
My understanding was the main blocks in the EP are groupings of national parties.
If that is the case then a UK voter can't determine the policy of whichever grouping their respective party belongs to. There is no guarantee that the manifesto they vote for will represent the settled view of the pan-European grouping.
The difference with the UK model is that the coalition of parties agrees a common manifesto so the voters know what they are voting for (albeit with no guarantee that manifesto will be implemented)
The choice is clear.
We can play a role in developing Europe, or we can turn our backs on the Community.
By turning our backs we would forfeit our right to influence what happens in the Community.
But what happens in the Community will inevitably affect us.
The European Community is a powerful group of nations.
With Britain as a member, it is more powerful; without Britain it will still be powerful.
We can play a leading role in Europe, but if that leadership is not forthcoming Europe will develop without Britain.
Britain, if she denounced a treaty, cannot then complain if Europe develops in conflict with Britain's interests.
- Margaret Thatcher
Sure. The European Community was a good thing. But not the same as the European Union.
Franco was a very pragmatic dictator. He gave refuge to Jews as a form of insurance, in case the Axis lost.
Was Spain one of the Axis powers? I'd always thought it slightly odd that Hitler seemed to have made no real effort to ally with Franco (or with Japan for that matter). Perhaps it is as well that the Nazis believed their own propaganda.
In short, Franco set Spain's price too high. In particular, Franco made regaining territories in Africa a red line. The Rif war had been a national embarrassment, and the Army of Africa held some of Franco's most loyal supporters, so perhaps not too surprising.
The neutrality of Franco's Spain was also helped by the British Government's decision to throw money at him to keep him out of WWII. It was one of the unsung British achievements of WWII and utterly crucial: if Spain had gone Axis, then that's Gibraltar gone and the Med is a Fascist lake.
A Fascist lake with opportunities for Atlantropa which makes even Boris's bridge over the Channel look small minded - I think in the Man In The High Castle that project has been completed.
Disagree. Until there are proper pan-European political parties there is a deficit because a voter can’t vote for s party that can set the agenda (because there are none). It’s the same problem with PR - too much power to the parties and too little to the voters
But now you're assuming that the existing pan-European parties aren't "real" parties. That assumption only holds if you think political parties are single organisations with a single register of personal members, as opposed to a looser set of affiliated member parties. That's arguably not true of the British Conservative party (until recent reorganisations: perhaps somebody can remind me?) or of the American Democratic Party (which is an association of state parties), and is arguably irrelevant in an Eastern European sense, which doesn't have a longstanding tradition of political parties period and to whom the list system is more comprehensible.
Stop thinking the world organises itself in the same way that the UK or US does. The world is weird, and so are we...
My understanding was the main blocks in the EP are groupings of national parties.
If that is the case then a UK voter can't determine the policy of whichever grouping their respective party belongs to. There is no guarantee that the manifesto they vote for will represent the settled view of the pan-European grouping.
The difference with the UK model is that the coalition of parties agrees a common manifesto so the voters know what they are voting for (albeit with no guarantee that manifesto will be implemented)
The EPP party grouping which 'won' the last two European parliamentary elections got precisely zero votes in the UK. Jean Claude Juncker became Commission President primarily because he was that party grouping's nominee.
If you cannot actually vote for the people who rule over you and all that........
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change.
I think of it as a catalyst for change too. It will crush the Eurosceptic minority that has been a debilitating influence on our politics for 20 years and instead allow us to move on and focus on the real issues having made a definitive choice in favour of playing a full role in the EU.
The eurosceptic minority you refer to was not effective until the referendum. Successive UK governments pushed forward with EU integration as much as a somewhat eurosceptic electorate would allow. I think there is little love for the EU in the wider UK electorate.
I may be wrong, but I don't think we would want to play a full part in the EU as it currently is or where it is heading towards (a federal state) without 2 key reforms.
Firstly, fixing the economic contradiction. Some parts of the EU are much richer than others. This is a large drive fro people moving under freedom of movement. We would either have to reverse the Euro and allow local devaluation to stimulate local economic growth or increase fund transfers from richer areas to poorer ones (from memory I think it's currently about 0.5% of EU GDP is transferred whereas in the UK we transfer about 5% of UK GDP to poorer regions). Would the UK electorate accept say 10x more annual contributions to the EU than now, or retain full freedom of movement?
Secondly, fixing the democratic deficit. We elect MEPs, our government propose commissioners and we get to agree changes at head of state level - but given the degree of compromise necessary across 27 states in practice we can never stop what other members of the club want to do. As there is no longer a veto, we could never get rid of those who run the commission or reverse laws we did not like. History shows that to be a really bad idea as those that govern need to be afraid of the people.
Look at what has happened in recent years: what was imposed on Greece (financial constraint and pain), Italy (technocratic government), Ireland (vote again until you give the result we want), France and Denmark (ignore votes on the EU constitution, rename it the Lisbon Treaty and push it through anyway) - do you detect any interest in reform?
My worry is that states that are formed as a political entities with such contradictions of culture, economics and control have not ended well: the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia for example. The United States is a success but they had to go through a civil war to bind the union.
Disagree. Until there are proper pan-European political parties there is a deficit because a voter can’t vote for s party that can set the agenda (because there are none). It’s the same problem with PR - too much power to the parties and too little to the voters
But now you're assuming that the existing pan-European parties aren't "real" parties. That assumption only holds if you think political parties are single organisations with a single register of personal members, as opposed to a looser set of affiliated member parties. That's arguably not true of the British Conservative party (until recent reorganisations: perhaps somebody can remind me?) or of the American Democratic Party (which is an association of state parties), and is arguably irrelevant in an Eastern European sense, which doesn't have a longstanding tradition of political parties period and to whom the list system is more comprehensible.
Stop thinking the world organises itself in the same way that the UK or US does. The world is weird, and so are we...
My understanding was the main blocks in the EP are groupings of national parties.
If that is the case then a UK voter can't determine the policy of whichever grouping their respective party belongs to. There is no guarantee that the manifesto they vote for will represent the settled view of the pan-European grouping.
The difference with the UK model is that the coalition of parties agrees a common manifesto so the voters know what they are voting for (albeit with no guarantee that manifesto will be implemented)
The EPP party grouping which 'won' the last two European parliamentary elections got precisely zero votes in the UK. Jean Claude Juncker became Commission President primarily because he was that party grouping's nominee.
If you cannot actually vote for the people who rule over you and all that........
Welcome to the situation those of us who live in safe FPTP seats have endured for years.
My worry is that states that are formed as a political entities with such contradictions of culture, economics and control have not ended well: the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia for example. The United States is a success but they had to go through a civil war to bind the union.
Every member of the EU is a modern democracy. I can't see any plausible casus belli comparable to slavery that would cause the kind of breakdown that couldn't be managed politically through the institutions. The financial crisis and migration crisis of the last decade haven't led us anywhere near that kind of outcome.
Labour's Jewish problem has been conflated by losing the support of intellectual Jews following the political rise of Islamism...the likes of Nick Cohen and his ilk who discovered to their dismay that some parts of Labour were lending a sympathetic ear to some 'orrible, facist, anti semites living within Islamic groups..
Even for an old school lefty like myself the Israel question poses existential questions as Israel resorts to ever more hardline positions to counter the Islamic terrorist threat within the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah....
I re-watched the Battle of Algiers the other day detailing the Islamic Algerian uprising against the French in the 50's...an unsentimental, surprisingly objective masterpiece and still undoubtedly the greatest work about military Islamism I have ever seen.
It is a great film but IIRC religion hardly features and the independence movement is nationalist based.
Disagree. Until there are proper pan-European political parties there is a deficit because a voter can’t vote for s party that can set the agenda (because there are none). It’s the same problem with PR - too much power to the parties and too little to the voters
But now you're assuming that the existing pan-European parties aren't "real" parties. That assumption only holds if you think political parties are single organisations with a single register of personal members, as opposed to a looser set of affiliated member parties. That's arguably not true of the British Conservative party (until recent reorganisations: perhaps somebody can remind me?) or of the American Democratic Party (which is an association of state parties), and is arguably irrelevant in an Eastern European sense, which doesn't have a longstanding tradition of political parties period and to whom the list system is more comprehensible.
Stop thinking the world organises itself in the same way that the UK or US does. The world is weird, and so are we...
My understanding was the main blocks in the EP are groupings of national parties.
If that is the case then a UK voter can't determine the policy of whichever grouping their respective party belongs to. There is no guarantee that the manifesto they vote for will represent the settled view of the pan-European grouping.
The difference with the UK model is that the coalition of parties agrees a common manifesto so the voters know what they are voting for (albeit with no guarantee that manifesto will be implemented)
The EPP party grouping which 'won' the last two European parliamentary elections got precisely zero votes in the UK. Jean Claude Juncker became Commission President primarily because he was that party grouping's nominee.
If you cannot actually vote for the people who rule over you and all that........
Welcome to the situation those of us who live in safe FPTP seats have endured for years.
Not really.
You could vote Tory, Labour, Lib Dem in every seat (or their sister parties the SDLP, UUP or Alliance in NI) who between them have formed the UK government for the 30 years and more even if they lost in your seat. We could never vote for the party that won the last two EU elections and effectively picked the President.
It's one thing losing an election and your party not winning - quite another when you had no chance to vote for or against the party and candidate that won.
"if the Brexiteers had the numbers, they would have already made their move against the Prime Minister"
ne'er have truer words been spoken.
Go and read either Fall Out or All out War. They patently to have the numbers.
But they don't need to depose Mrs May; they have enough sway to do it and leave her in place.
Remember every Remainer wheeze which was going to lead a a Remain victory/stop/soften Brexit - Obama's queue, Osborne's punishment budget, Gina Miller's court case, James Chapman's new party, the Florence speech was going to signal a change to a soft Brexit etc etc etc - the golden rule of Brexit is that everything which Remainers think will help their cause does no such thing....
"if the Brexiteers had the numbers, they would have already made their move against the Prime Minister"
ne'er have truer words been spoken.
Go and read either Fall Out or All out War. They patently to have the numbers.
But they don't need to depose Mrs May; they have enough sway to do it and leave her in place.
Remember every Remainer wheeze which was going to lead a a Remain victory/stop/soften Brexit - Obama's queue, Osborne's punishment budget, Gina Miller's court case, James Chapman's new party, the Florence speech was going to signal a change to a soft Brexit etc etc etc - the golden rule of Brexit is that everything which Remainers think will help their cause does no such thing....
We have to grow our economy. Not piddly growth at 1-3% but 5%+ for years. We have to make the UK the best environment for investment, research and education that the developed world has ever seen. No level playing field with the EU - we cannot restrict ourselves to something that is trying to hold on to what we have rather than face the challenges of change. And we cannot just tax ourselves to a fairer society - we have to grow the cake before we can all have bigger portions.
What worries me is that its only some of the Brexiteers who seem to get this. I am deeply concerned that our national Civil Service, the media and our governing representatives seem to have given up and therefore we are doomed to mediocrity and decline. Brexit should be an opportunity no matter your position on it. The opportunity should be what we are talking about and planning for. Anything else is wasted effort.
In what material way would Brexit be instrumental in helping you achieve you goal other than being a catalyst for profound change? If you want the government to focus strategically on the long-term economic plan, to coin a phrase, then asking it to pull off an unrelated policy that will consume all its capacity for at least a decade seems suboptimal...
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change.
I think of it as a catalyst for change too. It will crush the Eurosceptic minority that has been a debilitating influence on our politics for 20 years and instead allow us to move on and focus on the real issues having made a definitive choice in favour of playing a full role in the EU.
In what alternative universe are eurosceptics a "minority"
A characteristically optimistic headline from TSE, I thought.
But I'm not convinced the optimism of the "if" is merited. Right now uncertainty is all that's keeping the Conservative party together. We currently have Schrodinger's Brexit. No-one knows whether it'll be soft or hard until Mrs May opens the box, and until then, the two factions in the Conservatives can co-exist.
That ends as soon as the box opens. From then on, how do Rudd and Rees-Mogg, Patel and Soubry, co-exist in the same party? I can't see it. Cameron and May have managed to sunder the longest-lasting coalition in British politics.
If one thing does preserve the Conservatives it will be FPTP - the sheer unlikelihood of a splinter party getting a foothold under our electoral system. But if you want an interesting thought experiment, ask yourself how a three-way Alliance - an Umunna-led SDP, Swinson-led LibDems (or, more likely, Layla Moran-led), and a Clarkeite One Nation Tory party - might fare at the next election against Corbyn-led Labour and JRM-led Conservatives.
Have you ever been involved in an election campaign? The single most important takeaway is that established parties have an overwhelming advantage over newcomers. In FPTP, its enough to prevent breakthrough.
A characteristically optimistic headline from TSE, I thought.
But I'm not convinced the optimism of the "if" is merited. Right now uncertainty is all that's keeping the Conservative party together. We currently have Schrodinger's Brexit. No-one knows whether it'll be soft or hard until Mrs May opens the box, and until then, the two factions in the Conservatives can co-exist.
That ends as soon as the box opens. From then on, how do Rudd and Rees-Mogg, Patel and Soubry, co-exist in the same party? I can't see it. Cameron and May have managed to sunder the longest-lasting coalition in British politics.
If one thing does preserve the Conservatives it will be FPTP - the sheer unlikelihood of a splinter party getting a foothold under our electoral system. But if you want an interesting thought experiment, ask yourself how a three-way Alliance - an Umunna-led SDP, Swinson-led LibDems (or, more likely, Layla Moran-led), and a Clarkeite One Nation Tory party - might fare at the next election against Corbyn-led Labour and JRM-led Conservatives.
Have you ever been involved in an election campaign? The single most important takeaway is that established parties have an overwhelming advantage over newcomers. In FPTP, its enough to prevent breakthrough.
You make it sound as if the Corbyn Labour Party is united.
I think we should all think of Brexit as a catalyst for change.
I think of it as a catalyst for change too. It will crush the Eurosceptic minority that has been a debilitating influence on our politics for 20 years and instead allow us to move on and focus on the real issues having made a definitive choice in favour of playing a full role in the EU.
The eurosceptic minority you refer to was not effective until the referendum. Successive UK governments pushed forward with EU integration as much as a somewhat eurosceptic electorate would allow. I think there is little love for the EU in the wider UK electorate.
I may be wrong, but I don't think we would want to play a full part in the EU as it currently is or where it is heading towards (a federal state) without 2 key reforms.
Firstly, fixing the economic contradiction. Some parts of the EU are much richer than others. This is a large drive fro people moving under freedom of movement. We would either have to reverse the Euro and allow local devaluation to stimulate local economic growth or increase fund transfers from richer areas to poorer ones (from memory I think it's currently about 0.5% of EU GDP is transferred whereas in the UK we transfer about 5% of UK GDP to poorer regions). Would the UK electorate accept say 10x more annual contributions to the EU than now, or retain full freedom of movement?
Secondly, fixing the democratic deficit. We elect MEPs, our government propose commissioners and we get to agree changes at head of state level - but given the degree of compromise necessary across 27 states in practice we can never stop what other members of the club want to do. As there is no longer a veto, we could never get rid of those who run the commission or reverse laws we did not like. History shows that to be a really bad idea as those that govern need to be afraid of the people.
Look at what has happened in recent years: what was imposed on Greece (financial constraint and pain), Italy (technocratic government), Ireland (vote again until you give the result we want), France and Denmark (ignore votes on the EU constitution, rename it the Lisbon Treaty and push it through anyway) - do you detect any interest in reform?
My worry is that states that are formed as a political entities with such contradictions of culture, economics and control have not ended well: the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia for example. The United States is a success but they had to go through a civil war to bind the union.
I thought the Eurosceptic MAJORITY had won and was taking us out of the EU. What kind of parallel universe are some remoaners living in?
Disagree. Until there are proper pan-European political parties there is a deficit because a voter can’t vote for s party that can set the agenda (because there are none). It’s the same problem with PR - too much power to the parties and too little to the voters
But now you're assuming that the existing pan-European parties aren't "real" parties. That assumption only holds if you think political parties are single organisations with a single register of personal members, as opposed to a looser set of affiliated member parties. That's arguably not true of the British Conservative party (until recent reorganisations: perhaps somebody can remind me?) or of the American Democratic Party (which is an association of state parties), and is arguably irrelevant in an Eastern European sense, which doesn't have a longstanding tradition of political parties period and to whom the list system is more comprehensible.
Stop thinking the world organises itself in the same way that the UK or US does. The world is weird, and so are we...
My understanding was the main blocks in the EP are groupings of national parties.
If that is the case then a UK voter can't determine the policy of whichever grouping their respective party belongs to. There is no guarantee that the manifesto they vote for will represent the settled view of the pan-European grouping.
The difference with the UK model is that the coalition of parties agrees a common manifesto so the voters know what they are voting for (albeit with no guarantee that manifesto will be implemented)
The choice is clear.
We can play a role in developing Europe, or we can turn our backs on the Community.
By turning our backs we would forfeit our right to influence what happens in the Community.
But what happens in the Community will inevitably affect us.
The European Community is a powerful group of nations.
With Britain as a member, it is more powerful; without Britain it will still be powerful.
We can play a leading role in Europe, but if that leadership is not forthcoming Europe will develop without Britain.
Britain, if she denounced a treaty, cannot then complain if Europe develops in conflict with Britain's interests.
Comments
You are spot on about Brexit consuming all government's capacity for a decade, that is indeed a risk. There are 2 responses - either government gets bigger so it can have more governing capacity or it gets smaller, restricts its competency and lets society find its own way within a looser framework. Personally I'd favour option 2 but I understand the real concerns around that.
For months now we have been told that Jeremy Corbyn is a prime minister in waiting -which is why he will be waiting forever.
Beware the self denying prophecy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_Budget_Responsibility#cite_note-bbc-cutplan-21
In other words to get away from the Treasury's shifting 'golden rule' and 'economic cycle' claims of the Brown era.
Still you have a point, if the UK had joined the Euro twenty years ago then the car factories wouldn't have shut down and the City wouldn't have relocated to Frankfurt.
Kober exemplifies one of my life lessons, which is that the Labour Party looks best viewed from a distance.
Corbyn is a nasty piece of work and John McDonnell is nastier. Many of his evil statements are on audio and video and are undeniable.
The point really is that people like Corbyn and McDonnell never change their spots. Give them power and they will abuse it. A year or two of a Corbyn government (which I believe wont happen), and they will be exposed for all to see, will be deeply unpopular and will be swept away "into the dustbin of history" (Trotsky).
I wonder if it will be like French Royalists, still sure the public will come round to accepting the return of the monarchy more than a century later.
I cant think of anyone who reminds me less of Oswald Mosley than Jeremy Coryby. Mosley had hugely inflated view of his own importance and his unwavering belief in himself as a man of destiny dragged him from party to party trying to catch the wave that would give him the power to 'fix everything'. The Mosley Memorandum was arguably 20 years ahead of its time. I suspect Fascism was just another wave for him (its hard not to read the mid 1930s other than through the lens of what we know Fascism ended up doing to him it was fresh and dynamic and underpinned by the belief in radical change rather than more of the same). He was initially far more enamoured of Mussolini and the Corporate State style thinking than Hitlers NAZIsm. He was a highly erudite posh boy whose drive to change the world emerged from his experience of the first war and then of the depression. He had a significant slice of Europes royal family at his first wedding and was incredibly well connected. I dont see him as a Labour figure, he was outside 'party' looking for mechanisms to deliver the radical change he believed necessary. After the mess at Olympia and the loss of support from Rothermere and the Daily Mail I think he became increasingly embittered and drifted into the anti-Semitism and later 1950s racism that people now associate with him most readily - but still a fine mind, sadly misdirected and finally damaged by ego and 'events'.
I think we need to be realistic about our country it’s strengths and weaknesses. The civil service does not hire the Best and the brightest. There are some good people in it but often they are poorly managed or overwhelmed by the sea of mediocrity around them. I have seen this through the experience of my brothers one a senior tax inspector and the other a surgeon. We cannot expect the civil service to execute brexit well without good leadership. There is a risk it will go badly wrong and civil servants will lose their job and their pension but no upside for them if it goes well. Status quo is much more comfortable.
It is never a good idea to blame the workers for a failure.
There are examples outside government as well - from the banks to BHS to Carillion.
There's many an accountant who to the question "what do the numbers say ?" has replied "what do you want them to say ?".
(Think how much easier all our lives would be if the Spanish did as well.)
Just because it’s not facist or Stalinist it doesn’t mean it’s liberal
The fact that Lansman is Jewish is not relevant to whether Momentum is a fascist organisation or not. Arguably the key thing to set against the idea it is fascist is that it still seems to be largely committed to the democratic process. It does however have unsavoury racist and authoritarian overtones that could become Fascistic in time.
Liberals support a free market in ideas and are suspicious of conformity. On the role of government, liberals are agnostic and do not believe "private good, public bad" or the reverse. Government has a role in some areas (defence) and not in others (fashion goods). The boundary is flexible and pragmatic and informed by innovative ideas and reasoned debate, not by the ideology of the left or right.
It's pronounced 'Stewkey' but it's aposite to pronounce it phonetically given the context..
But looking at the crowds of illiterate inbred notrights chanting "lock her up" at many of Trump stump speeches I think we can safely assume things have changed.
Unfortunately I have a soft spot for Melania who is a stunningly attractive woman...Ivanka doesn't float my boat. She looks really quite odd.
Although Annie Horniman was an appropriate name...
African Americans are 1.5 times more likely to be obese than the general US population. Hardly a major Republican voting demographic - but a large share of the electorate in the Deep South compared to the rest of the US.
It could be made publicly available.
Then, anyone can check the model and its inputs & outputs.
ne'er have truer words been spoken.
He was probably fourth or fifth in command when the coup was launched, and all of those above were more charismatic.
But isnt Labours problem more about its view that Palestinians = Good, Israel = Bad (and our fault) in the middle East which has somehow ended up conflating Israel with Jewishness
Germany's defeat entirely cancelled the debts that the Nationalists had incurred to them during the Civil War.
Stop thinking the world organises itself in the same way that the UK or US does. The world is weird, and so are we...
Labour's Jewish problem has been conflated by losing the support of intellectual Jews following the political rise of Islamism...the likes of Nick Cohen and his ilk who discovered to their dismay that some parts of Labour were lending a sympathetic ear to some 'orrible, facist, anti semites living within Islamic groups..
Even for an old school lefty like myself the Israel question poses existential questions as Israel resorts to ever more hardline positions to counter the Islamic terrorist threat within the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah....
I re-watched the Battle of Algiers the other day detailing the Islamic Algerian uprising against the French in the 50's...an unsentimental, surprisingly objective masterpiece and still undoubtedly the greatest work about military Islamism I have ever seen.
If that is the case then a UK voter can't determine the policy of whichever grouping their respective party belongs to. There is no guarantee that the manifesto they vote for will represent the settled view of the pan-European grouping.
The difference with the UK model is that the coalition of parties agrees a common manifesto so the voters know what they are voting for (albeit with no guarantee that manifesto will be implemented)
We can play a role in developing Europe, or we can turn our backs on the Community.
By turning our backs we would forfeit our right to influence what happens in the Community.
But what happens in the Community will inevitably affect us.
The European Community is a powerful group of nations.
With Britain as a member, it is more powerful; without Britain it will still be powerful.
We can play a leading role in Europe, but if that leadership is not forthcoming Europe will develop without Britain.
Britain, if she denounced a treaty, cannot then complain if Europe develops in conflict with Britain's interests.
- Margaret Thatcher
While that is the case you don't really have pan-European parties.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzdxf_5e-JU
But I'm not convinced the optimism of the "if" is merited. Right now uncertainty is all that's keeping the Conservative party together. We currently have Schrodinger's Brexit. No-one knows whether it'll be soft or hard until Mrs May opens the box, and until then, the two factions in the Conservatives can co-exist.
That ends as soon as the box opens. From then on, how do Rudd and Rees-Mogg, Patel and Soubry, co-exist in the same party? I can't see it. Cameron and May have managed to sunder the longest-lasting coalition in British politics.
If one thing does preserve the Conservatives it will be FPTP - the sheer unlikelihood of a splinter party getting a foothold under our electoral system. But if you want an interesting thought experiment, ask yourself how a three-way Alliance - an Umunna-led SDP, Swinson-led LibDems (or, more likely, Layla Moran-led), and a Clarkeite One Nation Tory party - might fare at the next election against Corbyn-led Labour and JRM-led Conservatives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ga6-gcfZXzs
If you cannot actually vote for the people who rule over you and all that........
I may be wrong, but I don't think we would want to play a full part in the EU as it currently is or where it is heading towards (a federal state) without 2 key reforms.
Firstly, fixing the economic contradiction. Some parts of the EU are much richer than others. This is a large drive fro people moving under freedom of movement. We would either have to reverse the Euro and allow local devaluation to stimulate local economic growth or increase fund transfers from richer areas to poorer ones (from memory I think it's currently about 0.5% of EU GDP is transferred whereas in the UK we transfer about 5% of UK GDP to poorer regions). Would the UK electorate accept say 10x more annual contributions to the EU than now, or retain full freedom of movement?
Secondly, fixing the democratic deficit. We elect MEPs, our government propose commissioners and we get to agree changes at head of state level - but given the degree of compromise necessary across 27 states in practice we can never stop what other members of the club want to do. As there is no longer a veto, we could never get rid of those who run the commission or reverse laws we did not like. History shows that to be a really bad idea as those that govern need to be afraid of the people.
Look at what has happened in recent years: what was imposed on Greece (financial constraint and pain), Italy (technocratic government), Ireland (vote again until you give the result we want), France and Denmark (ignore votes on the EU constitution, rename it the Lisbon Treaty and push it through anyway) - do you detect any interest in reform?
My worry is that states that are formed as a political entities with such contradictions of culture, economics and control have not ended well: the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia for example. The United States is a success but they had to go through a civil war to bind the union.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_N2wyq7fCE
NEW THREAD
You could vote Tory, Labour, Lib Dem in every seat (or their sister parties the SDLP, UUP or Alliance in NI) who between them have formed the UK government for the 30 years and more even if they lost in your seat. We could never vote for the party that won the last two EU elections and effectively picked the President.
It's one thing losing an election and your party not winning - quite another when you had no chance to vote for or against the party and candidate that won.
But they don't need to depose Mrs May; they have enough sway to do it and leave her in place.
Remember every Remainer wheeze which was going to lead a a Remain victory/stop/soften Brexit - Obama's queue, Osborne's punishment budget, Gina Miller's court case, James Chapman's new party, the Florence speech was going to signal a change to a soft Brexit etc etc etc - the golden rule of Brexit is that everything which Remainers think will help their cause does no such thing....
It would be a dull old world if nothing changed.