It’s a strong buttress against Corbyn’s economic lunacy.
If the EU would care to compromise on free movement then that might be possible. It seems they don't.
The irony is for all the fuss about FOM no-one shows the slightest interest in limiting immigration and more than one minister has called for more in the past few weeks. Ask Theresa May what the 2010-2016 Home Secretary did to reduce non-EU immigration, for instance.
The Tories will almost certainly retain Bromley, Bexley and Hillingdon and gain Havering and have an outside chance of taking Sutton. Other than Barnet with its big Jewish vote, Labour need at least around 10 net gains to gain Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea. The LDs may find it easier to take Kingston Upon Thames and Richmond Park.
So much depends on whether Labour can mobilise its 2017 GE vote as effectively for a set of local contests. The reported swing of 13.5% should worry Inner London Conservatives as that will cause problems but the swing in the Outer London area of 4.5% since 2014 less so.
On those numbers Hillingdon should be retained albeit with a much reduced majority - I think Havering is very hard to call and assuming a Conservative gain seems to assume a transfer from UKIP to CON which may or may not happen.
You've gone on about the "Jewish vote" in Barnet but the swing needed for Labour to take control is incredibly small.
As for Sutton, "outside chance", well, perhaps and I did cite this as a possibility last year but the LDs held the Borough for a decade before they captured the Parliamentary seats so it's not a simple rationale that because the Conservatives now hold Sutton & Cheam they will mop up the Council seats.
This year the story is going to be of Con losses in London, even if they’re outweighed by gains elsewhere. The spin machine is going to have to work hard to counter that narrative. The media have already decided that *everyone* hates Tories and hates Brexit, mainly because they never leave the bubble.
Hopefully, that will provide good betting opportunities. If the narrative is that the Conservatives will lose hundreds of seats, one should bet to the contrary.
'A' Customs union is as bad if not worse than 'the' customs union. Just look at Turkey. The arrangement they have with the EU means that anyone with an FTA with the EU can sell into Turkey tariff free via the EU but at the same time Turkey, being outside the EU, cannot sell tariff free into those external countries. All it does is make it easier to import whilst maintaining barriers against exports.
It’s a strong buttress against Corbyn’s economic lunacy.
If the EU would care to compromise on free movement then that might be possible. It seems they don't.
The irony is for all the fuss about FOM no-one shows the slightest interest in limiting immigration and more than one minister has called for more in the past few weeks. Ask Theresa May what the 2010-2016 Home Secretary did to reduce non-EU immigration, for instance.
TBF there's the "luxury foreign spouses" policy, where unless the British spouse makes more than 25k, regardless of how much the non-British partner would make, both partners and any other family are invited to piss off to bongo-bongo land or wherever.
The fact that she didn't have much impact on the numbers isn't for want of trying, Gordon Brown's government already understood that the voters didn't like foreigners and they'd already picked the low-hanging fruit.
This is exactly so. Reducing non-EU migration substantially would require an extremely draconian crackdown on spousal and family migration, above & beyond the already quite stringent income criteria....to all intents & purposes banning family related immigration from the Indian subcontinent. A weak pound and "less welcoming atmosphere" has materially impacted immigration from the EU since EUref but that's hardly likely to affect immigration from the 3rd world.
Family-related immigration is really a form of overseas aid.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Sir Kier Starmer seems to me , as competent as David Davis and Liam Fox.Sure you will see it differently.
It’s a strong buttress against Corbyn’s economic lunacy.
It is but neither main party is backing it
You and your young equivalent HYUFD always make the mistake of taking what politicians say at face value. May has already u-turned on quite a few red lines and Labour are drifting inexorably to pushing for the softest of Brexits. It's perfectly obvious that we are going to end up with a Norway vassal state Brexit as the only workable way out of this mess.
It isn't as both Corbyn and May are absolutely clear we are leaving the single market and ending free movement regardless of their difference of opinion on the customs union
Listening to Corbyn talking about nationalising Royal Mail, water et al really is scary.
We all have one letterbox so we only need one mail delivery company. Competition is bad.
We all have one water pipe etc.
Nationalised water and postal delivery is pretty common in Europe. Competition is good where it works - but it doesn't work for some things.
I can't see why one would wish to nationalise postal delivery. There are now dozens of methods of communicating, provided effectively by the private sector.
Listening to Corbyn talking about nationalising Royal Mail, water et al really is scary.
We all have one letterbox so we only need one mail delivery company. Competition is bad.
We all have one water pipe etc.
On that basis why not nationalise restaurants, banks (again), clothes stores etc?
After all we only have one lunchtime, one bank account, one body to wear things on and so on. Just give him time
Cuba famously has a nationalized ice cream industry / restaurant.
Coming soon under Corbyn, the John McDonnell Che Guevara cornetto
Available in any one size and flavour....Given generation snowflake are reportedly going to be a load of fatties and a plant based diet is increasingly common among them, I suggest it will be small in size and vegan.....I can't wait....
Boris Johnson considered RESIGNING during May's crunch meeting of her Brexit war cabinet at Chequers and issues new red line on diverging from EU laws.
A few minutes of seeming Cabinet unity, then Boris emerges to piss on the bonfire again.
Meanwhile, on this morning's excitement, this looks like Labour belatedly recognising that the EU will not offer the UK any substantially bespoke deal, no matter what we might ask for. The customs union available will be the current one, with one or two face-saving tweaks. Likewise, any "partnership" will be the current single market, with one or two face-saving tweaks.
That and FTA are the only options available. The Conservatives don't seem to have grasped that yet, and are still trading on the myth that "Theresa May negotiated us out of 100 EU laws" (which was merely an already-agreed opt-out from a treaty enlarging the EU's scope, so hardly a win for her, and certainly not comparable: https://fullfact.org/europe/theresa-mays-eu-negotiating-experience/).
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Sir Kier Starmer seems to me , as competent as David Davis and Liam Fox.Sure you will see it differently.
Sir Keir Starmer is as competent as DD and more so that Liam Fox. In fact, IMO he's the only competent member of the Shadow Cabinet. The problem with Labour isn't Keir Starmer, and of course Keir Starmer doesn't set Labour's policy.
Listening to Corbyn talking about nationalising Royal Mail, water et al really is scary.
We all have one letterbox so we only need one mail delivery company. Competition is bad.
We all have one water pipe etc.
Nationalised water and postal delivery is pretty common in Europe. Competition is good where it works - but it doesn't work for some things.
You can also have composite architectures: e.g. our telecoms are mainly a monopoly in delivery (BT Openreach), but a competition in the customer-facing service. This seems to get the best of both worlds: it prevents having dozens of phone lines into our homes for each competing service, and allows competition and innovation where it matters most.
Getting back on my high-horse, both privatisation and nationalisation are tools in the toolkit. You should use the right tool for the right job, and using tools ideologically is a recipe for disaster.
What matters is what works, whether that be public, private, or some unholy combination of the two.
A NEW EU-UK customs union lol. So thats withdrawal of THE customs union then.
He wants the ability to jointly (with the EU) agree new FTAs which staying in THE customs union would not allow. We would of course inherit existing FTAs.
Why would the EU want to agree new FTAs on our behalf? And if it is willing to do so, in what way is that different to Mrs May's proposals?
As for inheriting existing FTAs, there's no 'of course' about it. Why should there be?
Any new FTAs (eg with say Japan) that the EU and the UK want to negotiate would be strengthened if we jointly negotiated them rather than attempted it separately because of the larger scale of a joint approach. Obviously the UK has more to gain than the EU (being smaller) but both would gain so there is room for a negotiation.
It would be very easy to incorporate existing FTAs within a new customs union, and necessary.
Mr. Sandpit, it's ****ing stupid as a policy. You do have my sympathies.
Mr. HYUFD, indeed. Corbyn as PM would be far worse than having a sensible PM and the UK leaving the EU.
Well as someone who wants to leave the EU, you would obviously say that wouldn't you.
But what about the 30% or so of 2015 Tory voters who voted Remain, many of whom stuck with the Tories last year through quite gritted teeth?
My answer as to which is less bad between a JRM Brexit and a Corbyn government depends on how tightly Corbyn is constrained by others....of course remaining in the single market and even the EU itself would be the biggest constraint of all against his loonier policies.
Incidentally, Britain does already have a state-owned railfreight operator, with over 100 locomotives, which competes for contracts and often wins them. The EU is perfectly happy with it.
I am sure that Corbyn, as a moderately attentive trainspotter, is aware of this.
Listening to Corbyn talking about nationalising Royal Mail, water et al really is scary.
We all have one letterbox so we only need one mail delivery company. Competition is bad.
We all have one water pipe etc.
Nationalised water and postal delivery is pretty common in Europe. Competition is good where it works - but it doesn't work for some things.
You can also have composite architectures: e.g. our telecoms are mainly a monopoly in delivery (BT Openreach), but a competition in the customer-facing service. This seems to get the best of both worlds: it prevents having dozens of phone lines into our homes for each competing service, and allows competition and innovation where it matters most.
Getting back on my high-horse, both privatisation and nationalisation are tools in the toolkit. You should use the right tool for the right job, and using tools ideologically is a recipe for disaster.
What matters is what works, whether that be public, private, or some unholy combination of the two.
+1 I completely agree. A pragmatic common sense approach.
Listening to Corbyn talking about nationalising Royal Mail, water et al really is scary.
We all have one letterbox so we only need one mail delivery company. Competition is bad.
We all have one water pipe etc.
Nationalised water and postal delivery is pretty common in Europe. Competition is good where it works - but it doesn't work for some things.
TSE may have his tongue firmly in his cheek, or someone's. The Royal Mail was only privatised by his favourite Downing Street combo a few short years ago.
Listening to Corbyn talking about nationalising Royal Mail, water et al really is scary.
We all have one letterbox so we only need one mail delivery company. Competition is bad.
We all have one water pipe etc.
Nationalised water and postal delivery is pretty common in Europe. Competition is good where it works - but it doesn't work for some things.
TSE may have his tongue firmly in his cheek, or someone's. The Royal Mail was only privatised by his favourite Downing Street combo a few short years ago.
It was Vince Cable who privatised Royal Mail.
He went where Margaret Thatcher failed to do and privatised the Queen's head.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Sir Kier Starmer seems to me , as competent as David Davis and Liam Fox.Sure you will see it differently.
Sir Keir Starmer is as competent as DD and more so that Liam Fox. In fact, IMO he's the only competent member of the Shadow Cabinet. The problem with Labour isn't Keir Starmer, and of course Keir Starmer doesn't set Labour's policy.
Nice of you to quote me three times, though!
My apologies Richard , do not know how that happened.I agree with you regarding Kier .
Mr. Sandpit, it's ****ing stupid as a policy. You do have my sympathies.
Mr. HYUFD, indeed. Corbyn as PM would be far worse than having a sensible PM and the UK leaving the EU.
Well as someone who wants to leave the EU, you would obviously say that wouldn't you.
But what about the 30% or so of 2015 Tory voters who voted Remain, many of whom stuck with the Tories last year through quite gritted teeth?
My answer as to which is less bad between a JRM Brexit and a Corbyn government depends on how tightly Corbyn is constrained by others....of course remaining in the single market and even the EU itself would be the biggest constraint of all against his loonier policies.
For many there is no 'less bad' in those circumstances. A vote for a third party, even the Invisible Democrats, is far preferable.
A Tory Brexit that leaves free movement in place and stays in the single market certainly begets Corbyn as Prime Minister due to Tory defections to UKIP
It’s a strong buttress against Corbyn’s economic lunacy.
It is but neither main party is backing it
You and your young equivalent HYUFD always make the mistake of taking what politicians say at face value. May has already u-turned on quite a few red lines and Labour are drifting inexorably to pushing for the softest of Brexits. It's perfectly obvious that we are going to end up with a Norway vassal state Brexit as the only workable way out of this mess.
It isn't as both Corbyn and May are absolutely clear we are leaving the single market and ending free movement regardless of their difference of opinion on the customs union
But don't you see my point here. A few weeks ago you were posting how Corbyn was definitely in favour of leaving the customs union. Now he's rowed back on that the single market could be next. Net migration from the EU is now so low that you could pretend that you have ended "free movement" with a meaningless sop and few would notice.
Listening to Corbyn talking about nationalising Royal Mail, water et al really is scary.
We all have one letterbox so we only need one mail delivery company. Competition is bad.
We all have one water pipe etc.
On that basis why not nationalise restaurants, banks (again), clothes stores etc?
After all we only have one lunchtime, one bank account, one body to wear things on and so on. Just give him time
Cuba famously has a nationalized ice cream industry / restaurant.
Coming soon under Corbyn, the John McDonnell Che Guevara cornetto
Available in any one size and flavour....Given generation snowflake are reportedly going to be a load of fatties and a plant based diet is increasingly common among them, I suggest it will be small in size and vegan.....I can't wait....
Vegan, soya based ice cream is surprisingly tasty. Corbynland will be better than Project Fear 2 suggests.
I would vote for Anybody who promises to outlaw the expression "learning the lessons".....
It's usually phrased in the aspirational sense, e.g. lessons will be learned, normally a sure fire predictor that some other schmuck will have to publicly hope lessons will be learned about precisely the same ballsup within a couple of years.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Sir Kier Starmer seems to me , as competent as David Davis and Liam Fox.Sure you will see it differently.
Sir Keir Starmer is as competent as DD and more so that Liam Fox. In fact, IMO he's the only competent member of the Shadow Cabinet. The problem with Labour isn't Keir Starmer, and of course Keir Starmer doesn't set Labour's policy.
Nice of you to quote me three times, though!
My apologies Richard , do not know how that happened.I agree with you regarding Kier .
Actually I was being a bit mean - there's also Emily Thornberry, who I think is pretty good. Can't think of any others, though.
Listening to Corbyn talking about nationalising Royal Mail, water et al really is scary.
We all have one letterbox so we only need one mail delivery company. Competition is bad.
We all have one water pipe etc.
Nationalised water and postal delivery is pretty common in Europe. Competition is good where it works - but it doesn't work for some things.
You can also have composite architectures: e.g. our telecoms are mainly a monopoly in delivery (BT Openreach), but a competition in the customer-facing service. This seems to get the best of both worlds: it prevents having dozens of phone lines into our homes for each competing service, and allows competition and innovation where it matters most.
Getting back on my high-horse, both privatisation and nationalisation are tools in the toolkit. You should use the right tool for the right job, and using tools ideologically is a recipe for disaster.
What matters is what works, whether that be public, private, or some unholy combination of the two.
A third option is partial state ownership. The German government, to randomly pick the strongest economy in Europe, does this.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Sir Kier Starmer seems to me , as competent as David Davis and Liam Fox.Sure you will see it differently.
Sir Keir Starmer is as competent as DD and more so that Liam Fox. In fact, IMO he's the only competent member of the Shadow Cabinet. The problem with Labour isn't Keir Starmer, and of course Keir Starmer doesn't set Labour's policy.
Listening to Corbyn talking about nationalising Royal Mail, water et al really is scary.
We all have one letterbox so we only need one mail delivery company. Competition is bad.
We all have one water pipe etc.
On that basis why not nationalise restaurants, banks (again), clothes stores etc?
After all we only have one lunchtime, one bank account, one body to wear things on and so on. Just give him time
Cuba famously has a nationalized ice cream industry / restaurant.
Coming soon under Corbyn, the John McDonnell Che Guevara cornetto
Available in any one size and flavour....Given generation snowflake are reportedly going to be a load of fatties and a plant based diet is increasingly common among them, I suggest it will be small in size and vegan.....I can't wait....
Vegan, soya based ice cream is surprisingly tasty. Corbynland will be better than Project Fear 2 suggests.
If you want healthy ice cream, oppo is way better, actually ice cream and only 300 calories for the whole pint tub.
The Tories will almost certainly retain Bromley, Bexley and Hillingdon and gain Havering and have an outside chance of taking Sutton. Other than Barnet with its big Jewish vote, Labour need at least around 10 net gains to gain Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea. The LDs may find it easier to take Kingston Upon Thames and Richmond Park.
So much depends on whether Labour can mobilise its 2017 GE vote as effectively for a set of local contests. The reported swing of 13.5% should worry Inner London Conservatives as that will cause problems but the swing in the Outer London area of 4.5% since 2014 less so.
On those numbers Hillingdon should be retained albeit with a much reduced majority - I think Havering is very hard to call and assuming a Conservative gain seems to assume a transfer from UKIP to CON which may or may not happen.
You've gone on about the "Jewish vote" in Barnet but the swing needed for Labour to take control is incredibly small.
As for Sutton, "outside chance", well, perhaps and I did cite this as a possibility last year but the LDs held the Borough for a decade before they captured the Parliamentary seats so it's not a simple rationale that because the Conservatives now hold Sutton & Cheam they will mop up the Council seats.
This year the story is going to be of Con losses in London, even if they’re outweighed by gains elsewhere. The spin machine is going to have to work hard to counter that narrative. The media have already decided that *everyone* hates Tories and hates Brexit, mainly because they never leave the bubble.
Hopefully, that will provide good betting opportunities. If the narrative is that the Conservatives will lose hundreds of seats, one should bet to the contrary.
Sean
How deep do you think the Labour tide will reach into the (remaining) Tory heartlands in outer London? Parts of Bromley have changed very fast since I moved away in 2013 and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Labour surge mopping up Remainy safe Tory wards like Copers Cope. The Tories will retain control easily but IMO it's feasible that Labour might get 20-25 or so councillors on a good night, giving them a good base for the 2020s after further demographic change.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Sir Kier Starmer seems to me , as competent as David Davis and Liam Fox.Sure you will see it differently.
Sir Keir Starmer is as competent as DD and more so that Liam Fox. In fact, IMO he's the only competent member of the Shadow Cabinet. The problem with Labour isn't Keir Starmer, and of course Keir Starmer doesn't set Labour's policy.
Incidentally, Britain does already have a state-owned railfreight operator, with over 100 locomotives, which competes for contracts and often wins them. The EU is perfectly happy with it.
I am sure that Corbyn, as a moderately attentive trainspotter, is aware of this.
This is often misunderstood. AIUI what the EU wants is not privatisation, but open and fair access. They decided the best way of doing this is to separate infrastructure and operations. Both of these can be publicly owned, as long as other operators can operate over the infrastructure on fair terms.
The reason they want this is obvious from a geographical viewpoint: if DB want to operate a Paris-Munich service, they should be able to do so without having to change trains or operators. Many of the strictures in the EU's ?four? rail packages are about making the different networks as interoperable as possible, e.g. in signalling.
It’s a strong buttress against Corbyn’s economic lunacy.
It is but neither main party is backing it
You and your young equivalent HYUFD always make the mistake of taking what politicians say at face value. May has already u-turned on quite a few red lines and Labour are drifting inexorably to pushing for the softest of Brexits. It's perfectly obvious that we are going to end up with a Norway vassal state Brexit as the only workable way out of this mess.
It isn't as both Corbyn and May are absolutely clear we are leaving the single market and ending free movement regardless of their difference of opinion on the customs union
But don't you see my point here. A few weeks ago you were posting how Corbyn was definitely in favour of leaving the customs union. Now he's rowed back on that the single market could be next. Net migration from the EU is now so low that you could pretend that you have ended "free movement" with a meaningless sop and few would notice.
Wrong I have never said Corbyn was committed to leaving the Customs Union, as with today he is willing to consider a Customs Union.
Corbyn has however always made clear he will leave the single market as it requires free movement however you cut it which is non negotiable for Labour Leave voters and the Leave voting Tory marginal seats he has to win to become PM. The ECJ through single market membership could also block his nationalisation plans
Listening to Corbyn talking about nationalising Royal Mail, water et al really is scary.
We all have one letterbox so we only need one mail delivery company. Competition is bad.
We all have one water pipe etc.
Nationalised water and postal delivery is pretty common in Europe. Competition is good where it works - but it doesn't work for some things.
You can also have composite architectures: e.g. our telecoms are mainly a monopoly in delivery (BT Openreach), but a competition in the customer-facing service. This seems to get the best of both worlds: it prevents having dozens of phone lines into our homes for each competing service, and allows competition and innovation where it matters most.
Getting back on my high-horse, both privatisation and nationalisation are tools in the toolkit. You should use the right tool for the right job, and using tools ideologically is a recipe for disaster.
What matters is what works, whether that be public, private, or some unholy combination of the two.
A third option is partial state ownership. The German government, to randomly pick the strongest economy in Europe, does this.
It’s a strong buttress against Corbyn’s economic lunacy.
It is but neither main party is backing it
You and your young equivalent HYUFD always make the mistake of taking what politicians say at face value. May has already u-turned on quite a few red lines and Labour are drifting inexorably to pushing for the softest of Brexits. It's perfectly obvious that we are going to end up with a Norway vassal state Brexit as the only workable way out of this mess.
It isn't as both Corbyn and May are absolutely clear we are leaving the single market and ending free movement regardless of their difference of opinion on the customs union
But don't you see my point here. A few weeks ago you were posting how Corbyn was definitely in favour of leaving the customs union. Now he's rowed back on that the single market could be next. Net migration from the EU is now so low that you could pretend that you have ended "free movement" with a meaningless sop and few would notice.
Yes - a mere 100,000 in net immigration from the EU. Merely double the entire average annual net migration rate for the UK pre 2000. No one will notice?!
Perhaps when British citizens find they can't bring their non UK spouses over as of right but EU citizens can under Mrs May's deal some people might ask when we became second class citizens in our own country with fewer rights than foreign nationals?
The water industry is a good example of some of the choices facing a new, national water body.
Individual water providers, for both clean and dirty water, have almost monopoly control.
Accordingly, the are closely regulated on price. The effect of this regulation is to consider what an appropriate return on capital is for shareholders, bearing in mind market factors including the need for investment, and to allow a company to set prices accordingly.
On top of this there are a series of incentives and disincentives designed to allow companies to "keep" the benefits of outperforming targets (on leaks, for example) whilst ensuring customers aren't penalised in higher prices for companies' underperformance.
Let's assume nationalisation could take place with a click of the fingers, with no adverse consequences from that process.
If the new national water company were able to access finance cheaper, you could see a case for lowering bills - or for a return the Treasury. Great - but for how long? What would be the new model for prices, what are the incentives? Where are we in five, ten or fifteen years?
If like me you think that most of that immediate benefit is eaten up by the consequences of the nationalisation process, all you have to go on are the long run consequences. And on that, the detail is sadly lacking.
It’s a strong buttress against Corbyn’s economic lunacy.
It is but neither main party is backing it
You and your young equivalent HYUFD always make the mistake of taking what politicians say at face value. May has already u-turned on quite a few red lines and Labour are drifting inexorably to pushing for the softest of Brexits. It's perfectly obvious that we are going to end up with a Norway vassal state Brexit as the only workable way out of this mess.
It isn't as both Corbyn and May are absolutely clear we are leaving the single market and ending free movement regardless of their difference of opinion on the customs union
But don't you see my point here. A few weeks ago you were posting how Corbyn was definitely in favour of leaving the customs union. Now he's rowed back on that the single market could be next. Net migration from the EU is now so low that you could pretend that you have ended "free movement" with a meaningless sop and few would notice.
Actually you are wrong. He is in favour of 'a' customs union, not 'the' customs union. As such he has opted for the worst of all possible outcomes.
The worst abuses of the English language (by which I mean the ones I personally find annoying) are 'pre-prepared' and 'could care less'. The former is ridiculous (it already has the damned prefix, and what other kind of prepared is there?) and the latter sounds like a mentally deficient oaf trying to be sarcastic and making himself sound like a buffoon...
Surely the latter is merely eliding the rest of the phrase "..., but I can't summon up the energy to do so..." , Mr.D ?
I quite like it: draw what conclusions you will about my mental deficiencies.
It’s a strong buttress against Corbyn’s economic lunacy.
It is but neither main party is backing it
You and your young equivalent HYUFD always make the mistake of taking what politicians say at face value. May has already u-turned on quite a few red lines and Labour are drifting inexorably to pushing for the softest of Brexits. It's perfectly obvious that we are going to end up with a Norway vassal state Brexit as the only workable way out of this mess.
It isn't as both Corbyn and May are absolutely clear we are leaving the single market and ending free movement regardless of their difference of opinion on the customs union
But don't you see my point here. A few weeks ago you were posting how Corbyn was definitely in favour of leaving the customs union. Now he's rowed back on that the single market could be next. Net migration from the EU is now so low that you could pretend that you have ended "free movement" with a meaningless sop and few would notice.
Net migration from the EU is still running at 90,000 a year and that has only dropped to such levels because of the uncertainty over Brexit. Now I don't have a problem with that but I suspect that most of those who were wanting immigration controls are going to be extremely unhappy if you try and roll back on that particular promise.
Listening to Corbyn talking about nationalising Royal Mail, water et al really is scary.
We all have one letterbox so we only need one mail delivery company. Competition is bad.
We all have one water pipe etc.
Nationalised water and postal delivery is pretty common in Europe. Competition is good where it works - but it doesn't work for some things.
You can also have composite architectures: e.g. our telecoms are mainly a monopoly in delivery (BT Openreach), but a competition in the customer-facing service. This seems to get the best of both worlds: it prevents having dozens of phone lines into our homes for each competing service, and allows competition and innovation where it matters most.
Getting back on my high-horse, both privatisation and nationalisation are tools in the toolkit. You should use the right tool for the right job, and using tools ideologically is a recipe for disaster.
What matters is what works, whether that be public, private, or some unholy combination of the two.
A third option is partial state ownership. The German government, to randomly pick the strongest economy in Europe, does this.
Do you mean the 'golden share' type of concept?
No, actual investments. I think golden shares might run foul of EU law -- wasn't there a case around Volkswagen a few years ago?
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Well, it's utter tosh of course, but given the parliamentary arithmetic it might indeed cause trouble for the government. The only bright side I can see is that, if the government did fall, we'd be treated to the hugely entertaining spectacle of a Jeremy Corbyn government trying to negotiate this tosh. Not sure that would compensate for everything else, mind.
Sir Kier Starmer seems to me , as competent as David Davis and Liam Fox.Sure you will see it differently.
Sir Keir Starmer is as competent as DD and more so that Liam Fox. In fact, IMO he's the only competent member of the Shadow Cabinet. The problem with Labour isn't Keir Starmer, and of course Keir Starmer doesn't set Labour's policy.
Nice of you to quote me three times, though!
My apologies Richard , do not know how that happened.I agree with you regarding Kier .
Actually I was being a bit mean - there's also Emily Thornberry, who I think is pretty good. Can't think of any others, though.
Nor me to be honest , I did bet on Jon Ashworth at one point if Corbyn had gone.
The Tories will almost certainly retain Bromley, Bexley and Hillingdon and gain Havering and have an outside chance of taking Sutton. Other than Barnet with its big Jewish vote, Labour need at least around 10 net gains to gain Wandsworth, Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea. The LDs may find it easier to take Kingston Upon Thames and Richmond Park.
This year the story is going to be of Con losses in London, even if they’re outweighed by gains elsewhere. The spin machine is going to have to work hard to counter that narrative. The media have already decided that *everyone* hates Tories and hates Brexit, mainly because they never leave the bubble.
Hopefully, that will provide good betting opportunities. If the narrative is that the Conservatives will lose hundreds of seats, one should bet to the contrary.
Sean
How deep do you think the Labour tide will reach into the (remaining) Tory heartlands in outer London? Parts of Bromley have changed very fast since I moved away in 2013 and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Labour surge mopping up Remainy safe Tory wards like Copers Cope. The Tories will retain control easily but IMO it's feasible that Labour might get 20-25 or so councillors on a good night, giving them a good base for the 2020s after further demographic change.
I'd use last year as my starting point. A 22% Labour lead across London saw the party lead in 22 boroughs, compared to 10 for the Conservatives. The Conservatives carried Havering, Bexley, and Bromley very easily, and I see no reason for that to change this time around (the various Residents associations complicate things a bit in Havering, but I expect a Conservative gain). Labour will now sweep the board in Camden, Southwark, Haringey, Enfield, and Redbridge, and gain Tower Hamlets, but that doesn't affect Conservative prospects.
That leaves seven boroughs that are vulnerable in different ways, Barnet, Hillingdon, Kensington, Wandsworth, Westminster, Richmond, and Kingston. I think the Conservatives could lose any of them, but they won't lose every one of them. I'd expect three or four holds out of those seven.
Mr. B, I instead ascribe your perverse and ineffable preference for a horrendous term to be a quaint eccentricity rather than a sign of mental defect :P
Listening to Corbyn talking about nationalising Royal Mail, water et al really is scary.
We all have one letterbox so we only need one mail delivery company. Competition is bad.
We all have one water pipe etc.
Nationalised water and postal delivery is pretty common in Europe. Competition is good where it works - but it doesn't work for some things.
You can also have composite architectures: e.g. our telecoms are mainly a monopoly in delivery (BT Openreach), but a competition in the customer-facing service. This seems to get the best of both worlds: it prevents having dozens of phone lines into our homes for each competing service, and allows competition and innovation where it matters most.
Getting back on my high-horse, both privatisation and nationalisation are tools in the toolkit. You should use the right tool for the right job, and using tools ideologically is a recipe for disaster.
What matters is what works, whether that be public, private, or some unholy combination of the two.
A third option is partial state ownership. The German government, to randomly pick the strongest economy in Europe, does this.
As does South Korea, who have also managed a record of superb economic development despite rampant corruption.
The problem with water is that there can only ever be one supplier. With gas and electricityyou can separate the delivery network from the supplier to the consumer because there are multiple sources of supply that suppliers can buy from and market to the consumer. With water, supply is constrained by hydrology. Even here in the US water supply is almost universally by the public sector, usually the local municipality.
The worst abuses of the English language (by which I mean the ones I personally find annoying) are 'pre-prepared' and 'could care less'. The former is ridiculous (it already has the damned prefix, and what other kind of prepared is there?) and the latter sounds like a mentally deficient oaf trying to be sarcastic and making himself sound like a buffoon...
Surely the latter is merely eliding the rest of the phrase "..., but I can't summon up the energy to do so..." , Mr.D ?
I quite like it: draw what conclusions you will about my mental deficiencies.
So you're saying you do care but with effort you might not care quite so much?
It’s a strong buttress against Corbyn’s economic lunacy.
It is but neither main party is backing it
You and your young equivalent HYUFD always make the mistake of taking what politicians say at face value. May has already u-turned on quite a few red lines and Labour are drifting inexorably to pushing for the softest of Brexits. It's perfectly obvious that we are going to end up with a Norway vassal state Brexit as the only workable way out of this mess.
It isn't as both Corbyn and May are absolutely clear we are leaving the single market and ending free movement regardless of their difference of opinion on the customs union
But don't you see my point here. A few weeks ago you were posting how Corbyn was definitely in favour of leaving the customs union. Now he's rowed back on that the single market could be next. Net migration from the EU is now so low that you could pretend that you have ended "free movement" with a meaningless sop and few would notice.
Wrong I have never said Corbyn was committed to leaving the Customs Union, as with today he is willing to consider a Customs Union.
Corbyn has however always made clear he will leave the single market as it requires free movement however you cut it which is non negotiable for Labour Leave voters and the Leave voting Tory marginal seats he has to win to become PM. The ECJ through single market membership could also block his nationalisation plans
Well, of course, ANYBODY would CONSIDER a Customs Union - if, say, the EU were to pay us for doing so. But that isn't exactly on offer from Barnier.
The crucial question is how much would Corbyn pay the EU to keep one in place. Take your time Jeremy, we've got all day....
Unlike Trudeau you can't really say Ed became Labour leader because of his look. Perhaps his parentage helped his career progression too though?
I'm trying to find a picture of Oliver Letwin in his orange turban.
Or Boris in a turban. A local restaurant had a old photo of John Major in a turban. Standard issue for politicians. Of course, in the old days, these pictures would be confined to the ethnic press rather than all over Twitter.
Listening to Corbyn talking about nationalising Royal Mail, water et al really is scary.
We all have one letterbox so we only need one mail delivery company. Competition is bad.
We all have one water pipe etc.
Nationalised water and postal delivery is pretty common in Europe. Competition is good where it works - but it doesn't work for some things.
You can also have composite architectures: e.g. our telecoms are mainly a monopoly in delivery (BT Openreach), but a competition in the customer-facing service. This seems to get the best of both worlds: it prevents having dozens of phone lines into our homes for each competing service, and allows competition and innovation where it matters most.
Getting back on my high-horse, both privatisation and nationalisation are tools in the toolkit. You should use the right tool for the right job, and using tools ideologically is a recipe for disaster.
What matters is what works, whether that be public, private, or some unholy combination of the two.
Fine by me. Take each case on its merits. Labour are the party that are open to looking at options, the Tories are not.
"They say Mr Corbyn is abandoning his manifesto commitment, when the Tories have abandoned their entire manifesto (how’s the work on that social care policy coming along?). "
It’s a strong buttress against Corbyn’s economic lunacy.
It is but neither main party is backing it
You and your young equivalent HYUFD always make the mistake of taking what politicians say at face value. May has already u-turned on quite a few red lines and Labour are drifting inexorably to pushing for the softest of Brexits. It's perfectly obvious that we are going to end up with a Norway vassal state Brexit as the only workable way out of this mess.
It isn't as both Corbyn and May are absolutely clear we are leaving the single market and ending free movement regardless of their difference of opinion on the customs union
But don't you see my point here. A few weeks ago you were posting how Corbyn was definitely in favour of leaving the customs union. Now he's rowed back on that the single market could be next. Net migration from the EU is now so low that you could pretend that you have ended "free movement" with a meaningless sop and few would notice.
Wrong I have never said Corbyn was committed to leaving the Customs Union, as with today he is willing to consider a Customs Union.
Corbyn has however always made clear he will leave the single market as it requires free movement however you cut it which is non negotiable for Labour Leave voters and the Leave voting Tory marginal seats he has to win to become PM. The ECJ through single market membership could also block his nationalisation plans
I also remember you saying Corbyn was committed to leaving the customs union. There was a long discussion about how you thought there wasn’t any difference between JC and TM on Brexit.
PCSOs have no real power, they have to call in a proper police officer to do the effective stuff.
Yes that was my main problem when new Labour brought them in.lack of powers.I do realise that Police Officers in general though , do not like walking patrolling the beat , wearing a big hat , and talking to residents.
The worst abuses of the English language (by which I mean the ones I personally find annoying) are 'pre-prepared' and 'could care less'. The former is ridiculous (it already has the damned prefix, and what other kind of prepared is there?) and the latter sounds like a mentally deficient oaf trying to be sarcastic and making himself sound like a buffoon...
Surely the latter is merely eliding the rest of the phrase "..., but I can't summon up the energy to do so..." , Mr.D ?
I quite like it: draw what conclusions you will about my mental deficiencies.
So you're saying you do care but with effort you might not care quite so much?
Rather, I don’t care, and with a bit of effort couldn’t care an iota... but I can’t be bothered to make the effort. ‘Could care less’ is a more economical way of expressing the thought.
The most encouraging development for peaceniks is that none of the NATO armies (outside of the US and Turks) could manage to invade anything bigger than a large village.
The UK spends most of its defence budget propping up what I'll laughingly call our sovereign industrial capability. Hence our comical armed forces. Great people (the best I've worked with, by and large), shit procurement.
The worst abuses of the English language (by which I mean the ones I personally find annoying) are 'pre-prepared' and 'could care less'. The former is ridiculous (it already has the damned prefix, and what other kind of prepared is there?) and the latter sounds like a mentally deficient oaf trying to be sarcastic and making himself sound like a buffoon...
Surely the latter is merely eliding the rest of the phrase "..., but I can't summon up the energy to do so..." , Mr.D ?
I quite like it: draw what conclusions you will about my mental deficiencies.
So you're saying you do care but with effort you might not care quite so much?
Rather, I don’t care, and with a bit of effort couldn’t care an iota... but I can’t be bothered to make the effort. ‘Could care less’ is a more economical way of expressing the thought.
If somebody asked me how I was feeling and I said "Could be better", I wouldn't expect them to substitute in "But only if I put in some effort, because I already feel great!"
PCSOs have no real power, they have to call in a proper police officer to do the effective stuff.
I always assumed they were invented to save money to be perfectly honest.
As with lots of blair policy, it was all about the spin / PR than effective policy. The public were worried about bobbies on beat disappearing and so they came up with this wheeze.
This conflation of concern about immigration levels with not liking foreigners is really, really tiresome. If you think the country is overcrowded, immigration control is the only way of tackling the issue, because it's illegal and a touch tyrannical to expel, or kill, people already here. It is a contingent fact that immigrants are also foreigners, and you simply can't tell whether an anti-immigrant is anti-foreigner without getting up close and personal and actually talking to them.
No, that wouldn't be the only policy. There are a bunch of other policy options that we hardly ever hear about. You could encourage British people to move elsewhere; A lot of countries have had policies like this over the years - for example, when it was much poorer the Japanese government would help people move to South America. You could encourage people to have fewer children - there are lots of knobs and dials in the tax and benefits system that are generally tuned to help families, and you could turn them the other way.
The fact that we never hear anything about any of these policy options suggests to me that concern about over-population isn't a key driver of opposition to immigration.
Less exotically, congestion and overcrowding are mostly quite localized, especially in London and the South-East, but also in cities rather than towns and villages. The government could quite easily use taxes and subsidies to try to reverse internal migration flows, and you could probably come up with some policies that could be fairly popular, but again, you don't hear much about it. So no, I don't think that's what it's about. I mean, I won't say it doesn't motivate *anyone* - there's a strain of thinking in the Green Party that takes the idea of overpopulation seriously - but as far as seriously shifting votes goes, nah.
On Japan, I don't like the immigration policy, and the refugee policy is atrocious, but TBF the immigration policy is getting better. It's changed enough that I've opted back into the public pension system, which is now looking less doomed than it was.
PCSOs have no real power, they have to call in a proper police officer to do the effective stuff.
Yes that was my main problem when new Labour brought them in.lack of powers.I do realise that Police Officers in general though , do not like walking patrolling the beat , wearing a big hat , and talking to residents.
PCSOs have no real power, they have to call in a proper police officer to do the effective stuff.
Yes that was my main problem when new Labour brought them in.lack of powers.I do realise that Police Officers in general though , do not like walking patrolling the beat , wearing a big hat , and talking to residents.
But those who pay their wages want them to be doing exactly that, walking around and talking to people.
We're getting closer to the day where the Evening Standard, edited by George Osborne, endorses Jeremy Corbyn for PM in the next general election.
Strange times.
Won't happen.
Depends how it's phrased. I wouldn't be amazed to see the Standard endorse the Lib Dems - the Economist did, after all, and Osborne worked with Cable - knowing full well that the result would be to put Corbyn in number 10.
PCSOs have no real power, they have to call in a proper police officer to do the effective stuff.
I always assumed they were invented to save money to be perfectly honest.
As with lots of blair policy, it was all about the spin / PR than effective policy. The public were worried about bobbies on beat disappearing and so they came up with this wheeze.
That is very true.The other Blair suggestion. I remember , was the Police making an arrest , then taking them to the cashpoint to pay the fine.
The worst abuses of the English language (by which I mean the ones I personally find annoying) are 'pre-prepared' and 'could care less'. The former is ridiculous (it already has the damned prefix, and what other kind of prepared is there?) and the latter sounds like a mentally deficient oaf trying to be sarcastic and making himself sound like a buffoon.
I also have a pet hate (both for when I and others do it) of 'fire' being used for shooting arrows.
Pre-prepared has a place. Pre-prepared tells me something of the timing. And it has an economy of language over "here are some onions that I cut-up earlier, before starting to make this meal".
You always know when Corbyn is out of his depth because he reads his "speeches" rather than gives them. He is is not comfortable with any material that cannot be ranted, and when it comes to economics, he simply does not understand it -or anything outside the pages of Marxism for Dummies.
I wonder whether Corbyn will be daft enough to go into the 2022 election promising to take the UK into the Single Market, in the EU in all but name, allowing the EU to impose its laws on the UK and Freedom of Movement, even though most Labour MPs represent constituencies which voted to end that.
Anna Soubrey, as she hawks her "conscience" from TV studio to TV studio,is probably quite happy to have Corbyn, the Useful Idiot on her side, and who could begrudge her a little happiness before her constituents vote her out at the next general election.
Remoaners too will be pleased to have Corbyn, the Useful Idiot, on their side today.
And thats only fair, because we Leavers had him during the referendum.
Just watched the bulk of Corbyn's speech. Very nicely done.
I don't think the idea that the Labour Party would come up with the winning Brexit strategy was something that ever crossed anyone's mind. Certainly not mine. And I doubt it occurred to the Tory euroskeptics either.
PCSOs have no real power, they have to call in a proper police officer to do the effective stuff.
Yes that was my main problem when new Labour brought them in.lack of powers.I do realise that Police Officers in general though , do not like walking patrolling the beat , wearing a big hat , and talking to residents.
But those who pay their wages want them to be doing exactly that, walking around and talking to people.
True, but it is seen in the Police Service as just , flying the flag for reassurance.Not real policing.
PCSOs have no real power, they have to call in a proper police officer to do the effective stuff.
I always assumed they were invented to save money to be perfectly honest.
As with lots of blair policy, it was all about the spin / PR than effective policy. The public were worried about bobbies on beat disappearing and so they came up with this wheeze.
They should have allowed PCSOs to carry a Great Big Stick and Tazers, and let them inflict pain on anybody they thought looked a bit dodgy or was messing about, unimpeded by the judicial process. That would have given them a role.
(Come to think of it, somewhat surprised machine-gunner Blunkett didn't grant them such powers when he was Home Secetary....)
Comments
https://fullfact.org/europe/non-eu-immigration-down-13/
May now wants to replace EU freedom of movement by work permits
Competition is good where it works - but it doesn't work for some things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Management_Scheme
A few minutes of seeming Cabinet unity, then Boris emerges to piss on the bonfire again.
Meanwhile, on this morning's excitement, this looks like Labour belatedly recognising that the EU will not offer the UK any substantially bespoke deal, no matter what we might ask for. The customs union available will be the current one, with one or two face-saving tweaks. Likewise, any "partnership" will be the current single market, with one or two face-saving tweaks.
That and FTA are the only options available. The Conservatives don't seem to have grasped that yet, and are still trading on the myth that "Theresa May negotiated us out of 100 EU laws" (which was merely an already-agreed opt-out from a treaty enlarging the EU's scope, so hardly a win for her, and certainly not comparable: https://fullfact.org/europe/theresa-mays-eu-negotiating-experience/).
Nice of you to quote me three times, though!
Scary scary times.
Getting back on my high-horse, both privatisation and nationalisation are tools in the toolkit. You should use the right tool for the right job, and using tools ideologically is a recipe for disaster.
What matters is what works, whether that be public, private, or some unholy combination of the two.
It would be very easy to incorporate existing FTAs within a new customs union, and necessary.
But what about the 30% or so of 2015 Tory voters who voted Remain, many of whom stuck with the Tories last year through quite gritted teeth?
My answer as to which is less bad between a JRM Brexit and a Corbyn government depends on how tightly Corbyn is constrained by others....of course remaining in the single market and even the EU itself would be the biggest constraint of all against his loonier policies.
I am sure that Corbyn, as a moderately attentive trainspotter, is aware of this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_in_the_43rd_Canadian_federal_election
He went where Margaret Thatcher failed to do and privatised the Queen's head.
I'm hugely in favour of privatisation.
'There is something going on with sexual offending in London that we don’t fully understand'"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-london-reports-met-police-rise-crime-sexual-assault-a8225821.html
Countries that send goods, people, and services across borders are less likely to send tanks and infantry cross those borders.
Now all of this is under threat.
How deep do you think the Labour tide will reach into the (remaining) Tory heartlands in outer London? Parts of Bromley have changed very fast since I moved away in 2013 and I wouldn't be surprised to see the Labour surge mopping up Remainy safe Tory wards like Copers Cope. The Tories will retain control easily but IMO it's feasible that Labour might get 20-25 or so councillors on a good night, giving them a good base for the 2020s after further demographic change.
https://twitter.com/PARAQUlN/status/599939735457505281
The reason they want this is obvious from a geographical viewpoint: if DB want to operate a Paris-Munich service, they should be able to do so without having to change trains or operators. Many of the strictures in the EU's ?four? rail packages are about making the different networks as interoperable as possible, e.g. in signalling.
Corbyn has however always made clear he will leave the single market as it requires free movement however you cut it which is non negotiable for Labour Leave voters and the Leave voting Tory marginal seats he has to win to become PM. The ECJ through single market membership could also block his nationalisation plans
Perhaps when British citizens find they can't bring their non UK spouses over as of right but EU citizens can under Mrs May's deal some people might ask when we became second class citizens in our own country with fewer rights than foreign nationals?
Individual water providers, for both clean and dirty water, have almost monopoly control.
Accordingly, the are closely regulated on price. The effect of this regulation is to consider what an appropriate return on capital is for shareholders, bearing in mind market factors including the need for investment, and to allow a company to set prices accordingly.
On top of this there are a series of incentives and disincentives designed to allow companies to "keep" the benefits of outperforming targets (on leaks, for example) whilst ensuring customers aren't penalised in higher prices for companies' underperformance.
Let's assume nationalisation could take place with a click of the fingers, with no adverse consequences from that process.
If the new national water company were able to access finance cheaper, you could see a case for lowering bills - or for a return the Treasury. Great - but for how long? What would be the new model for prices, what are the incentives? Where are we in five, ten or fifteen years?
If like me you think that most of that immediate benefit is eaten up by the consequences of the nationalisation process, all you have to go on are the long run consequences. And on that, the detail is sadly lacking.
I quite like it: draw what conclusions you will about my mental deficiencies.
I expect there to be easy movement of people, as there is pretty much everywhere else in the world.
That leaves seven boroughs that are vulnerable in different ways, Barnet, Hillingdon, Kensington, Wandsworth, Westminster, Richmond, and Kingston. I think the Conservatives could lose any of them, but they won't lose every one of them. I'd expect three or four holds out of those seven.
Then, Sutton offers a possible Conservative gain.
Mr. 16, the left do love their parental privilege
The world needs a good tank battle, we've not had one in over 25 years, not since The Battle of 73 Easting
PCSOs have no real power, they have to call in a proper police officer to do the effective stuff.
The crucial question is how much would Corbyn pay the EU to keep one in place. Take your time Jeremy, we've got all day....
Labour are the party that are open to looking at options, the Tories are not.
"They say Mr Corbyn is abandoning his manifesto commitment, when the Tories have abandoned their entire manifesto (how’s the work on that social care policy coming along?). "
Ouch.
There was a long discussion about how you thought there wasn’t any difference between JC and TM on Brexit.
‘Could care less’ is a more economical way of expressing the thought.
Strange times.
http://www.dw.com/en/german-military-short-on-tanks-for-nato-mission/a-42603112
The most encouraging development for peaceniks is that none of the NATO armies (outside of the US and Turks) could manage to invade anything bigger than a large village.
The UK spends most of its defence budget propping up what I'll laughingly call our sovereign industrial capability. Hence our comical armed forces. Great people (the best I've worked with, by and large), shit procurement.
The fact that we never hear anything about any of these policy options suggests to me that concern about over-population isn't a key driver of opposition to immigration.
Less exotically, congestion and overcrowding are mostly quite localized, especially in London and the South-East, but also in cities rather than towns and villages. The government could quite easily use taxes and subsidies to try to reverse internal migration flows, and you could probably come up with some policies that could be fairly popular, but again, you don't hear much about it. So no, I don't think that's what it's about. I mean, I won't say it doesn't motivate *anyone* - there's a strain of thinking in the Green Party that takes the idea of overpopulation seriously - but as far as seriously shifting votes goes, nah.
On Japan, I don't like the immigration policy, and the refugee policy is atrocious, but TBF the immigration policy is getting better. It's changed enough that I've opted back into the public pension system, which is now looking less doomed than it was.
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-5401_en.htm
(Not a fan of state aid though.)
I wonder whether Corbyn will be daft enough to go into the 2022 election promising to take the UK into the Single Market, in the EU in all but name, allowing the EU to impose its laws on the UK and Freedom of Movement, even though most Labour MPs represent constituencies which voted to end that.
Anna Soubrey, as she hawks her "conscience" from TV studio to TV studio,is probably quite happy to have Corbyn, the Useful Idiot on her side, and who could begrudge her a little happiness before her constituents vote her out at the next general election.
Remoaners too will be pleased to have Corbyn, the Useful Idiot, on their side today.
And thats only fair, because we Leavers had him during the referendum.
I don't think the idea that the Labour Party would come up with the winning Brexit strategy was something that ever crossed anyone's mind. Certainly not mine. And I doubt it occurred to the Tory euroskeptics either.
(Come to think of it, somewhat surprised machine-gunner Blunkett didn't grant them such powers when he was Home Secetary....)