Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » MPs’ proxy voting can and should go further

13

Comments

  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    edited March 2018
    Whatever I've thought of Ian Murray in the past at least he's stuck to his guns, unlike my newly minted SLab MP who in 2 years has gone from signing a letter demanding that Corbyn stand down for the good of the party, to breathlessly parsing & Labsplaining every dodgy and gnomic utterance of the great leader.

    https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/972454442166603777
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    Elliot said:

    John_M said:

    John_M said:

    Nigelb said:

    Regarding the Damian Hinds story which was supposed to have disappeared, but hasn't, just what does he mean by 'red tape' in this context ?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43345857

    I'm married to a teacher (HoF: English). They appear to be measured not only on outcomes (which is what I've been used to, both in the public and private sector) but on process compliance. It ain't just what you do, it's the way that you do it.

    The result is system gaming of epic proportions, and I say that having 22 years of sales experience ;).

    As well as the teaching descendants there were several teachers in my fathers family, and I’m married to an ex-teacher. Groups of children do not all behave in the same way, even though they are drawn from the same social and geographical areas, and expecting there to be the same result from the same process each year is even trickier than forecasting farming yields.
    I'm going to fall back on cliche 'you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear'. I agree that teachers have little control over their inputs; while many of the children at my beloved's school are well behaved, there are a sizeable minority who are almost feral.
    My grandson teaches in a school in a ‘difficult’ area. His school is part of a ‘Group” of ‘academies’ and apparently comparisons are made with the results his school achieves with those in more middle class areas.
    I often say that students have got the grades they deserve. Mind you, I’m a Physics teacher and so virtually unsackable...
    Evidence from Massachusetts and Louisiana shows that charter schools with strong accountability measures makes a huge difference to students performance for many years. And the biggest impact is on the poorest kids. A big problem in teaching is low expectations for poor kids.
    I’d like a reference, but I suspect that 'accountablity measures’ (a definition would be useful) make a difference to poor but bright children.
    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/research/massachusetts-charter-cap-holds-back-disadvantaged-students/amp/

    These schools somehow manage to find far more "poor but bright" kids than traditional schools. Aside from a handful of child prodigies, most "bright" kids are just those that have been stretched and taught well.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Mortimer said:

    John_M said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Charles:

    If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.

    The question is whether we should take the bait.

    FPT, I completely agree with this position, out Trump's supposed exception into the context of a free trade deal with the US.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

    The ardent pursuit of such an agreement with the US suggested the Howard government did not have a clear perception of Australia's national interest. Australia's opportunities for future trading growth were much more likely to be in Asia.

    But it also represents a deeper misperception. Australia is a middle-level power whose prosperity is enhanced in a world where trade is free and governed by universal rules, rules that facilitate a level playing field and make trade between all nations easier.

    A world in which bilateral trading agreements play a more central role favours the biggest countries, such as the US and China. Their power affords them superior bargaining leverage to win concessions favouring their domestic constituencies. Australia and most other countries have an interest in more global agreements.
    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.
    We should have joined EFTA/EEA. It didn't have to be forever. Our entanglement with the EU lasted decades; we should have budgeted a decade to unwind that process.

    My view is there's a certain amount of paranoia about Brexit being reversed (and that's not entirely unjustified when we look at the Constitution referendum shenanigans back in the day), which is causing indecent haste in rushing for the exits.

    Apologies for flogging the dead horse once more. I shall try and resist the urge to refight 2016 :).
    EFTA/EEA became impossible when so-called moderate Leavers fell in behind xenophobic lies in the referendum campaign. Still they seem unable to realise what they did.
    Or it became impossible when so-called moderate Remainers started doing all they could to frustrate the result of the referendum....
    Most Remain supporters, including me, accept the referendum result must be implemented. So as usual you are wrong.

    The chief advocates of EEA membership are on the Leave side, who have no respect for the nature of the mandate that they helped to secure.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    edited March 2018
    FF43 said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Charles:

    If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.

    The question is whether we should take the bait.

    And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.

    We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.

    Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.

    FPT, I completely agree with this position, out Trump's supposed exception into the context of a free trade deal with the US.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

    The ardent pursuit of such an agreement with the US suggested the Howard government did not have a clear perception of Australia's national interest. Australia's opportunities for future trading growth were much more likely to be in Asia.

    But it also represents a deeper misperception. Australia is a middle-level power whose prosperity is enhanced in a world where trade is free and governed by universal rules, rules that facilitate a level playing field and make trade between all nations easier.

    A world in which bilateral trading agreements play a more central role favours the biggest countries, such as the US and China. Their power affords them superior bargaining leverage to win concessions favouring their domestic constituencies. Australia and most other countries have an interest in more global agreements.
    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.
    Questions. How far away is the UK from the nearest bit of the Pacific Ocean? Are we the furthest away of any country on earth?
    Canada is a member and we are closer to them than any other signatory is.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Elliot said:

    FF43 said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Charles:

    If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.

    The question is whether we should take the bait.

    And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.

    We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.

    Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.

    FPT, I completely agree with this position, out Trump's supposed exception into the context of a free trade deal with the US.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

    The ardent pursuit of such an agreement with the US suggested the Howard government did not have a clear perception of Australia's national interest. Australia's opportunities for future trading growth were much more likely to be in Asia.

    But it also represents a deeper misperception. Australia is a middle-level power whose prosperity is enhanced in a world where trade is free and governed by universal rules, rules that facilitate a level playing field and make trade between all nations easier.

    A world in which bilateral trading agreements play a more central role favours the biggest countries, such as the US and China. Their power affords them superior bargaining leverage to win concessions favouring their domestic constituencies. Australia and most other countries have an interest in more global agreements.
    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.
    Questions. How far away is the UK from the nearest bit of the Pacific Ocean? Are we the furthest away of any country on earth?
    Canada is a member and we are far closer to them than any other signatory is.
    Eh? Canada has the Pacific ocean on it's west coast!
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    MaxPB said:

    Elliot said:

    FF43 said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Charles:

    If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.

    The question is whether we should take the bait.

    And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.

    We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.

    Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.

    FPT, I completely agree with this position, out Trump's supposed exception into the context of a free trade deal with the US.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

    The ardent pursuit of such an agreement with the US suggested the Howard government did not have a clear perception of Australia's national interest. Australia's opportunities for future trading growth were much more likely to be in Asia.

    But it also represents a deeper misperception. Australia is a middle-level power whose prosperity is enhanced in a world where trade is free and governed by universal rules, rules that facilitate a level playing field and make trade between all nations easier.

    A world in which bilateral trading agreements play a more central role favours the biggest countries, such as the US and China. Their power affords them superior bargaining leverage to win concessions favouring their domestic constituencies. Australia and most other countries have an interest in more global agreements.
    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.
    Questions. How far away is the UK from the nearest bit of the Pacific Ocean? Are we the furthest away of any country on earth?
    Canada is a member and we are far closer to them than any other signatory is.
    Eh? Canada has the Pacific ocean on it's west coast!
    The Pacific Ocean isn't a signatory.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    edited March 2018
    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    Elliot said:

    FF43 said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Charles:

    If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.

    The question is whether we should take the bait.

    And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.

    We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.

    Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.

    FPT, I completely agree with this position, out Trump's supposed exception into the context of a free trade deal with the US.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

    The ardent pursuit of such an agreement with the US suggested the Howard government did not have a clear perception of Australia's national interest. Australia's opportunities for future trading growth were much more likely to be in Asia.

    But it also represents a deeper misperception. Australia is a middle-level power whose prosperity is enhanced in a world where trade is free and governed by universal rules, rules that facilitate a level playing field and make trade between all nations easier.

    A world in which bilateral trading agreements play a more central role favours the biggest countries, such as the US and China. Their power affords them superior bargaining leverage to win concessions favouring their domestic constituencies. Australia and most other countries have an interest in more global agreements.
    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.
    Questions. How far away is the UK from the nearest bit of the Pacific Ocean? Are we the furthest away of any country on earth?
    Canada is a member and we are far closer to them than any other signatory is.
    Eh? Canada has the Pacific ocean on it's west coast!
    The Pacific Ocean isn't a signatory.
    No, but Vancouver isn't that far from Japan or SK, and they are definitely closer to Australia.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Mortimer said:

    John_M said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Charles:

    If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.

    The question is whether we should take the bait.

    FPT, I completely agree with this position, out Trump's supposed exception into the context of a free trade deal with the US.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.
    We should have joined EFTA/EEA. It didn't have to be forever. Our entanglement with the EU lasted decades; we should have budgeted a decade to unwind that process.

    My view is there's a certain amount of paranoia about Brexit being reversed (and that's not entirely unjustified when we look at the Constitution referendum shenanigans back in the day), which is causing indecent haste in rushing for the exits.

    Apologies for flogging the dead horse once more. I shall try and resist the urge to refight 2016 :).
    EFTA/EEA became impossible when so-called moderate Leavers fell in behind xenophobic lies in the referendum campaign. Still they seem unable to realise what they did.
    Or it became impossible when so-called moderate Remainers started doing all they could to frustrate the result of the referendum....
    Most Remain supporters, including me, accept the referendum result must be implemented. So as usual you are wrong.

    The chief advocates of EEA membership are on the Leave side, who have no respect for the nature of the mandate that they helped to secure.
    There needs to be an acceptance that there are horrors on the Remain side, as well as horrors amongst the Leavers.

    If the loud and proud ultra Remain at any costers - the equal and opposite of the ultra leavers that you rail against - had instead of demanding more referenda, parliamentary sabotage of the result of a referendum that parliament not only allowed to happen but then endorsed the result of with the Art. 50 vote, starting short-lived anti-Brexit parties, threatening to grind the business of government to a standstill, and parroting the foolishly facile phrase 'exit from Brexit', actually got on with accepting the result and suggested EFTA/EEA from the start, there is every chance it would have gained some traction.

    But they didn't.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    MaxPB said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    Elliot said:

    FF43 said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Charles:

    If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.

    The question is whether we should take the bait.

    And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.

    We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.

    Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.

    FPT, I completely agree with this position, out Trump's supposed exception into the context of a free trade deal with the US.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

    The ardent pursuit of such an agreement with the US suggested the Howard government did not have a clear perception of Australia's national interest. Australia's opportunities for future trading growth were much more likely to be in Asia.

    But it also represents a deeper misperception. Australia is a middle-level power whose prosperity is enhanced in a world where trade is free and governed by universal rules, rules that facilitate a level playing field and make trade between all nations easier.

    A world in which bilateral trading agreements play a more central role favours the biggest countries, such as the US and China. Their power affords them superior bargaining leverage to win concessions favouring their domestic constituencies. Australia and most other countries have an interest in more global agreements.
    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.
    Questions. How far away is the UK from the nearest bit of the Pacific Ocean? Are we the furthest away of any country on earth?
    Canada is a member and we are far closer to them than any other signatory is.
    Eh? Canada has the Pacific ocean on it's west coast!
    The Pacific Ocean isn't a signatory.
    No, but Vancouver isn't that far from Japan or SK, and they are definitely closer to Australia.
    Canada’s also a lot closer to Mexico than it is to the UK.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    Mr Elliott, the paper to which you referred me says more or less what I said, viz.
    'Charter schools in the urban areas in Massachusetts have large, positive effects on educational outcomes, far better than those of the traditional public schools that charter students would otherwise attend. The effects are particularly large and positive for disadvantaged students, English learners, special education students, and children who enter charters with low test scores. By contrast, the effects outside the urban areas are zero to negative. This pattern of results accords with research at the national level, which finds positive impacts in urban areas and among disadvantaged students.’

    There is also the effect of being research subjects, and of being part of a new initiative. The Hawthorne Effect is a well known feature.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    MaxPB said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    Elliot said:

    FF43 said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Charles:

    If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.

    The question is whether we should take the bait.

    And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.

    We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.

    Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.

    FPT, I completely agree with this position, out Trump's supposed exception into the context of a free trade deal with the US.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

    The ardent pursuit of such an agreement with the US suggested the Howard government did not have a clear perception of Australia's national interest. Australia's opportunities for future trading growth were much more likely to be in Asia.


    A world in which bilateral trading agreements play a more central role favours the biggest countries, such as the US and China. Their power affords them superior bargaining leverage to win concessions favouring their domestic constituencies. Australia and most other countries have an interest in more global agreements.
    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.
    Questions. How far away is the UK from the nearest bit of the Pacific Ocean? Are we the furthest away of any country on earth?
    Canada is a member and we are far closer to them than any other signatory is.
    Eh? Canada has the Pacific ocean on it's west coast!
    The Pacific Ocean isn't a signatory.
    No, but Vancouver isn't that far from Japan or SK, and they are definitely closer to Australia.
    Canada’s also a lot closer to Mexico than it is to the UK.
    Yes, but Mexico and Canada already had NAFTA so no extra trade agreement there.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Mortimer said:

    There needs to be an acceptance that there are horrors on the Remain side, as well as horrors amongst the Leavers.

    If the loud and proud ultra Remain at any costers - the equal and opposite of the ultra leavers that you rail against - had instead of demanding more referenda, parliamentary sabotage of the result of a referendum that parliament not only allowed to happen but then endorsed the result of with the Art. 50 vote, starting short-lived anti-Brexit parties, threatening to grind the business of government to a standstill, and parroting the foolishly facile phrase 'exit from Brexit', actually got on with accepting the result and suggested EFTA/EEA from the start, there is every chance it would have gained some traction.

    But they didn't.

    Is seeking to stay in the single market sabotage or not?
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516
    MaxPB said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    Elliot said:

    FF43 said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Charles:

    If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.

    The question is whether we should take the bait.

    And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.

    We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.

    Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.

    FPT, I completely agree with this position, out Trump's supposed exception into the context of a free trade deal with the US.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

    The ardent pursuit of such an agreement with the US suggested the Howard government did not have a clear perception of Australia's national interest. Australia's opportunities for future trading growth were much more likely to be in Asia.

    But it also represents a deeper misperception. Australia is a middle-level power whose prosperity is enhanced in a world where trade is free and governed by universal rules, rules that facilitate a level playing field and make trade between all nations easier.

    A world in which bilateral trading agreements play a more central role favours the biggest countries, such as the US and China. Their power affords them superior bargaining leverage to win concessions favouring their domestic constituencies. Australia and most other countries have an interest in more global agreements.
    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.
    Questions. How far away is the UK from the nearest bit of the Pacific Ocean? Are we the furthest away of any country on earth?
    Canada is a member and we are far closer to them than any other signatory is.
    Eh? Canada has the Pacific ocean on it's west coast!
    The Pacific Ocean isn't a signatory.
    No, but Vancouver isn't that far from Japan or SK, and they are definitely closer to Australia.
    Vancouver is about 7,500km from Tokyo. Toronto is 4,500km from London. And most of Canada's GDP is in the East.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 2,869
    @david_herdson : thank you, that's an interesting article. I've only just joined the thread & wanted to say thanks before it shuts up shop!

    Good afternoon, everybody. *Back to the beginning to read the comments*
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 1,516

    Mr Elliott, the paper to which you referred me says more or less what I said, viz.
    'Charter schools in the urban areas in Massachusetts have large, positive effects on educational outcomes, far better than those of the traditional public schools that charter students would otherwise attend. The effects are particularly large and positive for disadvantaged students, English learners, special education students, and children who enter charters with low test scores. By contrast, the effects outside the urban areas are zero to negative. This pattern of results accords with research at the national level, which finds positive impacts in urban areas and among disadvantaged students.’

    There is also the effect of being research subjects, and of being part of a new initiative. The Hawthorne Effect is a well known feature.

    You seemed to suggest it only helped bright poor kids, rather than poor kids across the board. I agree charter schools do less for rich suburban kids.

    Massachusetts charter schools have been going since 1993. The Hawthorne Effect refers to those that are being directly observed rather than those who might face a statistical study years later.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    John_M said:

    Elliot said:



    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.

    We should have joined EFTA/EEA. It didn't have to be forever. Our entanglement with the EU lasted decades; we should have budgeted a decade to unwind that process.

    My view is there's a certain amount of paranoia about Brexit being reversed (and that's not entirely unjustified when we look at the Constitution referendum shenanigans back in the day), which is causing indecent haste in rushing for the exits.

    Apologies for flogging the dead horse once more. I shall try and resist the urge to refight 2016 :).
    EFTA/EEA became impossible when so-called moderate Leavers fell in behind xenophobic lies in the referendum campaign. Still they seem unable to realise what they did.
    Or it became impossible when so-called moderate Remainers started doing all they could to frustrate the result of the referendum....
    Most Remain supporters, including me, accept the referendum result must be implemented. So as usual you are wrong.

    The chief advocates of EEA membership are on the Leave side, who have no respect for the nature of the mandate that they helped to secure.
    There needs to be an acceptance that there are horrors on the Remain side, as well as horrors amongst the Leavers.

    If the loud and proud ultra Remain at any costers - the equal and opposite of the ultra leavers that you rail against - had instead of demanding more referenda, parliamentary sabotage of the result of a referendum that parliament not only allowed to happen but then endorsed the result of with the Art. 50 vote, starting short-lived anti-Brexit parties, threatening to grind the business of government to a standstill, and parroting the foolishly facile phrase 'exit from Brexit', actually got on with accepting the result and suggested EFTA/EEA from the start, there is every chance it would have gained some traction.

    But they didn't.

    You are missing my point. EEA was a complete non-starter because of the way the referendum campaign was fought. The public, reasonably, remember two things of the referendum campaign from Leave: the bus pledge and the anti-immigration message. You can’t meet the anti-immigration message through the EEA.

    This might have been different if any Leave voices had been raised before the referendum against the xenophobic lies. But they weren’t.

    The failure was not of the out and proud anti-immigrant mob. It was the so-called moderate Leavers who decided that securing Brexit overrode everything. But once secured, their preferred solution was dead on arrival.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Mortimer said:

    There needs to be an acceptance that there are horrors on the Remain side, as well as horrors amongst the Leavers.

    If the loud and proud ultra Remain at any costers - the equal and opposite of the ultra leavers that you rail against - had instead of demanding more referenda, parliamentary sabotage of the result of a referendum that parliament not only allowed to happen but then endorsed the result of with the Art. 50 vote, starting short-lived anti-Brexit parties, threatening to grind the business of government to a standstill, and parroting the foolishly facile phrase 'exit from Brexit', actually got on with accepting the result and suggested EFTA/EEA from the start, there is every chance it would have gained some traction.

    But they didn't.

    Is seeking to stay in the single market sabotage or not?
    Ultra remainers were (and I think in your case, still are?) demanding that Brexit is reversed in totality. These were often widely reported, creating a horridly ademocratic atmosphere.

    The details were irreverent when it seemed a significant number of people, many of whom influential, were determined to overturn the result. This is the prism through which all subsequent Brexit discourse has been seen.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    How long since a visiting team has won a penalty at Old Trafford?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    Elliot said:

    Mr Elliott, the paper to which you referred me says more or less what I said, viz.
    'Charter schools in the urban areas in Massachusetts have large, positive effects on educational outcomes, far better than those of the traditional public schools that charter students would otherwise attend. The effects are particularly large and positive for disadvantaged students, English learners, special education students, and children who enter charters with low test scores. By contrast, the effects outside the urban areas are zero to negative. This pattern of results accords with research at the national level, which finds positive impacts in urban areas and among disadvantaged students.’

    There is also the effect of being research subjects, and of being part of a new initiative. The Hawthorne Effect is a well known feature.

    You seemed to suggest it only helped bright poor kids, rather than poor kids across the board. I agree charter schools do less for rich suburban kids.

    Massachusetts charter schools have been going since 1993. The Hawthorne Effect refers to those that are being directly observed rather than those who might face a statistical study years later.
    Take your point, although the situation in the USA differs from UK. And while the Hawthorne Effect was originally noted in those directly observed the principle applies, and I was thinking, in this context of the efforts and motivation of the teachers, rather than the taught.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    Sandpit said:

    How long since a visiting team has won a penalty at Old Trafford?

    Thought that wasn’t allowed.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165
    Sandpit said:

    How long since a visiting team has won a penalty at Old Trafford?

    Not sure, but I remember just before the penalty shootout between Milan and Juventus in the 2003 Champions League Final, Mike Ingham on 5Live said:

    "We're about to see 10 penalties for the visiting side at Old Trafford."
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:

    How long since a visiting team has won a penalty at Old Trafford?

    Thought that wasn’t allowed.
    Clearly not, Liverpool had two nailed-on penalties waved away in as many minutes - they’d both have been given at the other end.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    There needs to be an acceptance that there are horrors on the Remain side, as well as horrors amongst the Leavers.

    If the loud and proud ultra Remain at any costers - the equal and opposite of the ultra leavers that you rail against - had instead of demanding more referenda, parliamentary sabotage of the result of a referendum that parliament not only allowed to happen but then endorsed the result of with the Art. 50 vote, starting short-lived anti-Brexit parties, threatening to grind the business of government to a standstill, and parroting the foolishly facile phrase 'exit from Brexit', actually got on with accepting the result and suggested EFTA/EEA from the start, there is every chance it would have gained some traction.

    But they didn't.

    Is seeking to stay in the single market sabotage or not?
    Ultra remainers were (and I think in your case, still are?) demanding that Brexit is reversed in totality. These were often widely reported, creating a horridly ademocratic atmosphere.

    The details were irreverent when it seemed a significant number of people, many of whom influential, were determined to overturn the result. This is the prism through which all subsequent Brexit discourse has been seen.
    The fact that "the result" is by your own admission a moving target just shows that the referendum actually decided nothing at all.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    FF43 said:


    Questions. How far away is the UK from the nearest bit of the Pacific Ocean?

    Bout 4000 miles. And that's assuming you go north of Russia, which isn't always the easiest route.

  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    John_M said:

    Elliot said:



    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.





    You are missing my point. EEA was a complete non-starter because of the way the referendum campaign was fought. The public, reasonably, remember two things of the referendum campaign from Leave: the bus pledge and the anti-immigration message. You can’t meet the anti-immigration message through the EEA.

    This might have been different if any Leave voices had been raised before the referendum against the xenophobic lies. But they weren’t.

    The failure was not of the out and proud anti-immigrant mob. It was the so-called moderate Leavers who decided that securing Brexit overrode everything. But once secured, their preferred solution was dead on arrival.
    Thanks for engaging meaningfully. ( I mean that seriously, :) )

    Anti-immigration, or control of immigration?

    The gulf between positions on even on a specific point like immigration is almost certainly huge. I have nothing against immigration personally, indeed as a middle class educated Southerner business owner, immigration impacts me largely positively. But at the same time, I recognise that it isn't an ideal situation: I'm very pro not only our control of what immigration we have, from a sovereignty POV, but a move away from the free movement within an apparently growing bloc of nations that currently exists, and towards an immigration policy that has a more positive economic outcome for the country.

    I (honestly) wonder if there was a fudge that could have been achieved in relation to EFTA/EEA, perhaps including domestic legislative changes, which might have been enough to satisfy enough people who wanted more control. I fully expected something like that, but personally became much more suspicious of compromise positions after the ultra-Remain shenanigans in the wake of the vote. This might possibly explain why, e.g., the December exit agreement and May's speech of Friday last, despite recognition of compromise, are much more acceptable to the Leavers than many ultra-Remain commentators expected, and at the same time, why the speeches of Blair and Major last week angered so many Leavers(me included).

    It is all slightly academic mind, as the boat has sailed now. Maybe we're both wrong, or maybe there is an element of truth to both our positions on this. Maybe its all a matter of perspective.


  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    Mortimer said:



    You are missing my point. EEA was a complete non-starter because of the way the referendum campaign was fought. The public, reasonably, remember two things of the referendum campaign from Leave: the bus pledge and the anti-immigration message. You can’t meet the anti-immigration message through the EEA.

    This might have been different if any Leave voices had been raised before the referendum against the xenophobic lies. But they weren’t.

    The failure was not of the out and proud anti-immigrant mob. It was the so-called moderate Leavers who decided that securing Brexit overrode everything. But once secured, their preferred solution was dead on arrival.

    Thanks for engaging meaningfully. ( I mean that seriously, :) )

    Anti-immigration, or control of immigration?

    The gulf between positions on even on a specific point like immigration is almost certainly huge. I have nothing against immigration personally, indeed as a middle class educated Southerner business owner, immigration impacts me largely positively. But at the same time, I recognise that it isn't an ideal situation: I'm very pro not only our control of what immigration we have, from a sovereignty POV, but a move away from the free movement within an apparently growing bloc of nations that currently exists, and towards an immigration policy that has a more positive economic outcome for the country.

    I (honestly) wonder if there was a fudge that could have been achieved in relation to EFTA/EEA, perhaps including domestic legislative changes, which might have been enough to satisfy enough people who wanted more control. I fully expected something like that, but personally became much more suspicious of compromise positions after the ultra-Remain shenanigans in the wake of the vote. This might possibly explain why, e.g., the December exit agreement and May's speech of Friday last, despite recognition of compromise, are much more acceptable to the Leavers than many ultra-Remain commentators expected, and at the same time, why the speeches of Blair and Major last week angered so many Leavers(me included).

    It is all slightly academic mind, as the boat has sailed now. Maybe we're both wrong, or maybe there is an element of truth to both our positions on this. Maybe its all a matter of perspective.


    You can’t campaign against immigration then follow through with a solution that does nothing about immigration. The so-called moderate Leavers never grasped that. They still don’t.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    There needs to be an acceptance that there are horrors on the Remain side, as well as horrors amongst the Leavers.

    If the loud and proud ultra Remain at any costers - the equal and opposite of the ultra leavers that you rail against - had instead of demanding more referenda, parliamentary sabotage of the result of a referendum that parliament not only allowed to happen but then endorsed the result of with the Art. 50 vote, starting short-lived anti-Brexit parties, threatening to grind the business of government to a standstill, and parroting the foolishly facile phrase 'exit from Brexit', actually got on with accepting the result and suggested EFTA/EEA from the start, there is every chance it would have gained some traction.

    But they didn't.

    Is seeking to stay in the single market sabotage or not?
    Ultra remainers were (and I think in your case, still are?) demanding that Brexit is reversed in totality. These were often widely reported, creating a horridly ademocratic atmosphere.

    The details were irreverent when it seemed a significant number of people, many of whom influential, were determined to overturn the result. This is the prism through which all subsequent Brexit discourse has been seen.
    The fact that "the result" is by your own admission a moving target just shows that the referendum actually decided nothing at all.
    The one thing it did decide was that we're Leaving.

    There needs to be an acceptance of that. I firmly think that the failure of that decision to be understood, and taken on board, by all has had an impact, as almost certainly did some of the more extreme anti-immigration rhetoric, on the polarisation of the debate.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    AnneJGP said:

    @david_herdson : thank you, that's an interesting article. I've only just joined the thread & wanted to say thanks before it shuts up shop!

    Good afternoon, everybody. *Back to the beginning to read the comments*

    +1 - thanks David.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    You can’t campaign against immigration then follow through with a solution that does nothing about immigration. The so-called moderate Leavers never grasped that. They still don’t.

    Depending on where we end up, history could judge Theresa May to be a political genius for using her red lines to set a trap for Brexiteers while allowing the salience of the immigration issue to fade into the background.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    edited March 2018

    You are missing my point. EEA was a complete non-starter because of the way the referendum campaign was fought. The public, reasonably, remember two things of the referendum campaign from Leave: the bus pledge and the anti-immigration message. You can’t meet the anti-immigration message through the EEA.

    The only message that needs to be met is the answer to: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

    The answer was leave. Anything else doesn't matter in terms of democratic legitimacy, even if it might be politically difficult to sell.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    You can’t campaign against immigration then follow through with a solution that does nothing about immigration. The so-called moderate Leavers never grasped that. They still don’t.

    I actually think the likes of Hannan are, relatively, the more extreme Brexiteers. I suspect it was immigration that swung it for Leave with voters who were not really that fussed either way.
  • MTimT2MTimT2 Posts: 48
    Elliot said:



    Vancouver is about 7,500km from Tokyo. Toronto is 4,500km from London. And most of Canada's GDP is in the East.

    Halifax NS to Penzance, Cornwall = 4300km; Halifax NS to Vancouver BC = 4400km
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 4,679
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    John_M said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:



    FPT, I completely agree with this position, out Trump's supposed exception into the context of a free trade deal with the US.

    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.
    We should have joined EFTA/EEA. It didn't have to be forever. Our entanglement with the EU lasted decades; we should have budgeted a decade to unwind that process.

    My view is there's a certain amount of paranoia about Brexit being reversed (and that's not entirely unjustified when we look at the Constitution referendum shenanigans back in the day), which is causing indecent haste in rushing for the exits.

    Apologies for flogging the dead horse once more. I shall try and resist the urge to refight 2016 :).
    EFTA/EEA became impossible when so-called moderate Leavers fell in behind xenophobic lies in the referendum campaign. Still they seem unable to realise what they did.
    Or it became impossible when so-called moderate Remainers started doing all they could to frustrate the result of the referendum....
    Most Remain supporters, including me, accept the referendum result must be implemented. So as usual you are wrong.

    The chief advocates of EEA membership are on the Leave side, who have no respect for the nature of the mandate that they helped to secure.
    There needs to be an acceptance that there are horrors on the Remain side, as well as horrors amongst the Leavers.

    If the loud and proud ultra Remain at any costers - the equal and opposite of the ultra leavers that you rail against - had instead of demanding more referenda, parliamentary sabotage of the result of a referendum that parliament not only allowed to happen but then endorsed the result of with the Art. 50 vote, starting short-lived anti-Brexit parties, threatening to grind the business of government to a standstill, and parroting the foolishly facile phrase 'exit from Brexit', actually got on with accepting the result and suggested EFTA/EEA from the start, there is every chance it would have gained some traction.

    But they didn't.

    So it is all the remainers fault? Well apart from the bits that are the EU's fault of course.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,575

    Nigelb said:

    John_M said:

    John_M said:

    Nigelb said:

    Regarding the Damian Hinds story which was supposed to have disappeared, but hasn't, just what does he mean by 'red tape' in this context ?
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43345857

    I'm married to a teacher (HoF: English). They appear to be measured not only on outcomes (which is what I've been used to, both in the public and private sector) but on process compliance. It ain't just what you do, it's the way that you do it.

    The result is system gaming of epic proportions, and I say that having 22 years of sales experience ;).
    I’m the grandfather of a primary school teacher, who is about to marry a VI Form College teacher, and I’m also the grandfather of a secondary school teacher who has recently quit teaching for another education related profession.
    I’d concur wholeheartedly that they appear to be overloaded with process, as opposed to outcomes, but also there appears to be an assumption that if the outcomes are not satisfactory it’s the teachers who have ‘failed’. Anyone with business experience knows that there are times when the multi-faceted experience that is life just doesn’t behave in the way it’s supposed to, and teachers are not immune from that.
    As well as the teaching descendants there were several teachers in my fathers family, and I’m married to an ex-teacher. Groups of children do not all behave in the same way, even though they are drawn from the same social and geographical areas, and expecting there to be the same result from the same process each year is even trickier than forecasting farming yields.
    I'm going to fall back on cliche 'you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear'. I agree that teachers have little control over their inputs; while many of the children at my beloved's school are well behaved, there are a sizeable minority who are almost feral.
    My grandson teaches in a school in a ‘difficult’ area. His school is part of a ‘Group” of ‘academies’ and apparently comparisons are made with the results his school achieves with those in more middle class areas.
    I often say that students have got the grades they deserve. Mind you, I’m a Physics teacher and so virtually unsackable...
    LOL. My 6ft (and large with it) Primary school teacher grandSON is, apparently, in a similar situation.
    And likely to be promoted to management, if he wants it...
    Doesn’t at the moment, apparently. Likes the challenge of his class.
    Good for him.
    He'll be all the better for it later on.

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    You can’t campaign against immigration then follow through with a solution that does nothing about immigration. The so-called moderate Leavers never grasped that. They still don’t.

    I think most have which is why the EEA option was taken off the table fairly quickly.

    Immigration is a UK problem, other EU countries get by just fine because their welfare and benefits systems are fit for purpose and don't start paying hundreds of pounds per week in welfare and tax credits to immigrants who have just arrived in the country for working 16h per week or selling the big issue as a self employed person.

    I've said it time and again, tax credits and housing benefits are the reason the UK voted to leave. They are the driver of mass immigration of the unskilled to the UK. There are specialists in Romania who help people go to the UK with all of their paperwork in order to ensure they can claim the maximum amount of welfare after the 90 day limit. They don't do it for any other country because the welfare systems require some kind of minimum contributions to be made.

    Would you be happy to introduce a contributory welfare system?
  • MTimT2MTimT2 Posts: 48
    Andrew said:

    FF43 said:


    Questions. How far away is the UK from the nearest bit of the Pacific Ocean?

    Bout 4000 miles. And that's assuming you go north of Russia, which isn't always the easiest route.

    Are we including Dependent Territories? In which case it is 0 miles.
  • DimitryDimitry Posts: 49

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    There needs to be an acceptance that there are horrors on the Remain side, as well as horrors amongst the Leavers.

    If the loud and proud ultra Remain at any costers - the equal and opposite of the ultra leavers that you rail against - had instead of demanding more referenda, parliamentary sabotage of the result of a referendum that parliament not only allowed to happen but then endorsed the result of with the Art. 50 vote, starting short-lived anti-Brexit parties, threatening to grind the business of government to a standstill, and parroting the foolishly facile phrase 'exit from Brexit', actually got on with accepting the result and suggested EFTA/EEA from the start, there is every chance it would have gained some traction.

    But they didn't.

    Is seeking to stay in the single market sabotage or not?
    Ultra remainers were (and I think in your case, still are?) demanding that Brexit is reversed in totality. These were often widely reported, creating a horridly ademocratic atmosphere.

    The details were irreverent when it seemed a significant number of people, many of whom influential, were determined to overturn the result. This is the prism through which all subsequent Brexit discourse has been seen.
    The fact that "the result" is by your own admission a moving target just shows that the referendum actually decided nothing at all.
    Or, rather, " .... decided not in at all"?
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    John_M said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Charles:

    If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.

    The question is whether we should take the bait.

    And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.

    We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.

    Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.

    FPT, I completely agree with this position, out Trump's supposed exception into the context of a free trade deal with the US.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

    The ardent pursuit of such an agreement with the US suggested the Howard government did not have a clear perception of Australia's national interest. Australia's opportunities for future trading growth were much more likely to be in Asia.

    But it also represents a deeper misperception. Australia is a middle-level power whose prosperity is enhanced in a world where trade is free and governed by universal rules, rules that facilitate a level playing field and make trade between all nations easier.

    A world in which bilateral trading agreements play a more central role favours the biggest countries, such as the US and China. Their power affords them superior bargaining leverage to win concessions favouring their domestic constituencies. Australia and most other countries have an interest in more global agreements.
    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.


    Apologies for flogging the dead horse once more. I shall try and resist the urge to refight 2016 :).
    EFTA/EEA became impossible when so-called moderate Leavers fell in behind xenophobic lies in the referendum campaign. Still they seem unable to realise what they did.
    Everyday is groundhog day for you, Alastair. Attempted moral suasion after the fact is probably the canonical definition of futility.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    John_M said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Charles:

    We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.

    Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.

    FPT, I completely agree with this position, out Trump's supposed exception into the context of a free trade deal with the US.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

    The ardent pursuit of such an agreement with the US suggested the Howard government did not have a clear perception of Australia's national interest. Australia's opportunities for future trading growth were much more likely to be in Asia.

    But it also represents a deeper misperception. Australia is a middle-level power whose prosperity is enhanced in a world where trade is free and governed by universal rules, rules that facilitate a level playing field and make trade between all nations easier.

    A world in which bilateral trading agreements play a more central role favours the biggest countries, such as the US and China. Their power affords them superior bargaining leverage to win concessions favouring their domestic constituencies. Australia and most other countries have an interest in more global agreements.
    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.
    We should have joined EFTA/EEA. It didn't have to be forever. Our entanglement with the EU lasted decades; we should have budgeted a decade to unwind that process.

    My view is there's a certain amount of paranoia about Brexit being reversed (and that's not entirely unjustified when we look at the Constitution referendum shenanigans back in the day), which is causing indecent haste in rushing for the exits.

    Apologies for flogging the dead horse once more. I shall try and resist the urge to refight 2016 :).
    EFTA/EEA would still mean deciding where to place the customs border with Ireland... It wouldn’t have been a short cut to resolving the majority of the issues that have come up so far.

    There’s a fun taxonomy of Brexit tribes here:
    https://twitter.com/k_niemietz/status/968424171981197314?s=21
    Guilty as charged, hoorah, I have been pigeonholed at last!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    John_M said:

    John_M said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Charles:

    If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.

    The question is whether we should take the bait.

    And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.

    We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.

    Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.

    FPT, I completely agree with this position, out Trump's supposed exception into the context of a free trade deal with the US.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

    The ardent pursuit of such an agreement with the US suggested the Howard government did not have a clear perception of Australia's national interest. Australia's opportunities for future trading growth were much more likely to be in Asia.

    But it also represents a deeper misperception. Australia is a middle-level power whose prosperity is enhanced in a world where trade is free and governed by universal rules, rules that facilitate a level playing field and make trade between all nations easier.

    A world in which bilateral trading agreements play a more central role favours the biggest countries, such as the US and China. Their power affords them superior bargaining leverage to win concessions favouring their domestic constituencies. Australia and most other countries have an interest in more global agreements.
    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.


    Apologies for flogging the dead horse once more. I shall try and resist the urge to refight 2016 :).
    EFTA/EEA became impossible when so-called moderate Leavers fell in behind xenophobic lies in the referendum campaign. Still they seem unable to realise what they did.
    Everyday is groundhog day for you, Alastair. Attempted moral suasion after the fact is probably the canonical definition of futility.
    You were bemoaning the failure to consider EEA/EFTA. But the actions of those you agree with closed that off. I simply point that out.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    Andrew said:

    FF43 said:


    Questions. How far away is the UK from the nearest bit of the Pacific Ocean?

    Bout 4000 miles. And that's assuming you go north of Russia, which isn't always the easiest route.

    It's getting easier both because of the melting of the sea ice and because that has prompted new cargo ship designs that can plow through first year sea ice. I'm sure I read somewhere that there are new South Korean ships that have travelled the northern sea route this winter.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503

    John_M said:

    John_M said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Charles:

    If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.

    The question is whether we should take the bait.

    And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.

    We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.

    Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.

    FPT, I completely agree with this position, out Trump's supposed exception into the context of a free trade deal with the US.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

    The ardent pursuit of such an agreement with the US suggested the Howard government did not have a clear perception of Australia's national interest. Australia's opportunities for future trading growth were much more likely to be in Asia.

    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.


    Apologies for flogging the dead horse once more. I shall try and resist the urge to refight 2016 :).
    EFTA/EEA became impossible when so-called moderate Leavers fell in behind xenophobic lies in the referendum campaign. Still they seem unable to realise what they did.
    Everyday is groundhog day for you, Alastair. Attempted moral suasion after the fact is probably the canonical definition of futility.
    You were bemoaning the failure to consider EEA/EFTA. But the actions of those you agree with closed that off. I simply point that out.
    You point it out all the time. I'm not entirely stupid; I do grasp your incredibly belaboured point; I just choose not to agree with your interpretation of my actions.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    He exaggerates. The government central FTA prediction is that Brexit has one third of the effect of the Great Depression on GDP. 5% loss of GDP versus 15% of the Great Depression. WTO would be half the effect at 8%


    https://twitter.com/D_Blanchflower/status/971764021547425794
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    John_M said:

    John_M said:

    John_M said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Charles:

    If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.

    The question is whether we should take the bait.

    And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.

    We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.

    Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.

    FPT, I completely agree with this position, out Trump's supposed exception into the context of a free trade deal with the US.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

    The ardent pursuit of such an agreement with the US suggested the Howard government did not have a clear perception of Australia's national interest. Australia's opportunities for future trading growth were much more likely to be in Asia.

    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.


    Apologies for flogging the dead horse once more. I shall try and resist the urge to refight 2016 :).
    EFTA/EEA became impossible when so-called moderate Leavers fell in behind xenophobic lies in the referendum campaign. Still they seem unable to realise what they did.
    Everyday is groundhog day for you, Alastair. Attempted moral suasion after the fact is probably the canonical definition of futility.
    You were bemoaning the failure to consider EEA/EFTA. But the actions of those you agree with closed that off. I simply point that out.
    You point it out all the time. I'm not entirely stupid; I do grasp your incredibly belaboured point; I just choose not to agree with your interpretation of my actions.
    EEA/EFTA isn’t being considered. I have a clear explanation why not. You - well, you have got as far as lamenting the mysterious lack of consideration given to your preferred option.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    FF43 said:

    He exaggerates. The government central FTA prediction is that Brexit has one third of the effect of the Great Depression on GDP. 5% loss of GDP versus 15% of the Great Depression. WTO would be half the effect at 8%


    https://twitter.com/D_Blanchflower/status/971764021547425794

    It's not even wrong. It's a lower total amount of growth versus the baseline. Or are we back to predictions that the economy is going to shrink?
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143

    Andrew said:

    FF43 said:


    Questions. How far away is the UK from the nearest bit of the Pacific Ocean?

    Bout 4000 miles. And that's assuming you go north of Russia, which isn't always the easiest route.

    It's getting easier both because of the melting of the sea ice and because that has prompted new cargo ship designs that can plow through first year sea ice. I'm sure I read somewhere that there are new South Korean ships that have travelled the northern sea route this winter.
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2018/03/a-warm-approach-to-the-equinox/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    MaxPB said:

    You can’t campaign against immigration then follow through with a solution that does nothing about immigration. The so-called moderate Leavers never grasped that. They still don’t.

    I think most have which is why the EEA option was taken off the table fairly quickly.

    Immigration is a UK problem, other EU countries get by just fine because their welfare and benefits systems are fit for purpose and don't start paying hundreds of pounds per week in welfare and tax credits to immigrants who have just arrived in the country for working 16h per week or selling the big issue as a self employed person.

    I've said it time and again, tax credits and housing benefits are the reason the UK voted to leave. They are the driver of mass immigration of the unskilled to the UK. There are specialists in Romania who help people go to the UK with all of their paperwork in order to ensure they can claim the maximum amount of welfare after the 90 day limit. They don't do it for any other country because the welfare systems require some kind of minimum contributions to be made.

    Would you be happy to introduce a contributory welfare system?
    Not quite true, Germany has a basic minimum lever of welfare and a higher rate of welfare based on contributions made, France has a similar system.

    Yet crucially Germany introduced transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 for 7 years, requiring work permits and using bilateral quotas and France also imposed 5 years of restrictions dependent on sector and region.

    The UK imposed no such transition controls
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    Whatever I've thought of Ian Murray in the past at least he's stuck to his guns, unlike my newly minted SLab MP who in 2 years has gone from signing a letter demanding that Corbyn stand down for the good of the party, to breathlessly parsing & Labsplaining every dodgy and gnomic utterance of the great leader.

    https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/972454442166603777

    Ian Murray is an MP in Edinburgh, a strongly Remain voting and middle class city, immigration is much less of an issue there than working class Labour Leave seats
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,545
    John_M said:

    FF43 said:

    He exaggerates. The government central FTA prediction is that Brexit has one third of the effect of the Great Depression on GDP. 5% loss of GDP versus 15% of the Great Depression. WTO would be half the effect at 8%


    https://twitter.com/D_Blanchflower/status/971764021547425794

    It's not even wrong. It's a lower total amount of growth versus the baseline. Or are we back to predictions that the economy is going to shrink?
    I think his comparison valid even if the percentages don't match. He is talking about the EFFECT of Brexit and the Great Depression on GDP. We shouldn't assume the current global economic boom will continue, especially with Trump's shenanigans. Also GDP rose sharply in the 'twenties. The Crash just took them back to the GDP of a few years earlier. It was still grim.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited March 2018

    John_M said:

    John_M said:

    John_M said:

    Elliot said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    @Charles:

    If I were Trump I would exempt the UK. Our steel exports to the US (even before tariffs) were de minimus, so why not, as it garners a little bit of good publicity.

    The question is whether we should take the bait.

    And my belief is 'no'. A rules based - i.e. WTO - system for world trade works in our favour in the long term. A 'might is right' system works for the US and China and (possibly) the EU. It doesn't work for any of the next 10 world powers, which is where we sit.

    We want a rules based system. We don't want bigger, stronger, countries to be able to rip up their treaty commitments for short term gain.

    Our long term interests are in telling the US, "yes, we'd like tariff free access to the US, but it needs to be in the context of a proper FTA," not at the whim of the current US President.

    FPT, I completely agree with this position, out Trump's supposed exception into the context of a free trade deal with the US.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/mind-the-gap-benefits-from-free-trade-havent-quite-gone-the-distance-20100302-pg6p.html

    The ardent pursuit of such an agreement with the US suggested the Howard government did not have a clear perception of Australia's national interest. Australia's opportunities for future trading growth were much more likely to be in Asia.

    This is why we should join the Trans-Pacific Partnership first.

    .
    Everyday is groundhog day for you, Alastair. Attempted moral suasion after the fact is probably the canonical definition of futility.
    You were bemoaning the failure to consider EEA/EFTA. But the actions of those you agree with closed that off. I simply point that out.
    You point it out all the time. I'm not entirely stupid; I do grasp your incredibly belaboured point; I just choose not to agree with your interpretation of my actions.
    EEA/EFTA isn’t being considered. I have a clear explanation why not. You - well, you have got as far as lamenting the mysterious lack of consideration given to your preferred option.
    Nothing mysterious about it; plenty of people don't like freedom of movement. I just think it's a shame. But thems the breaks - as we've all chanted on here oh so many times, the referendum result was 'leave the EU'. HMG has decided it wants to do it its way, not my way. I'm not unused to HMG ignoring my wishes.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    HYUFD said:

    Whatever I've thought of Ian Murray in the past at least he's stuck to his guns, unlike my newly minted SLab MP who in 2 years has gone from signing a letter demanding that Corbyn stand down for the good of the party, to breathlessly parsing & Labsplaining every dodgy and gnomic utterance of the great leader.

    https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/972454442166603777

    Ian Murray is an MP in Edinburgh, a strongly Remain voting and middle class city, immigration is much less of an issue there than working class Labour Leave seats
    There are no working class Labour Leave seats in Scotland.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233

    If the loud and proud ultra Remain at any costers [had] actually got on with accepting the result and suggested EFTA/EEA from the start, there is every chance it would have gained some traction.

    If memory serves, @RichardTyndall had an article up on this very board advocating EFTA/EEA within seven days (48 hours?) of the result. He is not a Remainer (obvs) but it was suggested at a very early stage. The Government did not need anybody to suggest it and (IIRC) would have had a majority in the House for it. Blaming Remainers for an act that Leavers had within their power and did not need Remain permission to do is not credible.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    viewcode said:

    If the loud and proud ultra Remain at any costers [had] actually got on with accepting the result and suggested EFTA/EEA from the start, there is every chance it would have gained some traction.

    If memory serves, @RichardTyndall had an article up on this very board advocating EFTA/EEA within seven days (48 hours?) of the result. He is not a Remainer (obvs) but it was suggested at a very early stage. The Government did not need anybody to suggest it and (IIRC) would have had a majority in the House for it. Blaming Remainers for an act that Leavers had within their power and did not need Remain permission to do is not credible.
    Richard Tyndall does not care about immigration though unlike the vast majority of Leave voters
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,959
    edited March 2018
    FF43 said:

    He exaggerates. The government central FTA prediction is that Brexit has one third of the effect of the Great Depression on GDP. 5% loss of GDP versus 15% of the Great Depression. WTO would be half the effect at 8%


    https://twitter.com/D_Blanchflower/status/971764021547425794

    Surely, his own document that showed UK unemployment at 5 million showed potentially more disastrous outcomes? Or are we supposed to just forget about that one?

    #WhoopsThereGoesDanny'sCredibility
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited March 2018

    HYUFD said:

    Whatever I've thought of Ian Murray in the past at least he's stuck to his guns, unlike my newly minted SLab MP who in 2 years has gone from signing a letter demanding that Corbyn stand down for the good of the party, to breathlessly parsing & Labsplaining every dodgy and gnomic utterance of the great leader.

    https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/972454442166603777

    Ian Murray is an MP in Edinburgh, a strongly Remain voting and middle class city, immigration is much less of an issue there than working class Labour Leave seats
    There are no working class Labour Leave seats in Scotland.
    Glasgow NE, which also now has a Labour MP, voted over 40% Leave
    http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14583516.EU_referendum__Here_is_how_Glasgow_voted/

    In Edinburgh South by contrast just 22% voted Leave

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/2100/edinburghs_eu_referendum_results
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    You can’t campaign against immigration then follow through with a solution that does nothing about immigration. The so-called moderate Leavers never grasped that. They still don’t.

    I think most have which is why the EEA option was taken off the table fairly quickly.

    Immigration is a UK problem, other EU countries get by just fine because their welfare and benefits systems are fit for purpose and don't start paying hundreds of pounds per week in welfare and tax credits to immigrants who have just arrived in the country for working 16h per week or selling the big issue as a self employed person.

    I've said it time and again, tax credits and housing benefits are the reason the UK voted to leave. They are the driver of mass immigration of the unskilled to the UK. There are specialists in Romania who help people go to the UK with all of their paperwork in order to ensure they can claim the maximum amount of welfare after the 90 day limit. They don't do it for any other country because the welfare systems require some kind of minimum contributions to be made.

    Would you be happy to introduce a contributory welfare system?
    Not quite true, Germany has a basic minimum lever of welfare and a higher rate of welfare based on contributions made, France has a similar system.

    Yet crucially Germany introduced transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 for 7 years, requiring work permits and using bilateral quotas and France also imposed 5 years of restrictions dependent on sector and region.

    The UK imposed no such transition controls
    That's for unemployment benefits, I'm talking about in work welfare for which no other EU country has such a generous and open system. Our unemployment benefits are too stringent and our in work welfare is far, far too generous. This is the underlying reason the nation voted to leave. Until the liberal whiners can accept that then there's no point in even bothering to discuss immigration.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    FF43 said:

    He exaggerates. The government central FTA prediction is that Brexit has one third of the effect of the Great Depression on GDP. 5% loss of GDP versus 15% of the Great Depression. WTO would be half the effect at 8%


    https://twitter.com/D_Blanchflower/status/971764021547425794

    Surely, his own document that showed UK unemployment at 5 million showed potentially more disastrous outcomes? Or are we supposed to just forget about that one?

    #WhoopsThereGoesDanny'sCredibility
    It's just remainers talking to themselves trying to convince each other that Brexit is not going to happen. It's literally white noise.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    Mortimer said:


    You are missing my point. EEA was a complete non-starter because of the way the referendum campaign was fought. The public, reasonably, remember two things of the referendum campaign from Leave: the bus pledge and the anti-immigration message. You can’t meet the anti-immigration message through the EEA.

    [snip]

    The failure was not of the out and proud anti-immigrant mob. It was the so-called moderate Leavers who decided that securing Brexit overrode everything. But once secured, their preferred solution was dead on arrival.

    Thanks for engaging meaningfully. ( I mean that seriously, :) )

    Anti-immigration, or control of immigration?

    [snip]

    I (honestly) wonder if there was a fudge that could have been achieved in relation to EFTA/EEA, perhaps including domestic legislative changes, which might have been enough to satisfy enough people who wanted more control. I fully expected something like that, but personally became much more suspicious of compromise positions after the ultra-Remain shenanigans in the wake of the vote. This might possibly explain why, e.g., the December exit agreement and May's speech of Friday last, despite recognition of compromise, are much more acceptable to the Leavers than many ultra-Remain commentators expected, and at the same time, why the speeches of Blair and Major last week angered so many Leavers(me included).

    It is all slightly academic mind, as the boat has sailed now. Maybe we're both wrong, or maybe there is an element of truth to both our positions on this. Maybe its all a matter of perspective.


    If we are being polite, let me continue in the same vein. Although Theresa May has made some very silly decisions - 2017 GE being the obvious one - to an extent the present course is the working out of the principles laid down in the January 2017 Lancaster House speech, instead of the "fault" of her specifically (or any individual, be they Leaver or Remainer). Somebody here (whose name I sadly forget) has already pointed this out.

    So those who seek "blame" for the present course need to examine the six month period between the 2016 vote and the Jan 2017 speech, and I suspect many people were involved with that: I think there was a Civil Service consultation of interested parties, for example. It may be that the present course consequent to that speech is simply the least-resistance route that minimises the conflict between many people (hence its bodgeness). So focussing on individuals post-Jan 2017 has its limits.

    People do count and are crucial at the beginning of things, but after a certain point momentum takes over. It's not often I get to use a sci-fi quote without forcing, but "the avalanche has already started: it is too late for the pebbles to vote".
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited March 2018
    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:


    You are missing my point. EEA was a complete non-starter because of the way the referendum campaign was fought. The public, reasonably, remember two things of the referendum campaign from Leave: the bus pledge and the anti-immigration message. You can’t meet the anti-immigration message through the EEA.

    [snip]

    The failure was not of the out and proud anti-immigrant mob. It was the so-called moderate Leavers who decided that securing Brexit overrode everything. But once secured, their preferred solution was dead on arrival.

    Thanks for engaging meaningfully. ( I mean that seriously, :) )

    Anti-immigration, or control of immigration?

    [snip]



    It is all slightly academic mind, as the boat has sailed now. Maybe we're both wrong, or maybe there is an element of truth to both our positions on this. Maybe its all a matter of perspective.


    If we are being polite, let me continue in the same vein. Although Theresa May has made some very silly decisions - 2017 GE being the obvious one - to an extent the present course is the working out of the principles laid down in the January 2017 Lancaster House speech, instead of the "fault" of her specifically (or any individual, be they Leaver or Remainer). Somebody here (whose name I sadly forget) has already pointed this out.

    So those who seek "blame" for the present course need to examine the six month period between the 2016 vote and the Jan 2017 speech, and I suspect many people were involved with that: I think there was a Civil Service consultation of interested parties, for example. It may be that the present course consequent to that speech is simply the least-resistance route that minimises the conflict between many people (hence its bodgeness). So focussing on individuals post-Jan 2017 has its limits.

    People do count and are crucial at the beginning of things, but after a certain point momentum takes over. It's not often I get to use a sci-fi quote without forcing, but "the avalanche has already started: it is too late for the pebbles to vote".
    Can I commend 'Fall Out' to you? It highlights the strategic straitjacket Mrs May (with a very small cabal) constructed for herself, very early on in the process.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whatever I've thought of Ian Murray in the past at least he's stuck to his guns, unlike my newly minted SLab MP who in 2 years has gone from signing a letter demanding that Corbyn stand down for the good of the party, to breathlessly parsing & Labsplaining every dodgy and gnomic utterance of the great leader.

    https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/972454442166603777

    Ian Murray is an MP in Edinburgh, a strongly Remain voting and middle class city, immigration is much less of an issue there than working class Labour Leave seats
    There are no working class Labour Leave seats in Scotland.
    Glasgow NE, which also now has a Labour MP, voted over 40% Leave
    http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14583516.EU_referendum__Here_is_how_Glasgow_voted/

    In Edinburgh South by contrast just 22% voted Leave

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/2100/edinburghs_eu_referendum_results
    59%-41% for Remain now qualifies as a Labour Leave seat does it?

    Yoon arithmetic, an arcane art.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    You can’t campaign against immigration then follow through with a solution that does nothing about immigration. The so-called moderate Leavers never grasped that. They still don’t.

    I think most have which is why the EEA option was taken off the table fairly quickly.

    Immigration is a UK problem, other EU countries get by just fine because their welfare and benefits systems are fit for purpose and don't start paying hundreds of pounds per week in welfare and tax credits to immigrants who have just arrived in the country for working 16h per week or selling the big issue as a self employed person.

    I've said it time and again, tax credits and housing benefits are the reason the UK voted to leave. They are the driver of mass immigration of the unskilled to the UK. There are specialists in Romania who help people go to the UK with all of their paperwork in order to ensure they can claim the maximum amount of welfare after the 90 day limit. They don't do it for any other country because the welfare systems require some kind of minimum contributions to be made.

    Would you be happy to introduce a contributory welfare system?
    Not quite true, Germany has a basic minimum lever of welfare and a higher rate of welfare based on contributions made, France has a similar system.

    Yet crucially Germany introduced transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 for 7 years, requiring work permits and using bilateral quotas and France also imposed 5 years of restrictions dependent on sector and region.

    The UK imposed no such transition controls
    That's for unemployment benefits, I'm talking about in work welfare for which no other EU country has such a generous and open system. Our unemployment benefits are too stringent and our in work welfare is far, far too generous. This is the underlying reason the nation voted to leave. Until the liberal whiners can accept that then there's no point in even bothering to discuss immigration.
    Certainly tighter transition controls in 2004 combined with less generous in work welfare would have reduced the prospect of a Leave vote agreed
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Whatever I've thought of Ian Murray in the past at least he's stuck to his guns, unlike my newly minted SLab MP who in 2 years has gone from signing a letter demanding that Corbyn stand down for the good of the party, to breathlessly parsing & Labsplaining every dodgy and gnomic utterance of the great leader.

    https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/972454442166603777

    Ian Murray is an MP in Edinburgh, a strongly Remain voting and middle class city, immigration is much less of an issue there than working class Labour Leave seats
    There are no working class Labour Leave seats in Scotland.
    Glasgow NE, which also now has a Labour MP, voted over 40% Leave
    http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14583516.EU_referendum__Here_is_how_Glasgow_voted/

    In Edinburgh South by contrast just 22% voted Leave

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/news/article/2100/edinburghs_eu_referendum_results
    59%-41% for Remain now qualifies as a Labour Leave seat does it?

    Yoon arithmetic, an arcane art.
    Most Labour seats UK wide voted Leave and given Scotland voted only 38% Leave that 41% for Leave in Glasgow's sole Labour seat is above the Scottish average
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    edited March 2018
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    You can’t campaign against immigration then follow through with a solution that does nothing about immigration. The so-called moderate Leavers never grasped that. They still don’t.

    I think most have which is why the EEA option was taken off the table fairly quickly.

    Immigration is a UK problem, other EU countries get by just fine because their welfare and benefits systems are fit for purpose and don't start paying hundreds of pounds per week in welfare and tax credits to immigrants who have just arrived in the country for working 16h per week or selling the big issue as a self employed person.

    I've said it time and again, tax credits and housing benefits are the reason the UK voted to leave. They are the driver of mass immigration of the unskilled to the UK. There are specialists in Romania who help people go to the UK with all of their paperwork in order to ensure they can claim the maximum amount of welfare after the 90 day limit. They don't do it for any other country because the welfare systems require some kind of minimum contributions to be made.

    Would you be happy to introduce a contributory welfare system?
    Not quite true, Germany has a basic minimum lever of welfare and a higher rate of welfare based on contributions made, France has a similar system.

    Yet crucially Germany introduced transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 for 7 years, requiring work permits and using bilateral quotas and France also imposed 5 years of restrictions dependent on sector and region.

    The UK imposed no such transition controls
    That's for unemployment benefits, I'm talking about in work welfare for which no other EU country has such a generous and open system. Our unemployment benefits are too stringent and our in work welfare is far, far too generous. This is the underlying reason the nation voted to leave. Until the liberal whiners can accept that then there's no point in even bothering to discuss immigration.
    Certainly tighter transition controls in 2004 combined with less generous in work welfare would have reduced the prospect of a Leave vote agreed
    Up until 2003, the motor racing blip aside, Blair was doing a good job.
    Then he seemed to lose his grip.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    You can’t campaign against immigration then follow through with a solution that does nothing about immigration. The so-called moderate Leavers never grasped that. They still don’t.

    I think most have which is why the EEA option was taken off the table fairly quickly.

    Immigration is a UK problem, other EU countries get by just fine because their welfare and benefits systems are fit for purpose and don't start paying hundreds of pounds per week in welfare and tax credits to immigrants who have just arrived in the country for working 16h per week or selling the big issue as a self employed person.

    I've said it time and again, tax credits and housing benefits are the reason the UK voted to leave. They are the driver of mass immigration of the unskilled to the UK. There are specialists in Romania who help people go to the UK with all of their paperwork in order to ensure they can claim the maximum amount of welfare after the 90 day limit. They don't do it for any other country because the welfare systems require some kind of minimum contributions to be made.

    Would you be happy to introduce a contributory welfare system?
    Not quite true, Germany has a basic minimum lever of welfare and a higher rate of welfare based on contributions made, France has a similar system.

    Yet crucially Germany introduced transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 for 7 years, requiring work permits and using bilateral quotas and France also imposed 5 years of restrictions dependent on sector and region.

    The UK imposed no such transition controls
    That's for unemployment benefits, I'm talking about in work welfare for which no other EU country has such a generous and open system. Our unemployment benefits are too stringent and our in work welfare is far, far too generous. This is the underlying reason the nation voted to leave. Until the liberal whiners can accept that then there's no point in even bothering to discuss immigration.
    Certainly tighter transition controls in 2004 combined with less generous in work welfare would have reduced the prospect of a Leave vote agreed
    Up until 2003, the motor racing blip aside, Blair was doing a good job.
    Then he seemed to lose his grip.
    Coincidentally enough, that's when Brown's minions (Balls, Watson, McBride etc) ramped up their campaign against Blair.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    You can’t campaign against immigration then follow through with a solution that does nothing about immigration. The so-called moderate Leavers never grasped that. They still don’t.

    I think most have which is why the EEA option was taken off the table fairly quickly.

    Immigration is a UK problem, other EU countries get by just fine because their welfare and benefits systems are fit for purpose and don't start paying hundreds of pounds per week in welfare and tax credits to immigrants who have just arrived in the country for working 16h per week or selling the big issue as a self employed person.

    I've said it time and again, tax credits and housing benefits are the reason the UK voted to leave. They are the driver of mass immigration of the unskilled to the UK. There are specialists in Romania who help people go to the UK with all of their paperwork in order to ensure they can claim the maximum amount of welfare after the 90 day limit. They don't do it for any other country because the welfare systems require some kind of minimum contributions to be made.

    Would you be happy to introduce a contributory welfare system?
    Not quite true, Germany has a basic minimum lever of welfare and a higher rate of welfare based on contributions made, France has a similar system.

    Yet crucially Germany introduced transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 for 7 years, requiring work permits and using bilateral quotas and France also imposed 5 years of restrictions dependent on sector and region.

    The UK imposed no such transition controls
    That's for unemployment benefits, I'm talking about in work welfare for which no other EU country has such a generous and open system. Our unemployment benefits are too stringent and our in work welfare is far, far too generous. This is the underlying reason the nation voted to leave. Until the liberal whiners can accept that then there's no point in even bothering to discuss immigration.
    Certainly tighter transition controls in 2004 combined with less generous in work welfare would have reduced the prospect of a Leave vote agreed
    Up until 2003, the motor racing blip aside, Blair was doing a good job.
    Then he seemed to lose his grip.
    Iraq, failure to impose transition controls on EU enlargement etc all Labour's key problems for the next decade emerged in 2003-2004
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    edited March 2018
    My parents used to live in Switzerland near the French border. Went to France all the time. Shopping, people worked there. Utter nonsense about the dreadfulness of a 'hard' border - what is these people's obsession with the word 'hard'? So much ridiculous radio noise from the usual suspects.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    My parents used to live in Switzerland near the French border. Went to France all the time. Shopping, people worked there. Utter nonsense about the dreadfulness of a 'hard' border - what is these people's obsession with the word 'hard'? So much ridiculous radio noise from the usual suspects.

    The government helpfully defined it for anyone who doesn't like the term:

    The United Kingdom also recalls its commitment to the avoidance of a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    Elliot said:

    Jonathan said:

    welshowl said:

    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF said:

    Look at these utter crackpots - Mr Palmer must surely be embarrassed by this Ludditery ? Wait until Corbyn sees an amazon warehouse...

    https://twitter.com/sunpolitics/status/972366511229886464?s=21

    Microsoft founder Bill Gates floated the idea of taxing robots, which is probably where Corbyn heard it.
    Indeed, it's not as silly as you think, especially when you consider that humans are taxed for the same job and that warps the market.
    You don’t know how silly I think it is. Very very very is the answer. He’d have banned electric trains because it put the firemen out of a job, or the bloke with a red flag walking in front of cars, the list is endless.

    It’s crackpottery pure and simple.
    Firstly, Corbyn has nothing to do with this, as Charles said it's a motion from a single CLP.
    Secondly, some very clever people are talking about this idea wrt AI.

    It's more interesting that you think.
    We should probably be limiting email use to protect postal workers. And banning JCBs to help hole diggers.
    The proposal is not to ban robots but to tax them. It is quite different. We tax sedan chair carrier robots (cars). We tax electricity, which drives robots.

    But if we do not tax robots, should we subsidise them instead?
    The point surely is that supermarkets that use electronic checkouts are also supermarkets that employ far more people per shopper (or whatever the measure is) than their newer no frills rivals. So how can an additional tax against them possibly be justified? You may as well tax Aldi and Lidl for selling stuff by the pallet rather than employing people to stack shelves.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    edited March 2018
    John_M said:



    Can I commend 'Fall Out' to you? It highlights the strategic straitjacket Mrs May (with a very small cabal) constructed for herself, very early on in the process.

    Believe it or not, yes you can. I do note reading recommendations - I tried to order "The Wooden World" but it's a print-on-demand book, and I have successfully ordered "Superforecasters" and will read it. "All Out War" and its successor "Fall Out: A Year of Political Mayhem" are on my list and will read.

    To explain. I've done all the Max Hastings now (at least the military history ones) - I did "Nemesis" over Xmas - but his next one (about Vietnam) isn't published until later this year, so I have a gap. Neither Ferguson nor Beevor quite fill the gap, so I'm twiddling my thumbs.

    I'm plowing thru "The Blunders of our Governments" at the moment (here) and I am sneakily drawn to this guy (https://twitter.com/redhistorian ), but any suggestions are welcome. Paperbacks only: my floors are creaking already... :(

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    You can’t campaign against immigration then follow through with a solution that does nothing about immigration. The so-called moderate Leavers never grasped that. They still don’t.

    I think most have which is why the EEA option was taken off the table fairly quickly.

    Immigration is a UK problem, other EU countries get by just fine because their welfare and benefits systems are fit for purpose and don't start paying hundreds of pounds per week in welfare and tax credits to immigrants who have just arrived in the country for working 16h per week or selling the big issue as a self employed person.

    I've said it time and again, tax credits and housing benefits are the reason the UK voted to leave. They are the driver of mass immigration of the unskilled to the UK. There are specialists in Romania who help people go to the UK with all of their paperwork in order to ensure they can claim the maximum amount of welfare after the 90 day limit. They don't do it for any other country because the welfare systems require some kind of minimum contributions to be made.

    Would you be happy to introduce a contributory welfare system?
    Not quite true, Germany has a basic minimum lever of welfare and a higher rate of welfare based on contributions made, France has a similar system.

    Yet crucially Germany introduced transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 for 7 years, requiring work permits and using bilateral quotas and France also imposed 5 years of restrictions dependent on sector and region.

    The UK imposed no such transition controls
    That's for unemployment benefits, I'm talking about in work welfare for which no other EU country has such a generous and open system. Our unemployment benefits are too stringent and our in work welfare is far, far too generous. This is the underlying reason the nation voted to leave. Until the liberal whiners can accept that then there's no point in even bothering to discuss immigration.
    Certainly tighter transition controls in 2004 combined with less generous in work welfare would have reduced the prospect of a Leave vote agreed
    Up until 2003, the motor racing blip aside, Blair was doing a good job.
    Then he seemed to lose his grip.
    Coincidentally enough, that's when Brown's minions (Balls, Watson, McBride etc) ramped up their campaign against Blair.
    Wasn’t that when Blair was supposed to stand aside and give Brown a go, too? TBH, can’t see Brown ever agreeing to Iraq.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    My parents used to live in Switzerland near the French border. Went to France all the time. Shopping, people worked there. Utter nonsense about the dreadfulness of a 'hard' border - what is these people's obsession with the word 'hard'? So much ridiculous radio noise from the usual suspects.

    The government helpfully defined it for anyone who doesn't like the term:

    The United Kingdom also recalls its commitment to the avoidance of a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls.
    Thankfully I hold no brief for the Government. Whether or not they choose to run with open arms into every rhetorical bear trap laid out by the remoanerist faction is their own affair.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB said:

    You can’t campaign against immigration then follow through with a solution that does nothing about immigration. The so-called moderate Leavers never grasped that. They still don’t.

    I think most have which is why the EEA option was taken off the table fairly quickly.

    Immigration is a UK problem, other EU countries get by just fine because their welfare and benefits systems are fit for purpose and don't start paying hundreds of pounds per week in welfare and tax credits to immigrants who have just arrived in the country for working 16h per week or selling the big issue as a self employed person.

    I've said it time and again, tax credits and housing benefits are the reason the UK voted to leave. They are the driver of mass immigration of the unskilled to the UK. There are specialists in Romania who help people go to the UK with all of their paperwork in order to ensure they can claim the maximum amount of welfare after the 90 day limit. They don't do it for any other country because the welfare systems require some kind of minimum contributions to be made.

    Would you be happy to introduce a contributory welfare system?
    Not quite true, Germany has a basic minimum lever of welfare and a higher rate of welfare based on contributions made, France has a similar system.

    Yet crucially Germany introduced transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 for 7 years, requiring work permits and using bilateral quotas and France also imposed 5 years of restrictions dependent on sector and region.

    The UK imposed no such transition controls
    That's for unemployment benefits, I'm talking about in work welfare for which no other EU country has such a generous and open system. Our unemployment benefits are too stringent and our in work welfare is far, far too generous. This is the underlying reason the nation voted to leave. Until the liberal whiners can accept that then there's no point in even bothering to discuss immigration.
    Certainly tighter transition controls in 2004 combined with less generous in work welfare would have reduced the prospect of a Leave vote agreed
    Up until 2003, the motor racing blip aside, Blair was doing a good job.
    Then he seemed to lose his grip.
    Coincidentally enough, that's when Brown's minions (Balls, Watson, McBride etc) ramped up their campaign against Blair.
    That reminded me of the ever so charming Derek Draper
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    My parents used to live in Switzerland near the French border. Went to France all the time. Shopping, people worked there. Utter nonsense about the dreadfulness of a 'hard' border - what is these people's obsession with the word 'hard'? So much ridiculous radio noise from the usual suspects.

    The government helpfully defined it for anyone who doesn't like the term:

    The United Kingdom also recalls its commitment to the avoidance of a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls.
    Thankfully I hold no brief for the Government. Whether or not they choose to run with open arms into every rhetorical bear trap laid out by the remoanerist faction is their own affair.
    It's in the agreement for phase one so it constrains any possible deal.

    One thing you seem to ignore is that this is a negotiation, and the EU side also has an opinion about what they consider to be appropriate on that border as well as the leverage to make their opinion count. The idea that the issue can just be waved away is unserious.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    viewcode said:

    If the loud and proud ultra Remain at any costers [had] actually got on with accepting the result and suggested EFTA/EEA from the start, there is every chance it would have gained some traction.

    If memory serves, @RichardTyndall had an article up on this very board advocating EFTA/EEA within seven days (48 hours?) of the result. He is not a Remainer (obvs) but it was suggested at a very early stage. The Government did not need anybody to suggest it and (IIRC) would have had a majority in the House for it. Blaming Remainers for an act that Leavers had within their power and did not need Remain permission to do is not credible.
    When did we have a PM or Chancellor who supported Leave ?
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195

    FF43 said:

    He exaggerates. The government central FTA prediction is that Brexit has one third of the effect of the Great Depression on GDP. 5% loss of GDP versus 15% of the Great Depression. WTO would be half the effect at 8%


    https://twitter.com/D_Blanchflower/status/971764021547425794

    Surely, his own document that showed UK unemployment at 5 million showed potentially more disastrous outcomes? Or are we supposed to just forget about that one?

    #WhoopsThereGoesDanny'sCredibility
    He lost that a LONG time ago
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    viewcode said:

    If the loud and proud ultra Remain at any costers [had] actually got on with accepting the result and suggested EFTA/EEA from the start, there is every chance it would have gained some traction.

    If memory serves, @RichardTyndall had an article up on this very board advocating EFTA/EEA within seven days (48 hours?) of the result. He is not a Remainer (obvs) but it was suggested at a very early stage. The Government did not need anybody to suggest it and (IIRC) would have had a majority in the House for it. Blaming Remainers for an act that Leavers had within their power and did not need Remain permission to do is not credible.
    When did we have a PM or Chancellor who supported Leave ?
    How many times has the Leave supporting Foreign Secretary visited EFTA countries since his appointment in order to pave the way for our application?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    I see the Scotland rugby team has done England a double disservice: by beating them last time and being crap today.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    @Header
    Oh the stress of being an MP. They need to tip up, day in, and day out. They're not some godly race that should be treated differently to others.





  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 30,846
    edited March 2018
    viewcode said:

    If the loud and proud ultra Remain at any costers [had] actually got on with accepting the result and suggested EFTA/EEA from the start, there is every chance it would have gained some traction.

    If memory serves, @RichardTyndall had an article up on this very board advocating EFTA/EEA within seven days (48 hours?) of the result. He is not a Remainer (obvs) but it was suggested at a very early stage. The Government did not need anybody to suggest it and (IIRC) would have had a majority in the House for it. Blaming Remainers for an act that Leavers had within their power and did not need Remain permission to do is not credible.
    Yep. I still think.it is the best position for us to adopt. Better than either EU membership or any of the other likely leave options.

    But as others have mentioned it does mean freedom of movement. A bonus in my opinion but not a view widely shared amongst Leave campaigners.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    My parents used to live in Switzerland near the French border. Went to France all the time. Shopping, people worked there. Utter nonsense about the dreadfulness of a 'hard' border - what is these people's obsession with the word 'hard'? So much ridiculous radio noise from the usual suspects.

    The government helpfully defined it for anyone who doesn't like the term:

    The United Kingdom also recalls its commitment to the avoidance of a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls.
    Thankfully I hold no brief for the Government. Whether or not they choose to run with open arms into every rhetorical bear trap laid out by the remoanerist faction is their own affair.
    It's in the agreement for phase one so it constrains any possible deal.

    One thing you seem to ignore is that this is a negotiation, and the EU side also has an opinion about what they consider to be appropriate on that border as well as the leverage to make their opinion count. The idea that the issue can just be waved away is unserious.
    If they wish to impose a border, let them do so, and let everyone know who put it there.

    They have no leverage. They are an organisation that barely anyone needs, wants, or can afford, a fact which is becoming increasingly clear. Our 'negotiating team' has invited them to take the mickey, which they're duly doing.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 39,749

    I see the Scotland rugby team has done England a double disservice: by beating them last time and being crap today.

    Always happy to oblige :)
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    viewcode said:

    John_M said:



    Can I commend 'Fall Out' to you? It highlights the strategic straitjacket Mrs May (with a very small cabal) constructed for herself, very early on in the process.

    Believe it or not, yes you can. I do note reading recommendations - I tried to order "The Wooden World" but it's a print-on-demand book, and I have successfully ordered "Superforecasters" and will read it. "All Out War" and its successor "Fall Out: A Year of Political Mayhem" are on my list and will read.

    To explain. I've done all the Max Hastings now (at least the military history ones) - I did "Nemesis" over Xmas - but his next one (about Vietnam) isn't published until later this year, so I have a gap. Neither Ferguson nor Beevor quite fill the gap, so I'm twiddling my thumbs.

    I'm plowing thru "The Blunders of our Governments" at the moment (here) and I am sneakily drawn to this guy (https://twitter.com/redhistorian ), but any suggestions are welcome. Paperbacks only: my floors are creaking already... :(

    Tail End Charlies about the bomber war in Europe from mid 44 is a superb and poignant read
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Scott_P said:
    I don't seem to have seen any pasted tweets about manufacturing output having expanded for nine consecutive months.

    I expect Mr Osborne has had plenty to say - he was after all very loud in declaring a 'March of the Makers', immediately before manufacturing went into recession.

    Perhaps you could also give us any tweets Mr Osborne has made about the 2017 trade deficit being the lowest as a percentage of GDP since 1998.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,517

    Wasn’t that when Blair was supposed to stand aside and give Brown a go, too? TBH, can’t see Brown ever agreeing to Iraq.

    That was what Brown wanted him to do. Whether Blair was 'supposed' to stand aside is debatable, and probably based more in the imagination of Brown's crew than in reality.

    If Brown had wanted to prevent Iraq, he could have threatened to stand down if it went ahead, and carried out such a threat. You know, actually used his position for what he felt was right. Perversely enough, such a position would probably have strengthened his hand when it came to the next leadership campaign, and stopped many of the problems he had with his own team afterwards.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    let everyone know who put it there.

    The people who voted Leave
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    I see the Scotland rugby team has done England a double disservice: by beating them last time and being crap today.

    The difference between how teams perform home and away in the 6N is ridiculous.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718

    Wasn’t that when Blair was supposed to stand aside and give Brown a go, too? TBH, can’t see Brown ever agreeing to Iraq.

    That was what Brown wanted him to do. Whether Blair was 'supposed' to stand aside is debatable, and probably based more in the imagination of Brown's crew than in reality.

    If Brown had wanted to prevent Iraq, he could have threatened to stand down if it went ahead, and carried out such a threat. You know, actually used his position for what he felt was right. Perversely enough, such a position would probably have strengthened his hand when it came to the next leadership campaign, and stopped many of the problems he had with his own team afterwards.
    Indeed. The only Labour politician who really stood firm at the time was Robin Cook, although Clare Short followed eventually.

    Caveat. IIRC!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    @Luckyguy1983's favourite leader suggests that the people interfering in the US election might not be Russians, but "Jews, just with Russian citizenship".

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/putin-u-s-election-interference-i-couldn-t-care-less-n855151
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:




    [snip]

    [snip]

    I (honestly) wonder if there was a fudge that could have been achieved in relation to EFTA/EEA, perhaps including domestic legislative changes, which might have been enough to satisfy enough people who wanted more control. I fully expected something like that, but personally became much more suspicious of compromise positions after the ultra-Remain shenanigans in the wake of the vote. This might possibly explain why, e.g., the December exit agreement and May's speech of Friday last, despite recognition of compromise, are much more acceptable to the Leavers than many ultra-Remain commentators expected, and at the same time, why the speeches of Blair and Major last week angered so many Leavers(me included).

    It is all slightly academic mind, as the boat has sailed now. Maybe we're both wrong, or maybe there is an element of truth to both our positions on this. Maybe its all a matter of perspective.


    If we are being polite, let me continue in the same vein. Although Theresa May has made some very silly decisions - 2017 GE being the obvious one - to an extent the present course is the working out of the principles laid down in the January 2017 Lancaster House speech, instead of the "fault" of her specifically (or any individual, be they Leaver or Remainer). Somebody here (whose name I sadly forget) has already pointed this out.

    So those who seek "blame" for the present course need to examine the six month period between the 2016 vote and the Jan 2017 speech, and I suspect many people were involved with that: I think there was a Civil Service consultation of interested parties, for example. It may be that the present course consequent to that speech is simply the least-resistance route that minimises the conflict between many people (hence its bodgeness). So focussing on individuals post-Jan 2017 has its limits.

    People do count and are crucial at the beginning of things, but after a certain point momentum takes over. It's not often I get to use a sci-fi quote without forcing, but "the avalanche has already started: it is too late for the pebbles to vote".
    Not trying to blame, there is no value in it, only trying to explain. And perhaps move the debate on. By pointing out that 'blame ', or rather, 'cause', can be ascribed in many directions.

    I've mentioned before that all subsequent positions follow on from Lancaster House. The cabinet decided (reluctantly in the case of Hammond, apparently) to leave SM/CU as early as January 2017. It was before then that influence might have been used.

    It is much more fun discussing this politely. Who knows, it may catch on. :)

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    Floater said:

    viewcode said:

    John_M said:



    Can I commend 'Fall Out' to you? It highlights the strategic straitjacket Mrs May (with a very small cabal) constructed for herself, very early on in the process.

    Believe it or not, yes you can. I do note reading recommendations - I tried to order "The Wooden World" but it's a print-on-demand book, and I have successfully ordered "Superforecasters" and will read it. "All Out War" and its successor "Fall Out: A Year of Political Mayhem" are on my list and will read.

    To explain. I've done all the Max Hastings now (at least the military history ones) - I did "Nemesis" over Xmas - but his next one (about Vietnam) isn't published until later this year, so I have a gap. Neither Ferguson nor Beevor quite fill the gap, so I'm twiddling my thumbs.

    I'm plowing thru "The Blunders of our Governments" at the moment (here) and I am sneakily drawn to this guy (https://twitter.com/redhistorian ), but any suggestions are welcome. Paperbacks only: my floors are creaking already... :(

    Tail End Charlies about the bomber war in Europe from mid 44 is a superb and poignant read
    "Tail-end Charlies : the last battles of the bomber war, 1944-45" by John Nichol and Tony Rennell. Noted.

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    Scott_P said:

    let everyone know who put it there.

    The people who voted Leave
    Nope.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,233
    edited March 2018
    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:


    ...Somebody here (whose name I sadly forget) has already pointed this out...

    ...I've mentioned before that all subsequent positions follow on from Lancaster House. The cabinet decided (reluctantly in the case of Hammond, apparently) to leave SM/CU as early as January 2017...

    I have a horrible feeling that the "somebody here...whose name I sadly forget... [and who] has already pointed this out" may have been you, in which case apols... :(

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited March 2018
    FF43 said:

    He exaggerates. The government central FTA prediction is that Brexit has one third of the effect of the Great Depression on GDP. 5% loss of GDP versus 15% of the Great Depression. WTO would be half the effect at 8%


    https://twitter.com/D_Blanchflower/status/971764021547425794

    A man so wrong with pretty much every prediction, he is even testing the saying broken clock is right twice a day...

    If he hadn't been chosen to be on the MPC, I wonder if he would have any standing at all. His academic work up to that point had been shit to put it mildly.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,718
    viewcode said:

    Floater said:

    viewcode said:

    John_M said:



    Can I commend 'Fall Out' to you? It highlights the strategic straitjacket Mrs May (with a very small cabal) constructed for herself, very early on in the process.

    Believe it or not, yes you can. I do note reading recommendations - I tried to order "The Wooden World" but it's a print-on-demand book, and I have successfully ordered "Superforecasters" and will read it. "All Out War" and its successor "Fall Out: A Year of Political Mayhem" are on my list and will read.

    To explain. I've done all the Max Hastings now (at least the military history ones) - I did "Nemesis" over Xmas - but his next one (about Vietnam) isn't published until later this year, so I have a gap. Neither Ferguson nor Beevor quite fill the gap, so I'm twiddling my thumbs.

    I'm plowing thru "The Blunders of our Governments" at the moment (here) and I am sneakily drawn to this guy (https://twitter.com/redhistorian ), but any suggestions are welcome. Paperbacks only: my floors are creaking already... :(

    Tail End Charlies about the bomber war in Europe from mid 44 is a superb and poignant read
    "Tail-end Charlies : the last battles of the bomber war, 1944-45" by John Nichol and Tony Rennell. Noted.

    Didn’t more men, and a higher percentage of those conscripted, die in Bomber Command than any other similar unit? And, AIUI, failing to ‘volunteer’ to go on ‘just one more’ raid could result in censure..... lack of moral fibre and so on.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    @Luckyguy1983's favourite leader suggests that the people interfering in the US election might not be Russians, but "Jews, just with Russian citizenship".

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/putin-u-s-election-interference-i-couldn-t-care-less-n855151

    Margaret Thatcher has suggested that from beyond the grave? Remarkable.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    That interview with Eddie Jones was more enjoyable than the match in Dublin
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 13,921
    viewcode said:

    Mortimer said:

    viewcode said:


    ...Somebody here (whose name I sadly forget) has already pointed this out...

    ...I've mentioned before that all subsequent positions follow on from Lancaster House. The cabinet decided (reluctantly in the case of Hammond, apparently) to leave SM/CU as early as January 2017...

    I have a horrible feeling that the "somebody here...whose name I sadly forget... [and who] has already pointed this out" may have been you, in which case apols... :(

    None necessary - I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been pointing it out.
This discussion has been closed.