Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Indeed, I said to JohnO on Thursday would you be happy with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell being given these powers?
If it isn't good enough for those two, then it isn't good enough for any government.
No, of course not. But that's just an excuse by those with an anti-Brexit agenda to try and win Conservatives round to stop Brexit.
A better answer is: how do Conservatives argue the positive case for Conservative values in the 21st Century, and intellectually defeat socialism again?
We are the good guys. We must show people we are, not assume they'll work it out for themselves.
You (or they) could have started by trusting the people and their elected officials rather than looking at any authority outside of London with deep suspicion. I can see no reason at all why fisheries and agriculture should not be devolved, nor why the return of a huge swathe of powers from Brussels should not be used as an opportunity to strengthen local government. Instead it is pulling yet more power into the executive.
Is this a reason to stop Brexit? Of course not. But it is disappointing that the Tories have proved themselves so parochial (in the narrow minded sense) when it comes to the distribution of power across the nation.
One hopes that the next stage of the process will be more devolution to local government.
Off topic, I did an Opinium survey earlier this week. It's not been published, so perhaps there's a party out there privately testing the waters - presumably the Tories. Or maybe it's still to come - as usual it was combined with questions about advertising placards (have you seen this forgettable billboard about Carling beer? etc.) and other stuff which no doubt reflects their other clients.
Opinium poll for either The Observer or PB/Polling matters, so we might see in this evening.
F1. Q3 effectively abandoned by everyone 15 minutes early due to rain. It's forecast to clear before qualifying in a couple of hours but we all know weather forecasts are about as accurate as political polling.
I agree that getting the right constitutional balance is important. Haven't read much detail (focusing on F1 and promoting my magnificent new book, Traitor's Prize), but any arrangement must be right whatever government is elected.
One of the reasons I really like the Second Punic War is that it proves beyond all doubt the importance of a sound constitution over individual brilliance. It's why we need more scrutiny of laws and less of politicians. Politicians come and go, but laws linger for decades or even centuries. They must be well-drafted or their consequences can be dire.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, Clegg's demeaned himself with that sort of idiocy.
One man, one vote. The idea we should slice the electorate demographically and give more voting power to the segments that agree with 'approved' opinions is rancid.
Curiously, though, you have a whole swathe of wealthy seats, which the Conservatives had either lost to the Lib Dems, or where the latter were very competitive, which are firmly back in Conservative hands. What makes wealthy voters in Harrogate, Solihull, Guildford or Cheadle behave differently from wealthy voters in Kensington, Battersea, Birmingham Edgbaston, or Twickenham?
There's a town / city split you highlight there.
What I find interesting is how adjacent constituencies have rapidly changed in different directions.
For example in 2005 Leeds NE and Elmet were nominally electorally near identical but this year Elmet was nearly 27k votes more Conservative than Leeds NE.
There are similar big shifts in the Midlands and in the Bristol area. And for that matter between Hertfordshire and North London.
What was the percentage increase in the national minimum wage during the period of the survey?
"Figure 15 also suggests that the raising of the wage floor for those aged 25 and over via the introduction of the National Living Wage had a spillover effect on pay for those a little higher in the weekly earnings distribution,[9] with wages rising by more than 3 per cent in real-terms across each of the four lowest earning deciles."
If accurate, that's indefensible. Also, would it be classed as ultimocracy?
Daily Mail: ignore.
Nick Clegg: ignore.
An interesting 'what if' is what if Nick Clegg, instead of being a worthless liar, sticks to his promises and opposes Osborne's plans to rob the young to bribe the old.
We have already seen how powerful 10 MPs can be in this parliament and their about 10 Labour Lexiters too.MPs like Kate Hoey,John Mann,Kelvin Hopkins,Dennis Skinner,these guys are unbribable-although you could offer £1 billion each for Bassetlaw,Brixton,Luton,Bolsover,etc.and add in Mansfield,Stoke,Middlesbrough and others.There's plenty of pork for Ulster but England lives on thin porridge. The good people of Bassetlaw like a nice piece of pork.
The US overtook the U.K. in terms of total GDP at the end of the 19th century, and Germany started outperforming in several manufacturing measures.
It's been relative decline since then, but we have done a great job of evolving beyond industrialisation and empire.
Until Brexit.
Brexit is part of that process and will help slow relative decline. The EU thinks it can challenge the US and China (and India) by becoming a superpower. It can't and it will lose. We need to find a new path - our own evolutionary niche - rather than continually trying to emulate the dinosaurs.
That is the thinking Brexiter's argument, yes. It doesn't bear much scrutiny, though. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that the EU stops the UK evolving, or that it forces us to conform to some unwelcome or outdated economic model.
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
It's a national disaster.
And, yet, you yourself believed there was a pragmatic route for Brexit and once considered voting for it.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
A pragmatic route required years of careful planning and a tolerant open tone to the debate. Instead Britain has a clueless planless government that wants to crush saboteurs, hates citizens of the world and has to implement a version of Brexit that was secured by pandering to xenophobia.
There is no nuance. It's a national disaster.
Of course it's a national disaster but if the electorate votes for a national disaster what can the politicians do but deliver it?
So there you go. F*cked, mate.
Oh it has to be delivered, and consistently with how the victory was secured.
I expect that in generations to come the referendum result will be looked at as the moment when Britain's glissando really started.
People have been saying that about Britain since about the 1880s:
And Britain has been in relative decline since then. The path has so far been fairly gentle. From now on, it may well become much steeper, more like Argentina's over the last century.
How are we measuring decline?
Immigrants still risking their lives to get here is one measure.
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Politicians in London think more powers should be in the hands of politicians in London shocker.
In times of crisis it is normally best to take power to the centre so decisions can be taken swiftly and decisively.
I've always been of the view that there's no government like no government.
If accurate, that's indefensible. Also, would it be classed as ultimocracy?
Daily Mail: ignore.
Mr Clegg, speaking at the Buxton International Festival in Derbyshire, made the comments about Brexit during a public question and answer session – minutes after saying he planned to retire from politics.
No tip but there is quite a lot of interesting news on future engine suppliers for McLaren and Sauber, as well as a rundown on grid penalties which could significantly shake up the grid.
Of course it's a national disaster but if the electorate votes for a national disaster what can the politicians do but deliver it?
There are those of us who thought that in a modern parliamentary democracy the elected representatives would choose the route they thought best for the country but when I have raised this point here I am pretty soon reminded that Parliament agreed to be bound by the referendum result.
So there you go. F*cked, mate.
What is interesting is that the elected politicians who campaigned against Brexit are now in the "we must deliver at any cost" camp, while the now not elected people like Gisela Stuart and Domic Cummings who masterminded the clusterfuck are poking their heads out and saying "Wait a minute, this isn't what we meant at all"
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
For one thing, picture this: if the EU bill is a huge £50bn one-off fee for Brexit, Corbyn wants to borrow that amount each year, *every year*, on top of what we currently borrow at the moment. With no plan to cover it or even begin to pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
on the extrication process (at a time when Britain's finances remain shaky) for no obvious advantage and the huge opportunity cost that genuinely important issues will go ignored for the duration.
It's a national disaster.
And, yet, you yourself believed there was a pragmatic route for Brexit and once considered voting for it.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
A pragmatic route required years of careful planning and a tolerant open tone to the debate. Instead Britain has a clueless planless government that wants to crush saboteurs, hates citizens of the world and has to implement a version of Brexit that was secured by pandering to xenophobia.
There is no nuance. It's a national disaster.
Of course it's a national disaster but if the electorate votes for a national disaster what can the politicians do but deliver it?
There are those of us who thought that in a modern parliamentary democracy the elected representatives would choose the route they thought best for the country but when I have raised this point here I am pretty soon reminded that Parliament agreed to be bound by the referendum result.
So there you go. F*cked, mate.
Oh it has to be delivered, and consistently with how the victory was secured.
I expect that in generations to come the referendum result will be looked at as the moment when Britain's glissando really started.
People have been saying that about Britain since about the 1880s:
And Britain has been in relative decline since then. The path has so far been fairly gentle. From now on, it may well become much steeper, more like Argentina's over the last century.
Argentina suffered from a succession of coups and dictatorships, which seem unlikely in the UK.
I agree with The Herdson that Theresa is PM until Spring/Summer 2019 but there is one caveat that she might resign at some point on her own terms.
The stress she is under must be unbelievable so she might get ill or she might just decide the country/parliament is ungovernable and she'd prefer to be in her garden with Philip.
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
It's a national disaster.
And, yet, you yourself believed there was a pragmatic route for Brexit and once considered voting for it.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
A pragmatic route required years of careful planning and a tolerant open tone to the debate. Instead Britain has a clueless planless government that wants to crush saboteurs, hates citizens of the world and has to implement a version of Brexit that was secured by pandering to xenophobia.
There is no nuance. It's a national disaster.
Of course it's a national disaster but if the electorate votes for a national disaster what can the politicians do but deliver it?
So there you go. F*cked, mate.
Oh it has to be delivered, and consistently with how the victory was secured.
I expect that in generations to come the referendum result will be looked at as the moment when Britain's glissando really started.
People have been saying that about Britain since about the 1880s:
And Britain has been in relative decline since then. The path has so far been fairly gentle. From now on, it may well become much steeper, more like Argentina's over the last century.
How are we measuring decline?
Immigrants still risking their lives to get here is one measure.
Nah. A false equivalence is always drawn between the Conservatives and Corbyn's Labour for those that hate Brexit, but it's rubbish.
The Conservatives are fiscally sane, understand macroeconomics, and are entirely pragmatic on national security and defence. As their manifesto made clear.
Corbyn's Labour is neither.
It's a national disaster.
And, yet, you yourself believed there was a pragmatic route for Brexit and once considered voting for it.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
A pragmatic route required years of careful planning and a tolerant open tone to the debate. Instead Britain has a clueless planless government that wants to crush saboteurs, hates citizens of the world and has to implement a version of Brexit that was secured by pandering to xenophobia.
There is no nuance. It's a national disaster.
Of course it's a national disaster but if the electorate votes for a national disaster what can the politicians do but deliver it?
So there you go. F*cked, mate.
Oh it has to be delivered, and consistently with how the victory was secured.
I expect that in generations to come the referendum result will be looked at as the moment when Britain's glissando really started.
People have been saying that about Britain since about the 1880s:
And Britain has been in relative decline since then. The path has so far been fairly gentle. From now on, it may well become much steeper, more like Argentina's over the last century.
How are we measuring decline?
Immigrants still risking their lives to get here is one measure.
If accurate, that's indefensible. Also, would it be classed as ultimocracy?
The way people are behaving at the moment you could envisage, if not an actual civil war then certainly serious civil unrest in the coming months...
I think so. The vote was unsatisfactory not just in it's result but in its execution. If the way we are to be governed is to be fundamentally and irrevocably changed I 'd expect it to be decided by something more substantial than a wafer thin majority of an electorate almost totally ignorant of the consequences based on bogus facts and driven by the personal ambition of the leaders.
If accurate, that's indefensible. Also, would it be classed as ultimocracy?
The way people are behaving at the moment you could envisage, if not an actual civil war then certainly serious civil unrest in the coming months...
Britain has had a number of civil wars and revolutions, although we seem to collectively only remember one.
The Wars of the Roses, and the Dissolution of Monasteries were rather significant events for example.
*waits for PB historians*
There's only been one The English Civil War to best of my knowledge. Plenty of other stuff that was effectively a civil war. Stephen vs Matilda for one.
Argentina suffered from a succession of coups and dictatorships, which seem unlikely in the UK.
I'm sure you remember Anthony Well's superb "What if Gordon Banks Had Played?"
We are very lucky to have had a long, long period of civil society in this country, and strong institutions and democratic tradition. It is therefore unlikely that that there would be coups and the like. But it is by no means inevitable. Good, democratic government, with respect for the primacy of the individual is by no means assured.
I feel that the government's handling of Brexit is increasing the likelihood of severe economic problems, and therefore the possibility of us ending up with a government that does not respect democratic norms, and elevates the socialist state above the individual. Hopefully, it won't come to that, and we will all pull together. (Recognising Brexit as a process which could take five to ten years to fully complete would be a good start.) But there is nothing inevitable about the success of the United Kingdom.
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Politicians in London think more powers should be in the hands of politicians in London shocker.
In times of crisis it is normally best to take power to the centre so decisions can be taken swiftly and decisively.
I've always been of the view that there's no government like no government.
In a crisis like a war?
Giving money and power to the government is like giving whisky and car keys to teenagers.
PS. Look at the well chosen photo at the top of David's article. When the downturn comes does anyone really believe that grinning ninny on the right of frame will be allowed to escape scott free?
If accurate, that's indefensible. Also, would it be classed as ultimocracy?
The way people are behaving at the moment you could envisage, if not an actual civil war then certainly serious civil unrest in the coming months...
I think so. The vote was unsatisfactory not just in it's result but in its execution. If the way we are to be governed is to be fundamentally and irrevocably changed I 'd expect it to be decided by something more substantial than a wafer thin majority of an electorate almost totally ignorant of the consequences based on bogus facts and driven by the personal ambition of the leaders.
Vive La Revolution!.
Roger you are becoming very bloodthirsty,having people put against a wall and shot and now this.
If accurate, that's indefensible. Also, would it be classed as ultimocracy?
The way people are behaving at the moment you could envisage, if not an actual civil war then certainly serious civil unrest in the coming months...
I think so. The vote was unsatisfactory not just in it's result but in its execution. If the way we are to be governed is to be fundamentally and irrevocably changed I 'd expect it to be decided by something more substantial than a wafer thin majority of an electorate almost totally ignorant of the consequences based on bogus facts and driven by the personal ambition of the leaders.
Vive La Revolution!.
Will you be on the streets on Rog? Or holed up in one of your mansions?
If accurate, that's indefensible. Also, would it be classed as ultimocracy?
The way people are behaving at the moment you could envisage, if not an actual civil war then certainly serious civil unrest in the coming months...
I think so. The vote was unsatisfactory not just in it's result but in its execution. If the way we are to be governed is to be fundamentally and irrevocably changed I 'd expect it to be decided by something more substantial than a wafer thin majority of an electorate almost totally ignorant of the consequences based on bogus facts and driven by the personal ambition of the leaders.
Vive La Revolution!.
The Day of Rage turned out to be the Day of Piss and Wind.
If accurate, that's indefensible. Also, would it be classed as ultimocracy?
The way people are behaving at the moment you could envisage, if not an actual civil war then certainly serious civil unrest in the coming months...
I think so. The vote was unsatisfactory not just in it's result but in its execution. If the way we are to be governed is to be fundamentally and irrevocably changed I 'd expect it to be decided by something more substantial than a wafer thin majority of an electorate almost totally ignorant of the consequences based on bogus facts and driven by the personal ambition of the leaders.
Vive La Revolution!.
Roger you are becoming very bloodthirsty,having people put against a wall and shot and now this.
It's only because he thinks he might have to sell his mansion on the Cote D'Azure...
And, yet, you yourself believed there was a pragmatic route for Brexit and once considered voting for it.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
There is no nuance. It's a national disaster.
Of course it's a national disaster but if the electorate votes for a national disaster what can the politicians do but deliver it?
So there you go. F*cked, mate.
Oh it has to be delivered, and consistently with how the victory was secured.
I expect that in generations to come the referendum result will be looked at as the moment when Britain's glissando really started.
People have been saying that about Britain since about the 1880s:
And Britain has been in relative decline since then. The path has so far been fairly gentle. From now on, it may well become much steeper, more like Argentina's over the last century.
How are we measuring decline?
Immigrants still risking their lives to get here is one measure.
Argentina suffered from a succession of coups and dictatorships, which seem unlikely in the UK.
I'm sure you remember Anthony Well's superb "What if Gordon Banks Had Played?"
We are very lucky to have had a long, long period of civil society in this country, and strong institutions and democratic tradition. It is therefore unlikely that that there would be coups and the like. But it is by no means inevitable. Good, democratic government, with respect for the primacy of the individual is by no means assured.
I feel that the government's handling of Brexit is increasing the likelihood of severe economic problems, and therefore the possibility of us ending up with a government that does not respect democratic norms, and elevates the socialist state above the individual. Hopefully, it won't come to that, and we will all pull together. (Recognising Brexit as a process which could take five to ten years to fully complete would be a good start.) But there is nothing inevitable about the success of the United Kingdom.
Everyones' luck runs out eventually, and that applies to societies. War, executions, torture chambers, famines will no doubt return to even the most prosperous societies in the future.
But, Brexit is not the harbinger of the Apocalypse.
And, yet, you yourself believed there was a pragmatic route for Brexit and once considered voting for it.
I don't want any of the negative things you describe any more than you do. But I think your anger at how you think it's panning out obscures the nuances in the real argument.
There is no nuance. It's a national disaster.
Of course it's a national disaster but if the electorate votes for a national disaster what can the politicians do but deliver it?
So there you go. F*cked, mate.
Oh it has to be delivered, and consistently with how the victory was secured.
I expect that in generations to come the referendum result will be looked at as the moment when Britain's glissando really started.
People have been saying that about Britain since about the 1880s:
And Britain has been in relative decline since then. The path has so far been fairly gentle. From now on, it may well become much steeper, more like Argentina's over the last century.
How are we measuring decline?
Immigrants still risking their lives to get here is one measure.
GDP per head within countries might be a better measure than total GDP.
Although that distorts the axis towards to very small countries (city states) and the resource rich and population poor.
Resource rich, population poor sounds like the absence of decline to me.
It's the rich what gets the pleasure and the poor what gets the blame.
I was referring to the likes of Qatar - places with tonnes of oil and gas and very few people. Places that will have their brief day in the sun, and then - when it runs out - return to irrelevance.
GDP per head within countries might be a better measure than total GDP.
Although that distorts the axis towards to very small countries (city states) and the resource rich and population poor.
It will tell you we are incredibly wealthy relative the the vast majority of the world, but not quite as wealthy as we were relative to the rest of the world. Common sense really given we did have a massive trading empire funneling wealth into GB PLC and now not so much.
If accurate, that's indefensible. Also, would it be classed as ultimocracy?
The way people are behaving at the moment you could envisage, if not an actual civil war then certainly serious civil unrest in the coming months...
I think so. The vote was unsatisfactory not just in it's result but in its execution. If the way we are to be governed is to be fundamentally and irrevocably changed I 'd expect it to be decided by something more substantial than a wafer thin majority of an electorate almost totally ignorant of the consequences based on bogus facts and driven by the personal ambition of the leaders.
Vive La Revolution!.
The Day of Rage turned out to be the Day of Piss and Wind.
Roger was recently fantasising about the 1986 Sorbonne riots being replicated in Britain.
I had to explain what the electoral consequences of those were.
If accurate, that's indefensible. Also, would it be classed as ultimocracy?
The way people are behaving at the moment you could envisage, if not an actual civil war then certainly serious civil unrest in the coming months...
I think so. The vote was unsatisfactory not just in it's result but in its execution. If the way we are to be governed is to be fundamentally and irrevocably changed I 'd expect it to be decided by something more substantial than a wafer thin majority of an electorate almost totally ignorant of the consequences based on bogus facts and driven by the personal ambition of the leaders.
Vive La Revolution!.
The Day of Rage turned out to be the Day of Piss and Wind.
Roger was recently fantasising about the 1986 Sorbonne riots being replicated in Britain.
I had to explain what the electoral consequences of those were.
A recent highlight from that vacuum was relating "you've never had it so good" to electoral defeat. Errr, almost a decade later.
The Day of Rage turned out to be the Day of Piss and Wind.
That's because the SWP/Class War far left are Potemkin soldiers - very few of them with no real support outside their tiny numbers. Lots of people here were predicting riots because they'd seen an incendiary tweet, but as I said at the time there isn't much appetite for it.
There is an emotional vibrancy on the Corbynite left which is notably lacking elsewhere on the spectrum (allthough the Brexit movement caught one for a while, it seems to have dissipated) - centrist Labour is short of ideas, the LibDems seem mainly about stopping Brexit, the Tories are dispiritedly fighting each other and have no ideas at all, and UKIP is a joke.
But there isn't a hugely coherent intellectual project on the scene, nor is there real street anger yet, because basically life isn't too bad for most people. The risk of Brexit is that it first bores everyone to death and then turns into a series of frustrating dificulties and economic decline. The next government may find life even harder than this one.
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Although Sturgeon and Carwyn-Jones have flagged up the power grab - the silence in Scotland from both SCON & SLAB is deafening - at least the MSM are picking up on this:
This analysis in particular by....Blair of all people is especially spot on:
Our poll shows people want change and by large numbers and in all three countries. Years of austerity and an acute sense of an elite separated from the rest has led to a belief that the promise of generational progress has ended. This generation believes it has done better than the last. But it does not believe the next generation will do better than them.
That is the market of anxiety in which the populists peddle quack solutions.
But the poll also shows that support for the centre stays strong. People will default to populism when a radical centre is not on offer; where it is, they will vote it in, as Macron has shown.
I am not advocating a new Party. Quite apart from the desirability of such a thing, our political system puts formidable barriers in its path.
In any event, as a member of the Labour Party of over 40 years standing, I want the Labour Party to capture this ground.
But there are millions of politically homeless in Britain. They are not going to wander the by-ways of politics, bedding down uncomfortably, forever, not with their country in the dire shape it is in.
The challenge for the centre is to be the place of changing the status quo not managing it.
If it does, it still beats everything else.
What the progressive centre lacks is a radical policy agenda.
Though the idea that Labour is likely to become the party of the radical centre any time soon is utterly risible.
I agree, sadly.
In my exchanges with Corbynistas, I've learned that many of them see centrism as this utterly evil ideology.
Blair's idea of centrism is well to the Right of pre-Thatcher Tory Governments.
This analysis in particular by....Blair of all people is especially spot on:
Our poll shows people want change and by large numbers and in all three countries. Years of austerity and an acute sense of an elite separated from the rest has led to a belief that the promise of generational progress has ended. This generation believes it has done better than the last. But it does not believe the next generation will do better than them.
That is the market of anxiety in which the populists peddle quack solutions.
But the poll also shows that support for the centre stays strong. People will default to populism when a radical centre is not on offer; where it is, they will vote it in, as Macron has shown.
I am not advocating a new Party. Quite apart from the desirability of such a thing, our political system puts formidable barriers in its path.
In any event, as a member of the Labour Party of over 40 years standing, I want the Labour Party to capture this ground.
But there are millions of politically homeless in Britain. They are not going to wander the by-ways of politics, bedding down uncomfortably, forever, not with their country in the dire shape it is in.
The challenge for the centre is to be the place of changing the status quo not managing it.
If it does, it still beats everything else.
What the progressive centre lacks is a radical policy agenda.
Though the idea that Labour is likely to become the party of the radical centre any time soon is utterly risible.
I agree, sadly.
In my exchanges with Corbynistas, I've learned that many of them see centrism as this utterly evil ideology.
Blair's idea of centrism is well to the Right of pre-Thatcher Tory Governments.
I disagree with several aspects of Blair's centrism but Corbynistas dislike centrism in general, not just merely the politics of Tony Blair.
This analysis in particular by....Blair of all people is especially spot on:
Our poll shows people want change and by large numbers and in all three countries. Years of austerity and an acute sense of an elite separated from the rest has led to a belief that the promise of generational progress has ended. This generation believes it has done better than the last. But it does not believe the next generation will do better than them.
That is the market of anxiety in which the populists peddle quack solutions.
But the poll also shows that support for the centre stays strong. People will default to populism when a radical centre is not on offer; where it is, they will vote it in, as Macron has shown.
I am not advocating a new Party. Quite apart from the desirability of such a thing, our political system puts formidable barriers in its path.
In any event, as a member of the Labour Party of over 40 years standing, I want the Labour Party to capture this ground.
But there are millions of politically homeless in Britain. They are not going to wander the by-ways of politics, bedding down uncomfortably, forever, not with their country in the dire shape it is in.
The challenge for the centre is to be the place of changing the status quo not managing it.
If it does, it still beats everything else.
What the progressive centre lacks is a radical policy agenda.
Though the idea that Labour is likely to become the party of the radical centre any time soon is utterly risible.
I agree, sadly.
In my exchanges with Corbynistas, I've learned that many of them see centrism as this utterly evil ideology.
Blair's idea of centrism is well to the Right of pre-Thatcher Tory Governments.
I disagree with several aspects of Blair's centrism but Corbynistas dislike centrism in general, not just merely the politics of Tony Blair.
Indeed, because many of his most ardent followers are pure socialists of varying types (communist, trot etc etc) and many were members of other parties opposed to Labour e.g. SWP before Corbyn came along.
It looked like May had exercised the wisdom of Soloman. She'd appointed her three Brexyest ministers and as a lukewarm Remainer she would oversee it and act as an honest broker. That was how it was designed and it looked foolproof....
But instead she turned into THE arch Brexiteer. A decision which was catastrophic for both herself and her party and left the country divided and rudderless.
The question whch will have historians scratching their heads is why? Was it a genuine damascene conversion? Did she come under a Notradamus like influence? After 40 years did she suddenly lose her political nous? Was she taken in by Boris's bus? Was she worried about playing second fiddle to Merkel? Did someone mistake her for a Turk at school?
It's a mystery.
I suspect that Theresa May was always in the Leave camp. She kept her head down during the Referendum and endorsed Remain solely out of loyalty to Cameron.
Good to hear. Internal party divisions when the country needs to be united, need to be clamped down on very hard.
Mrs May won the election and has enough problems getting her agenda through without her own bastards in the background. If Osborne's friends don't shut up we get Corbyn in charge.
This analysis in particular by....Blair of all people is especially spot on:
Our poll shows people want change and by large numbers and in all three countries. Years of austerity and an acute sense of an elite separated from the rest has led to a belief that the promise of generational progress has ended. This generation believes it has done better than the last. But it does not believe the next generation will do better than them.
That is the market of anxiety in which the populists peddle quack solutions.
But the poll also shows that support for the centre stays strong. People will default to populism when a radical centre is not on offer; where it is, they will vote it in, as Macron has shown.
I am not advocating a new Party. Quite apart from the desirability of such a thing, our political system puts formidable barriers in its path.
In any event, as a member of the Labour Party of over 40 years standing, I want the Labour Party to capture this ground.
But there are millions of politically homeless in Britain. They are not going to wander the by-ways of politics, bedding down uncomfortably, forever, not with their country in the dire shape it is in.
The challenge for the centre is to be the place of changing the status quo not managing it.
If it does, it still beats everything else.
What the progressive centre lacks is a radical policy agenda.
Though the idea that Labour is likely to become the party of the radical centre any time soon is utterly risible.
I agree, sadly.
In my exchanges with Corbynistas, I've learned that many of them see centrism as this utterly evil ideology.
Blair's idea of centrism is well to the Right of pre-Thatcher Tory Governments.
I disagree with several aspects of Blair's centrism but Corbynistas dislike centrism in general, not just merely the politics of Tony Blair.
Hatred of Blair does see to be totemic for them though - he is essentially 'Snowball' from Animal Farm whose only function is to be blamed for everything that ever goes wrong - still waiting for the announcement that he has been seen 'peeing on the hay' in the barn
This analysis in particular by....Blair of all people is especially spot on:
Our poll shows people want change and by large numbers and in all three countries. Years of austerity and an acute sense of an elite separated from the rest has led to a belief that the promise of generational progress has ended. This generation believes it has done better than the last. But it does not believe the next generation will do better than them.
That is the market of anxiety in which the populists peddle quack solutions.
But the poll also shows that support for the centre stays strong. People will default to populism when a radical centre is not on offer; where it is, they will vote it in, as Macron has shown.
I am not advocating a new Party. Quite apart from the desirability of such a thing, our political system puts formidable barriers in its path.
In any event, as a member of the Labour Party of over 40 years standing, I want the Labour Party to capture this ground.
But there are millions of politically homeless in Britain. They are not going to wander the by-ways of politics, bedding down uncomfortably, forever, not with their country in the dire shape it is in.
The challenge for the centre is to be the place of changing the status quo not managing it.
If it does, it still beats everything else.
What the progressive centre lacks is a radical policy agenda.
Though the idea that Labour is likely to become the party of the radical centre any time soon is utterly risible.
I agree, sadly.
In my exchanges with Corbynistas, I've learned that many of them see centrism as this utterly evil ideology.
Blair's idea of centrism is well to the Right of pre-Thatcher Tory Governments.
I disagree with several aspects of Blair's centrism but Corbynistas dislike centrism in general, not just merely the politics of Tony Blair.
It of course all comes down to what you class as the centre. While some consider free market economics to be central to centralism, others see it as right wing.
Likewise on the other side with public ownership of the railways, etc.
May is to stay in power as a human shield, they explain. She will see the Conservatives through their rough patch. The hard times over and Brexit delivered, the Tories will dispense with her and elect a new leader to defeat the Labour left and return a revitalised right to power. When they discuss this scenario, the more thoughtless Tories speak as if Brexit were some minor matter; a piece of government business that May can deliver by 2019, like a change to the benefit rules or a new bypass in Buckinghamshire. Job done, the Conservatives and the country can move on. If only.
The most important decision in recent history was not necessarily the referendum result but Theresa May’s decision to go for a hard Brexit afterwards. In her Lancaster House speech she ruled out membership of the single market and customs union. It is for this reason Lord Adonis and others, including me, compare the Brexiteers to Chamberlain and Hitler’s appeasers. They have thrown away every option except the most difficult option, and staked the house on it being right.
It of course all comes down to what you class as the centre. While some consider free market economics to be central to centralism, others see it as right wing.
Likewise on the other side with public ownership of the railways, etc.
Surely, on the railways, we should be evidence driven. We seek to have an efficient system of public transport that minimises the burden on the taxpayer.
We look at around the world, which countries have systems like that, and we emulate them. We don't need to be doctrinaire: maybe it will turn out that commuter systems are best run by the state and long distance by private sector, or the other way around. We ask what we want, and then investigate the best way to achieve it, rather than by elevating free markets or state ownership to shibboleth.
I would argue the same is true of law & order. I know what I want: less crime, more rehabilitation and value for money. Anything else is optional.
Less doctrinal purity, more evidence based decision making. I want politicians who say "I don't know the answer, but I now how to design a trial that will help us make the right decision."
Catching up this morning Blair says the EU will compromise on freedom of movement with absolutely no confirmation from anyone in the EU particularly Barnier.
Nick Clegg is looking for a second referendum and thinks those under 30 should have two votes.
They make you despair - they should both clear off unless then can say something constructive and evidence based
May is to stay in power as a human shield, they explain. She will see the Conservatives through their rough patch. The hard times over and Brexit delivered, the Tories will dispense with her and elect a new leader to defeat the Labour left and return a revitalised right to power. When they discuss this scenario, the more thoughtless Tories speak as if Brexit were some minor matter; a piece of government business that May can deliver by 2019, like a change to the benefit rules or a new bypass in Buckinghamshire. Job done, the Conservatives and the country can move on. If only.
The most important decision in recent history was not necessarily the referendum result but Theresa May’s decision to go for a hard Brexit afterwards. In her Lancaster House speech she ruled out membership of the single market and customs union. It is for this reason Lord Adonis and others, including me, compare the Brexiteers to Chamberlain and Hitler’s appeasers. They have thrown away every option except the most difficult option, and staked the house on it being right.
There's nothing wrong with hard Brexit as a destination.
The mistake is to think you can get there in two years without problems. And if those problems are severe enough, you throw the whole project into jeopardy.
It of course all comes down to what you class as the centre. While some consider free market economics to be central to centralism, others see it as right wing.
Likewise on the other side with public ownership of the railways, etc.
Surely, on the railways, we should be evidence driven. We seek to have an efficient system of public transport that minimises the burden on the taxpayer.
We look at around the world, which countries have systems like that, and we emulate them. We don't need to be doctrinaire: maybe it will turn out that commuter systems are best run by the state and long distance by private sector, or the other way around. We ask what we want, and then investigate the best way to achieve it, rather than by elevating free markets or state ownership to shibboleth.
I would argue the same is true of law & order. I know what I want: less crime, more rehabilitation and value for money. Anything else is optional.
Less doctrinal purity, more evidence based decision making. I want politicians who say "I don't know the answer, but I now how to design a trial that will help us make the right decision."
Wasn't this one of the founding principles of Blairism? What works. Certainly his administration used plenty of evidence-based policy stuff e.g. early years.
I certainly wouldn't describe myself as being a Leadsom, although maybe a Hannan on a good day. The Royal Colleges and the DoH have clearly got this on their radar (so to speak!), and the tabloid hysteria and scaremongering adds way more heat than light to the debate.
The general public will be wondering how the rest of the world's hospitals manage to cope perfectly well outside Euratom.
Daniel Hannan is the most disingenuous of all politicians. The tyre is hitting the road and he can't hide anymore.
How do other countries cope without the EU misses the point. It's like saying how do other people cope with not being married to Bill when you are going through a divorce with Bill and you are about to lose your house. We get important things from Euratom that will lose and aren't rapidly replicable. This applies across a large array of agreements. None of it makes sense but we are where we are.
So what do you propose we do to move forward, given that Brexit is happening?
Joe Bloggs just sees a bunch of highly paid public servants complaining, rather than getting on with their job of implementing the decision the electorate gave them.
Minimise disruption and generally make the best of a bad job.
PS you can't make the best of a bad job unless you recognise it is actually a bad job.
Daniel Hannan is the most disingenuous of all politicians. The tyre is hitting the road and he can't hide anymore.
How do other countries cope without the EU misses the point. It's like saying how do other people cope with not being married to Bill when you are going through a divorce with Bill and you are about to lose your house. We get important things from Euratom that will lose and aren't rapidly replicable. This applies across a large array of agreements. None of it makes sense but we are where we are.
Hannan has been by far one of the most honest politicians about his aims and where he wants to see the UK end up. You just slag him off because he provides a coherent and attractive alternative to the EU which you have no other means of challenging.
I respect those that understand the consequences and are prepared to accept them for a perceived greater good. I understand those that haven't investigated the issue and underestimate the consequences. If they are sincere they will be disappointed by what happens. Daniel Hannan is neither of those. He is smart enough to know there are consequences but pretends they don't exist or they are different from what they really are.
My view is quite simple: with the DUP the Tories have an absolute majority (albeit a small one) in the Commons to carry out their Brexit programme. Both had the same in their manifestos, so the Salisbury convention applies in the Lords for any troublemakers as well.
This will be enough to see them through at least the next two years. And there are only so many by-elections that can take place within that period - not enough to topple them.
They need to calm down, get a grip, and focus on doing a professional job.
How do you propose to enforce the Salisbury convention on those who disagree that it applies?
Well, of course, I can't. It's a convention.
But, it should: both the DUP and Conservatives were elected on very, very similar platforms relating to Brexit, and they have an absolute majority in the House of Commons.
The Salisbury convention can be by-passed by threatening to appoint 100s of new peers, just as it was threatened in 1910.
Would the Monarch agree to do that at the request of a PM heading a Minority Government? Edward VII and George V took a lot of persuading back in 1910 and 1911.
There's nothing wrong with hard Brexit as a destination.
The mistake is to think you can get there in two years without problems. And if those problems are severe enough, you throw the whole project into jeopardy.
The loudest cheerleaders for hard Brexit, the Tory headbangers, are the ones who also continually claim that Brexit is easy
I feel that the government's handling of Brexit is increasing the likelihood of severe economic problems, and therefore the possibility of us ending up with a government that does not respect democratic norms, and elevates the socialist state above the individual. Hopefully, it won't come to that, and we will all pull together. (Recognising Brexit as a process which could take five to ten years to fully complete would be a good start.) But there is nothing inevitable about the success of the United Kingdom.
If a second referendum were held this autumn, would you vote the same way?
Mrs May won the election and has enough problems getting her agenda through without her own bastards in the background. If Osborne's friends don't shut up we get Corbyn in charge.
There is no realistic sequence of events that don't lead to a Corbyn government at some point. Even the Brexitaliban admit there is going to be an economic cost to their project, although it usually marketed with some euphemism like 'temporary discomfort' as if it were one of the milder STDs.
The electorate is no mood whatsoever to tolerate any economic pain and the Conservatives are going to get royally shafted over it as soon as the voters are given the chance.
May is to stay in power as a human shield, they explain. She will see the Conservatives through their rough patch. The hard times over and Brexit delivered, the Tories will dispense with her and elect a new leader to defeat the Labour left and return a revitalised right to power. When they discuss this scenario, the more thoughtless Tories speak as if Brexit were some minor matter; a piece of government business that May can deliver by 2019, like a change to the benefit rules or a new bypass in Buckinghamshire. Job done, the Conservatives and the country can move on. If only.
The most important decision in recent history was not necessarily the referendum result but Theresa May’s decision to go for a hard Brexit afterwards. In her Lancaster House speech she ruled out membership of the single market and customs union. It is for this reason Lord Adonis and others, including me, compare the Brexiteers to Chamberlain and Hitler’s appeasers. They have thrown away every option except the most difficult option, and staked the house on it being right.
There's nothing wrong with hard Brexit as a destination.
The mistake is to think you can get there in two years without problems. And if those problems are severe enough, you throw the whole project into jeopardy.
Has nothing happened in the past year to make you question that?
Are you aware of any viable 'hard Brexit' destination that does not compromise the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom?
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Indeed, I said to JohnO on Thursday would you be happy with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell being given these powers?
If it isn't good enough for those two, then it isn't good enough for any government.
No, of course not. But that's just an excuse by those with an anti-Brexit agenda to try and win Conservatives round to stop Brexit.
A better answer is: how do Conservatives argue the positive case for Conservative values in the 21st Century, and intellectually defeat socialism again?
We are the good guys. We must show people we are, not assume they'll work it out for themselves.
'We are the good guys'. You may think that -others take a different view and consider many Tories to be pure evil The 'Hang Mandela' crowd come to mind. Beyond that many people think of Thatcher as the Anti-Christ.
My view is quite simple: with the DUP the Tories have an absolute majority (albeit a small one) in the Commons to carry out their Brexit programme. Both had the same in their manifestos, so the Salisbury convention applies in the Lords for any troublemakers as well.
This will be enough to see them through at least the next two years. And there are only so many by-elections that can take place within that period - not enough to topple them.
They need to calm down, get a grip, and focus on doing a professional job.
How do you propose to enforce the Salisbury convention on those who disagree that it applies?
Well, of course, I can't. It's a convention.
But, it should: both the DUP and Conservatives were elected on very, very similar platforms relating to Brexit, and they have an absolute majority in the House of Commons.
The Salisbury convention can be by-passed by threatening to appoint 100s of new peers, just as it was threatened in 1910.
Would the Monarch agree to do that at the request of a PM heading a Minority Government? Edward VII and George V took a lot of persuading back in 1910 and 1911.
Dec 2010 election resulted in Liberals only being able to govern with support of Irish nationalists.
May is to stay in power as a human shield, they explain. She will see the Conservatives through their rough patch. The hard times over and Brexit delivered, the Tories will dispense with her and elect a new leader to defeat the Labour left and return a revitalised right to power. When they discuss this scenario, the more thoughtless Tories speak as if Brexit were some minor matter; a piece of government business that May can deliver by 2019, like a change to the benefit rules or a new bypass in Buckinghamshire. Job done, the Conservatives and the country can move on. If only.
The most important decision in recent history was not necessarily the referendum result but Theresa May’s decision to go for a hard Brexit afterwards. In her Lancaster House speech she ruled out membership of the single market and customs union. It is for this reason Lord Adonis and others, including me, compare the Brexiteers to Chamberlain and Hitler’s appeasers. They have thrown away every option except the most difficult option, and staked the house on it being right.
There's nothing wrong with hard Brexit as a destination.
The mistake is to think you can get there in two years without problems. And if those problems are severe enough, you throw the whole project into jeopardy.
I still think the nomenclature of hard and soft is less than useful. If, for example, we are outside the single market but have tariff free access to it with acceptance of cross regulation in things like financial services is that hard or soft? If we are out of the customs union in that scenario does it really matter to trade? There may be a little more paperwork about sourcing etc but how significant is that?
At the risk of doing what I am complaining about I think any Brexit with tariff free access and cross regulation is soft and is exactly what the government should be aiming for. I agree with Hammond that the economic consequences of the deal is actually the most important part at this stage and any disruption needs to be minimised. I think that he has the whip hand on this at the moment given the weakness of the PM and that is probably a good thing.
Are the Conservatives really trying hard to retoxify themselves or something? First that Tory MP's comments earlier on this week, and now Hammond's alleged remarks. After thinking that he could be a caretaker style leader for the Tories, it seems he could just as well be as bad May.
Meanwhile, I see that Macron and Trump had the longest handshake ever yesterday.
The guardian thinks Macron is genius for befriending Trump - maybe 'hypocrisy' is not one of their words.
Were the Paris police busy holding back the enraged mob of anti Trump protesters?
Macron was just demonstrating a bit of political skill, by being polite to a buffoon. There are few friends in international politics, just aligned interests.
The UK's decision to downgrade itself in the international arena has created an opportunity for France which Macron has decided to exploit. Unlike May, Macron firmly established himself as entirely independent of Trump before reaching out to him as the leader of what remains the most powerful country on earth. It's been a very smart play.
The optics of May's dash to Washington were doubly bad as she also demonstrated that she felt threatened by Farage's perceived direct line to the President. With hindsight perhaps it was a harbinger of her Lancaster House speech and Brexit mistakes.
I still think the nomenclature of hard and soft is less than useful. If, for example, we are outside the single market but have tariff free access to it with acceptance of cross regulation in things like financial services is that hard or soft?
Tariffs are not the issue.
Every day, hundreds of trucks filled with car parts enter the UK and deliver them to car plants. If there is an accident on the motorway, there is a danger the production lines will halt.
Imagine instead they are stopped at Dover while the contents of every truck are checked for point of origin.
Industry relies on free movement of goods within the single market. That's the issue
My view is quite simple: with the DUP the Tories have an absolute majority (albeit a small one) in the Commons to carry out their Brexit programme. Both had the same in their manifestos, so the Salisbury convention applies in the Lords for any troublemakers as well.
This will be enough to see them through at least the next two years. And there are only so many by-elections that can take place within that period - not enough to topple them.
They need to calm down, get a grip, and focus on doing a professional job.
How do you propose to enforce the Salisbury convention on those who disagree that it applies?
Well, of course, I can't. It's a convention.
But, it should: both the DUP and Conservatives were elected on very, very similar platforms relating to Brexit, and they have an absolute majority in the House of Commons.
The Salisbury convention can be by-passed by threatening to appoint 100s of new peers, just as it was threatened in 1910.
Would the Monarch agree to do that at the request of a PM heading a Minority Government? Edward VII and George V took a lot of persuading back in 1910 and 1911.
Dec 2010 election resulted in Liberals only being able to govern with support of Irish nationalists.
So maybe not so different as today.
Indeed - but George V only agreed to Asquith's request following a second General Election.
There's nothing wrong with hard Brexit as a destination.
The mistake is to think you can get there in two years without problems. And if those problems are severe enough, you throw the whole project into jeopardy.
There is no Hard Brexit that is a destination but not a transition. Why would there be?
Just for the record the Great Repeal Bill is deeply flawed and for exactly the reasons the Nationalists and many others are saying. It should be an opportunity top strengthen localism and devolution but instead is being used as a power grab completely unrelated to Brexit. It would not have been beyond the wit of those drafting it to ensure powers were devolved in a reasonable manner and would have ahead no effect on the overall Brexit at all. Instead they have got greedy.
Indeed, I said to JohnO on Thursday would you be happy with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell being given these powers?
If it isn't good enough for those two, then it isn't good enough for any government.
No, of course not. But that's just an excuse by those with an anti-Brexit agenda to try and win Conservatives round to stop Brexit.
A better answer is: how do Conservatives argue the positive case for Conservative values in the 21st Century, and intellectually defeat socialism again?
We are the good guys. We must show people we are, not assume they'll work it out for themselves.
'We are the good guys'. You may think that -others take a different view and consider many Tories to be pure evil The 'Hang Mandela' crowd come to mind. Beyond that many people think of Thatcher as the Anti-Christ.
Any political party thinking it has a monopoly on virtue is fairly nauseating.
It of course all comes down to what you class as the centre. While some consider free market economics to be central to centralism, others see it as right wing.
Likewise on the other side with public ownership of the railways, etc.
Surely, on the railways, we should be evidence driven. We seek to have an efficient system of public transport that minimises the burden on the taxpayer.
We look at around the world, which countries have systems like that, and we emulate them. We don't need to be doctrinaire: maybe it will turn out that commuter systems are best run by the state and long distance by private sector, or the other way around. We ask what we want, and then investigate the best way to achieve it, rather than by elevating free markets or state ownership to shibboleth.
I would argue the same is true of law & order. I know what I want: less crime, more rehabilitation and value for money. Anything else is optional.
Less doctrinal purity, more evidence based decision making. I want politicians who say "I don't know the answer, but I now how to design a trial that will help us make the right decision."
I agree about not being doctrinaire (and have droned on about it on here many times), but I'm unsure that emulating other countries in a complex system will work.
A problem is that 'what works' comparisons can fail miserably on complex systems. Our rail system is very different to any other in the world, as is (say) France and the US's. The rail system feeds into, and has to work within, wider society. Yet what works in France might rely on greater funding, or more union support, or the commuters' working patterns, which are not replicible over here.
I'm all for evidence-based decision making, but it falls over if you decide to make an apple into a pear.
Education shows another problem, that of time: we can change the system, but the full results of any changes may not be known for a decade or more as children work their way through the system. Plenty of time for the next government to decide 'evidence' elsewhere (which just so happens to fit in with their mindset) should be followed.
mid 17th century: from Hebrew šibbōleṯ ‘ear of corn’, used as a test of nationality by its difficult pronunciation (Judg. 12:6).
It has a resonance nowadays too.
Very interesting. I always think of it as being an immovable article of faith - and often one held without evidence.
It has come to have that meaning: a custom, principle, or belief distinguishing a particular class or group of people, especially a long-standing one regarded as outmoded or no longer important...
Distinguishing beliefs are necessarily longstanding, and tend to become matters of faith.
I disagree with several aspects of Blair's centrism but Corbynistas dislike centrism in general, not just merely the politics of Tony Blair.
Not exactly, in most cases. What we object to is the complete dominance of managerialism - "what works". There is nothing wrong with that as an everyday principle - like rcs, I can perfectly well imagine that there are different successful ways to run a railway, and we should look at what works best. But a leftish party should have an overall objective of redressing the natural drift of power, wealth and opportunity to those who already have it.
As a generally loyal Blairite I came to feel that we had lost that sense of purpose and that, apart from personal liking, is what appeals to me about Corbyn and McDonnell. One can never predict what will turn up in government, but if there is, for example, a new refugee crisis, I absolutely trust Corbyn to put the interests of refugees first, without first consulting a focus group to see how it might play with the public. If money is to be raised, I absolutely trust them to raise it primasrily from better-off people like me. I'm pleasantly surprised to find they make all this quite popular too.
With Tony, although I still do respect him and I think Iraq was a harder call than is now generally believed, I never felt any certainty about anything except his general theme of private provision of public service, which is actually not always a "what works" doctrine at all. And with the Tories, I have no idea what they really want, except to stay in power. Which doesn't make me hate the Tories or Tony, but I don't see that they have much to offer anyone at the moment.
I still think the nomenclature of hard and soft is less than useful. If, for example, we are outside the single market but have tariff free access to it with acceptance of cross regulation in things like financial services is that hard or soft?
Tariffs are not the issue.
Every day, hundreds of trucks filled with car parts enter the UK and deliver them to car plants. If there is an accident on the motorway, there is a danger the production lines will halt.
Imagine instead they are stopped at Dover while the contents of every truck are checked for point of origin.
Industry relies on free movement of goods within the single market. That's the issue
Exactly. And even for less 'just in time' industries it would add delays which all cost money.
I still think the nomenclature of hard and soft is less than useful. If, for example, we are outside the single market but have tariff free access to it with acceptance of cross regulation in things like financial services is that hard or soft?
Tariffs are not the issue.
Every day, hundreds of trucks filled with car parts enter the UK and deliver them to car plants. If there is an accident on the motorway, there is a danger the production lines will halt.
Imagine instead they are stopped at Dover while the contents of every truck are checked for point of origin.
Industry relies on free movement of goods within the single market. That's the issue
Exactly. And even for less 'just in time' industries it would add delays which all cost money.
And why do you think that that paperwork will slow down delivery? Isn't there this thing called the internet? We trade quite happily with countries not in the single market right now. I think these concerns are being seriously exaggerated.
Comments
"There are yellows at Turn Seven," Red Bull tell Verstappen.
"Yeah, it's because of me!" comes the amused reply from the Dutchman.
The Tories don't use Opinium.
https://twitter.com/SurryKnight/status/886135659408183296
If accurate, that's indefensible. Also, would it be classed as ultimocracy?
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/886143947034198016
Personally I'd give double votes to net contributors to the exchequer and those who attended a decent university.
I agree that getting the right constitutional balance is important. Haven't read much detail (focusing on F1 and promoting my magnificent new book, Traitor's Prize), but any arrangement must be right whatever government is elected.
One of the reasons I really like the Second Punic War is that it proves beyond all doubt the importance of a sound constitution over individual brilliance. It's why we need more scrutiny of laws and less of politicians. Politicians come and go, but laws linger for decades or even centuries. They must be well-drafted or their consequences can be dire.
Edited extra bit: Mr. Eagles, Clegg's demeaned himself with that sort of idiocy.
One man, one vote. The idea we should slice the electorate demographically and give more voting power to the segments that agree with 'approved' opinions is rancid.
What I find interesting is how adjacent constituencies have rapidly changed in different directions.
For example in 2005 Leeds NE and Elmet were nominally electorally near identical but this year Elmet was nearly 27k votes more Conservative than Leeds NE.
There are similar big shifts in the Midlands and in the Bristol area. And for that matter between Hertfordshire and North London.
http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/07/The-Living-Standards-Audit-2017-FINAL.pdf
It's the Daily Mail though so they probably made it up.
And yes it's a stupid idea.
Giving 16-17 year olds the vote on the other hand I would agree with.
An interesting 'what if' is what if Nick Clegg, instead of being a worthless liar, sticks to his promises and opposes Osborne's plans to rob the young to bribe the old.
The good people of Bassetlaw like a nice piece of pork.
It doesn't bear much scrutiny, though. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that the EU stops the UK evolving, or that it forces us to conform to some unwelcome or outdated economic model.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4697984/Let-s-second-Brexit-referendum-says-Nick-Clegg.html#ixzz4mtWYf73P
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/07/united-kingdom-pre-qualifying-2017.html
No tip but there is quite a lot of interesting news on future engine suppliers for McLaren and Sauber, as well as a rundown on grid penalties which could significantly shake up the grid.
But far from telling her that her time was up, they tried to bolster her position.
I am told their message was that “anyone who destabilised the party would have the ’22 to deal with”.
The meeting was further evidence that one of the main things keeping May in place is the Tory fear of what a leadership contest could do to the party.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4022518/sexism-storm-shows-philip-hammond-has-to-take-better-care-or-his-career-will-reach-the-end-of-the-line/
The stress she is under must be unbelievable so she might get ill or she might just decide the country/parliament is ungovernable and she'd prefer to be in her garden with Philip.
You wouldn't rule anything out at the moment...
Britain has had a number of civil wars and revolutions, although we seem to collectively only remember one.
The Wars of the Roses, and the Dissolution of Monasteries were rather significant events for example.
*waits for PB historians*
Vive La Revolution!.
We are very lucky to have had a long, long period of civil society in this country, and strong institutions and democratic tradition. It is therefore unlikely that that there would be coups and the like. But it is by no means inevitable. Good, democratic government, with respect for the primacy of the individual is by no means assured.
I feel that the government's handling of Brexit is increasing the likelihood of severe economic problems, and therefore the possibility of us ending up with a government that does not respect democratic norms, and elevates the socialist state above the individual. Hopefully, it won't come to that, and we will all pull together. (Recognising Brexit as a process which could take five to ten years to fully complete would be a good start.) But there is nothing inevitable about the success of the United Kingdom.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/886174232304111617
Is this remains new way of doing things - lol.
Resource rich, population poor sounds like the absence of decline to me.
It's the rich what gets the pleasure and the poor what gets the blame.
But, Brexit is not the harbinger of the Apocalypse.
How are we measuring decline?
Immigrants still risking their lives to get here is one measure.
the x axis is a bit dodgy but this would be one way https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/06/the-economic-history-of-the-last-2-000-years-in-1-little-graph/258676/
GDP per head within countries might be a better measure than total GDP.
Although that distorts the axis towards to very small countries (city states) and the resource rich and population poor.
It will tell you we are incredibly wealthy relative the the vast majority of the world, but not quite as wealthy as we were relative to the rest of the world. Common sense really given we did have a massive trading empire funneling wealth into GB PLC and now not so much.
I had to explain what the electoral consequences of those were.
There is an emotional vibrancy on the Corbynite left which is notably lacking elsewhere on the spectrum (allthough the Brexit movement caught one for a while, it seems to have dissipated) - centrist Labour is short of ideas, the LibDems seem mainly about stopping Brexit, the Tories are dispiritedly fighting each other and have no ideas at all, and UKIP is a joke.
But there isn't a hugely coherent intellectual project on the scene, nor is there real street anger yet, because basically life isn't too bad for most people. The risk of Brexit is that it first bores everyone to death and then turns into a series of frustrating dificulties and economic decline. The next government may find life even harder than this one.
https://twitter.com/TrebuchetMemes/status/885616907864469504
Mrs May won the election and has enough problems getting her agenda through without her own bastards in the background. If Osborne's friends don't shut up we get Corbyn in charge.
Likewise on the other side with public ownership of the railways, etc.
The most important decision in recent history was not necessarily the referendum result but Theresa May’s decision to go for a hard Brexit afterwards. In her Lancaster House speech she ruled out membership of the single market and customs union. It is for this reason Lord Adonis and others, including me, compare the Brexiteers to Chamberlain and Hitler’s appeasers. They have thrown away every option except the most difficult option, and staked the house on it being right.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/07/our-brexit-backing-politicians-are-making-fools-of-us/
We look at around the world, which countries have systems like that, and we emulate them. We don't need to be doctrinaire: maybe it will turn out that commuter systems are best run by the state and long distance by private sector, or the other way around. We ask what we want, and then investigate the best way to achieve it, rather than by elevating free markets or state ownership to shibboleth.
I would argue the same is true of law & order. I know what I want: less crime, more rehabilitation and value for money. Anything else is optional.
Less doctrinal purity, more evidence based decision making. I want politicians who say "I don't know the answer, but I now how to design a trial that will help us make the right decision."
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/07/anne-sutherland-why-jacob-rees-mogg-should-be-the-next-leader-of-the-conservative-party.html
https://libcom.org/library/france-goes-rails
although PS won comfortably in following elections
Nick Clegg is looking for a second referendum and thinks those under 30 should have two votes.
They make you despair - they should both clear off unless then can say something constructive and evidence based
The mistake is to think you can get there in two years without problems. And if those problems are severe enough, you throw the whole project into jeopardy.
PS you can't make the best of a bad job unless you recognise it is actually a bad job.
mid 17th century: from Hebrew šibbōleṯ ‘ear of corn’, used as a test of nationality by its difficult pronunciation (Judg. 12:6).
It has a resonance nowadays too.
The electorate is no mood whatsoever to tolerate any economic pain and the Conservatives are going to get royally shafted over it as soon as the voters are given the chance.
Are you aware of any viable 'hard Brexit' destination that does not compromise the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom?
So maybe not so different as today.
At the risk of doing what I am complaining about I think any Brexit with tariff free access and cross regulation is soft and is exactly what the government should be aiming for. I agree with Hammond that the economic consequences of the deal is actually the most important part at this stage and any disruption needs to be minimised. I think that he has the whip hand on this at the moment given the weakness of the PM and that is probably a good thing.
A video showing an Emirates flight attendant pouring a glass of champagne back into the bottle has caused a stir after it was posted online.
http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/emirates-champagne-pour-back-into-bottle-video-flight-attendant-staff-a7841766.html
Every day, hundreds of trucks filled with car parts enter the UK and deliver them to car plants. If there is an accident on the motorway, there is a danger the production lines will halt.
Imagine instead they are stopped at Dover while the contents of every truck are checked for point of origin.
Industry relies on free movement of goods within the single market. That's the issue
But will still start from the back of the grid thanks to penalties.
A problem is that 'what works' comparisons can fail miserably on complex systems. Our rail system is very different to any other in the world, as is (say) France and the US's. The rail system feeds into, and has to work within, wider society. Yet what works in France might rely on greater funding, or more union support, or the commuters' working patterns, which are not replicible over here.
I'm all for evidence-based decision making, but it falls over if you decide to make an apple into a pear.
Education shows another problem, that of time: we can change the system, but the full results of any changes may not be known for a decade or more as children work their way through the system. Plenty of time for the next government to decide 'evidence' elsewhere (which just so happens to fit in with their mindset) should be followed.
a custom, principle, or belief distinguishing a particular class or group of people, especially a long-standing one regarded as outmoded or no longer important...
Distinguishing beliefs are necessarily longstanding, and tend to become matters of faith.
As a generally loyal Blairite I came to feel that we had lost that sense of purpose and that, apart from personal liking, is what appeals to me about Corbyn and McDonnell. One can never predict what will turn up in government, but if there is, for example, a new refugee crisis, I absolutely trust Corbyn to put the interests of refugees first, without first consulting a focus group to see how it might play with the public. If money is to be raised, I absolutely trust them to raise it primasrily from better-off people like me. I'm pleasantly surprised to find they make all this quite popular too.
With Tony, although I still do respect him and I think Iraq was a harder call than is now generally believed, I never felt any certainty about anything except his general theme of private provision of public service, which is actually not always a "what works" doctrine at all. And with the Tories, I have no idea what they really want, except to stay in power. Which doesn't make me hate the Tories or Tony, but I don't see that they have much to offer anyone at the moment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU1brBVMBkM
And of course it's not just paperwork.