No surrender! (well, maybe just a little bit of surrender)
The damage wreaked by the Ulter protestants-not to mention their undisguised racism-over the years begs the question why we haven't cut ourselves adrift from them years ago.
Do you mean Ultra or Ulster?
More seriously the then Liberal Government tried to 110 years ago but the Conservatives wouldn’t let them, and indeed encouraged the Army to mutiny if necessary.
This is getting even worse for May. The all UK backstop that she wants is at best only going to be in the political declaration - eg not binding. The NI backstop will be in the binding WA.
The EU have not moved at all towards the UK position.
Perhaps the Guardian would consider who is going to pay for the public services and publicly funded and third sector jobs in its jobs vacancies page without tax revenue and big charitable donations from the City of London?
Perhaps the Guardian would consider who is going to pay for the public services and publicly funded and third sector jobs in its jobs vacancies page without tax revenue and big charitable donations from the City of London?
Read the article and it explains. The theory is that the city of London sucks talent out of other industries, and that has a negative impact overall.
No surrender! (well, maybe just a little bit of surrender)
The damage wreaked by the Ulter protestants-not to mention their undisguised racism-over the years begs the question why we haven't cut ourselves adrift from them years ago.
Do you mean Ultra or Ulster?
More seriously the then Liberal Government tried to 110 years ago but the Conservatives wouldn’t let them, and indeed encouraged the Army to mutiny if necessary.
At one time I employed, in England, an Ulster Protestant who assured me that his father was one of several who had signed the Covenant in blood.
As his employer, in a small company, I was invited to the chap’s daughters wedding, around 1975 where I was introduced to my employee’s brother. He asked me what i thought of ‘the Ulster situation’. Trying to be diplomatic, ........after all, I was a guest ......... I said that looking from England it was ‘very difficult’ and received in response a tirade of abuse about Catholics in general and Sinn Fein in particular.
Many countries together are greater than one. That was the argument for Europe all along and it is the reason why Brexit is failing; why it was always going to fail.
Taken at face value, that would be an argument for worldwide federal union and against any form of national independence.
There's also a lot more independent countries now than their used to be, we have contradictory trends.
I wouldn't see it as contradictory, but rather confirmatory. A century ago a few European countries controlled over half the world, including nearly all of Africa and most of Asia. Ever since 1918 and the breakdown of these empires into smaller independent countries, we have seen that fissile trend, and it continues after the ending of the cold war.
What has enabled the proliferation of small countries has been the web of international institutions, from EU, UN, WTO, NATO, OAU etc. By firming up international laws and conflict resolution mechanisms the viability of smaller countries has been enhanced.
It is why Ireland is much stronger in the EU, and why the SNP is pro EU. These organisations level the playing field with overweaning hegemonic neighbours. It also explains why those hegemonic states bristle at being restrained from bullying their smaller bretheren. Here's looking at you Trump, Putin and Brexiteers.
Excellent points. Particularly that the UK won't be able to push Ireland around. In fact at the moment, if you take a step back you can see that Dublin holds more cards than London right now. And it will get more obvious if we ever manage to actually leave.
Yes, the fact that the EU is so determined to support the ROI over the Irish border, despite economic risks to the continent, is a very visible demonstration of the power of Union membership. That exercise of solidarity is very visible to smaller EU states, applicant states, and also to larger powers.
Except they’re playing with a loaded gun.
Eire is even more badly affected than the UK in a no-deal scenario.
Possibly, possibly not, but being part of a Union will help them through.
The same Union that has left them to hang in the first place?
Many countries together are greater than one. That was the argument for Europe all along and it is the reason why Brexit is failing; why it was always going to fail.
Perhaps the Guardian would consider who is going to pay for the public services and publicly funded and third sector jobs in its jobs vacancies page without tax revenue and big charitable donations from the City of London?
Read the article and it explains. The theory is that the city of London sucks talent out of other industries, and that has a negative impact overall.
Sounds suspiciously like a theory created to point to the desired conclusion.
No surrender! (well, maybe just a little bit of surrender)
The damage wreaked by the Ulter protestants-not to mention their undisguised racism-over the years begs the question why we haven't cut ourselves adrift from them years ago.
your mate Blair put the DUP where they are, I take it you prefer the disguised racism of Sinn Fein ?
No but Sinn Fein preferred the more obvious tie up with the rest of the Island of Ireland. Quite why people in places like Gibraltar and the Falklands can't take a look at a map and see what's obvious to a blind man on a galloping camel is a mystery.
No border at all After years of screeching “We’re full!” it might seem odd to have no border. However Brexiters are mainly concerned with keeping out Eastern Europeans and Muslims, whereas the Irish are okay, like Liam Neeson or Val Doonican.
No surrender! (well, maybe just a little bit of surrender)
The damage wreaked by the Ulter protestants-not to mention their undisguised racism-over the years begs the question why we haven't cut ourselves adrift from them years ago.
your mate Blair put the DUP where they are, I take it you prefer the disguised racism of Sinn Fein ?
Quite why people in places like Gibraltar and the Falklands can't take a look at a map and see what's obvious to a blind man on a galloping camel is a mystery.
Quite why people in places like Gibraltar and the Falklands can't take a look at a map and see what's obvious to a blind man on a galloping camel is a mystery.
Perhaps the Guardian would consider who is going to pay for the public services and publicly funded and third sector jobs in its jobs vacancies page without tax revenue and big charitable donations from the City of London?
Read the article and it explains. The theory is that the city of London sucks talent out of other industries, and that has a negative impact overall.
Sounds suspiciously like a theory created to point to the desired conclusion.
No surrender! (well, maybe just a little bit of surrender)
The damage wreaked by the Ulter protestants-not to mention their undisguised racism-over the years begs the question why we haven't cut ourselves adrift from them years ago.
Do you mean Ultra or Ulster?
More seriously the then Liberal Government tried to 110 years ago but the Conservatives wouldn’t let them, and indeed encouraged the Army to mutiny if necessary.
I didn't know that but hearing about policies that have been caused by the Tories desire for an empire-even ones which has caused distress for centuries-doesn't surprise me a bit
There have also been some direct bullying accusations against Bercow himself.
If they are proved, then the question becomes whether he is a fit and able person to look into how the culture needs to change.
I'd argue he isn't.
The question whether he is the right person to make the changes needed does not depend on whether the allegations against him are proved.
He has been in charge when this poor culture developed. How then can anyone reasonably expect him to understand what has gone wrong, why it has gone wrong and what needs to be done to make matters better?
This is not a question of rewriting procedures but of a leadership which sets the right example, is able to have the confidence of those workng in Parliament and the courage to stand up to those who behave badly or who want to make no more than token changes. Even if he personally has behaved well, that is not enough. Making this sort of leadership and cultural change is not the work of a few weeks or months but of years. That fact alone requires a new Speaker.
Perhaps the Guardian would consider who is going to pay for the public services and publicly funded and third sector jobs in its jobs vacancies page without tax revenue and big charitable donations from the City of London?
Read the article and it explains. The theory is that the city of London sucks talent out of other industries, and that has a negative impact overall.
Sounds suspiciously like a theory created to point to the desired conclusion.
The article is very muddled, giving about three different reasons why the City is bad and exploring none of them.
Perhaps the Guardian would consider who is going to pay for the public services and publicly funded and third sector jobs in its jobs vacancies page without tax revenue and big charitable donations from the City of London?
Read the article and it explains. The theory is that the city of London sucks talent out of other industries, and that has a negative impact overall.
Sounds suspiciously like a theory created to point to the desired conclusion.
Indeed. Total bollocks.
That is no way to speak about government and even pb Tory policy (although for the latter, the dominance of the City is only a problem when invoked to blame Gordon Brown for the global financial crisis). Tbh I'm not actually sure that rebalancing the economy is still government policy after 2017 but it was under Cameron.
Mr. Roger, bloody peasants, wanting to determine their own destiny.
Mr. eek, my understanding was that he did. Even if he does, promoting Schumacher at this stage would probably be too early (for F1, at least).
My mistake - he has 20 points from 2016 so having won F3 he does have a licence. While its too early I can see why people would want a deal now - in a years time those 2016 points will have gone and he didn't earn any in 2017 so while he qualifies for a licence in 2019 he doesn't have one for 2020...
It is increasingly likely the Commons and Lords will vote to stay in the single market and customs union if the alternative is No Deal as Sturgeon said yesterday regardless of who leads the Tories
It is increasingly likely that you will just keep repeating the same thing over and over without taking onboard any of the facts that are presented to you.
The Commons and the Lords cannot vote to keep the UK in the SM+CU (or they can but it is not in any way binding). Parliament cannot negotiate. It cannot direct the Government to negotiate. The only rights Parliament has it to approve legislation or form a new Government if it has no confidence in the current Government or force a general election.
The only way the UK can do what you suggest is if the Government propose it as Government policy. If you think a Tory Government under May will do this, fair enough, but stop pretending Parliament can do it. May will not propose it, because it still needs acceptance of the backstop. If she was able to accept the backstop, no deal would not arise. Circular argument.
Norway is not an option because it does not include the CU and therefore does not solve the EUs 'issues' with NI.
The SM+CU is not an 'off the shelf' option. It does not currently exist. It would need to be negotiated from scratch under s207 of TFEU - the EU is not legally allowed to enter into this deal under A50.
Therefore, the backstop would need to apply while it is negotiated, and the backstop will remain in case the UK leave that arrangement later. The backstop cannot pass Parliament because in fact there is no majority for a permanent NI backstop, something you seem to have overlooked.
Perhaps the Guardian would consider who is going to pay for the public services and publicly funded and third sector jobs in its jobs vacancies page without tax revenue and big charitable donations from the City of London?
Read the article and it explains. The theory is that the city of London sucks talent out of other industries, and that has a negative impact overall.
Sounds suspiciously like a theory created to point to the desired conclusion.
Indeed. Total bollocks.
That is no way to speak about government and even pb Tory policy (although for the latter, the dominance of the City is only a problem when invoked to blame Gordon Brown for the global financial crisis). Tbh I'm not actually sure that rebalancing the economy is still government policy after 2017 but it was under Cameron.
Tbh apart from Brexit (in some form or other) I don't think there is any government policy..
No surrender! (well, maybe just a little bit of surrender)
The damage wreaked by the Ulter protestants-not to mention their undisguised racism-over the years begs the question why we haven't cut ourselves adrift from them years ago.
your mate Blair put the DUP where they are, I take it you prefer the disguised racism of Sinn Fein ?
Quite why people in places like Gibraltar and the Falklands can't take a look at a map and see what's obvious to a blind man on a galloping camel is a mystery.
Fascist dictatorships within living memory?
That is of course one explanation for our continental neighbours' incredulity at the Brexit vote: unlike them, we were never under fascist or communist dictatorship so do not see the EU as a bastion of democracy.
John Bercow has been an excellent speaker and it is past time for him to step down. Everyone has a shelf life in any job.
Don't tell me your review went that badly?
If I didn't stay in work, I'd have far too much time to inflict more articles on the suffering pb public. My firm is performing a public service by keeping me occupied.
Chummy with a soupçon of menace....the normally loquacious Leo has remained silent on Twitter on the meeting....and Arlene followed this tweet by re-tweeting three "On this Day the IRA Murdered..." tweets
"Course, all this tells you all you need to know about the political games being played in London.
Those same games that are frankly sapping confidence in Brussels that May can get any kind of deal over the line."
Wasn't it clear yesterday afternoon that she can't get a deal through? If there is to be an alternative to no deal it won' be with her as PM
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get that they need to give on an item that is unlikely to happen. If we don’t agree a deal it will probably be down to them pushing too hard again, and therefore it is imperative that they have the one of the downsides. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.K. politics should be able to understand that May is at the end of what she can agree - she might not be able to get the existing deal through Parliament. I don’t understand how the EU cannot see this.
Perhaps the Guardian would consider who is going to pay for the public services and publicly funded and third sector jobs in its jobs vacancies page without tax revenue and big charitable donations from the City of London?
Read the article and it explains. The theory is that the city of London sucks talent out of other industries, and that has a negative impact overall.
Sounds suspiciously like a theory created to point to the desired conclusion.
Indeed. Total bollocks.
There's plenty of research which shows that up to a point a growing financial sector is helpful for growth, but after that it becomes harmful to economic growth.
Then you have the political economy effects of having a very powerful financial sector. Regulatory capture, politicians kowtowing to the golden goose, economic policy designed to benefit the financial sector rather than the wider economy... I think you can convincingly argue the UK has seen all of this in the past two decades.
Perhaps the Guardian would consider who is going to pay for the public services and publicly funded and third sector jobs in its jobs vacancies page without tax revenue and big charitable donations from the City of London?
Read the article and it explains. The theory is that the city of London sucks talent out of other industries, and that has a negative impact overall.
Sounds suspiciously like a theory created to point to the desired conclusion.
The article is very muddled, giving about three different reasons why the City is bad and exploring none of them.
"Course, all this tells you all you need to know about the political games being played in London.
Those same games that are frankly sapping confidence in Brussels that May can get any kind of deal over the line."
Wasn't it clear yesterday afternoon that she can't get a deal through? If there is to be an alternative to no deal it won' be with her as PM.
All this story confirms is that Brexit for the Tories continues to be about personal ambition and internal party dynamics rather than what is in the national interest. That they are on course to at least win most seats at the next general election despite being engaged in open civil war and leading the country to a catastrophic No Deal departure from the EU shows how utterly toxic Corbyn Labour is.
No surrender! (well, maybe just a little bit of surrender)
The damage wreaked by the Ulter protestants-not to mention their undisguised racism-over the years begs the question why we haven't cut ourselves adrift from them years ago.
your mate Blair put the DUP where they are, I take it you prefer the disguised racism of Sinn Fein ?
Quite why people in places like Gibraltar and the Falklands can't take a look at a map and see what's obvious to a blind man on a galloping camel is a mystery.
Fascist dictatorships within living memory?
That is of course one explanation for our continental neighbours' incredulity at the Brexit vote: unlike them, we were never under fascist or communist dictatorship so do not see the EU as a bastion of democracy.
And quite possibly the reverse. It has an acknowledged 'democratic deficit' which it does not seem in any great hurry to do something about - though I suspect both the Commission and the Heads of Government lack much enthusiasm
Andrea Leadsom has an awkward timing question. If she resigns her position over Brexit, she won't be able to make a statement about the bullying allegations. Which takes precedence?
"Course, all this tells you all you need to know about the political games being played in London.
Those same games that are frankly sapping confidence in Brussels that May can get any kind of deal over the line."
Wasn't it clear yesterday afternoon that she can't get a deal through? If there is to be an alternative to no deal it won' be with her as PM
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get that they need to give on an item that is unlikely to happen. If we don’t agree a deal it will probably be down to them pushing too hard again, and therefore it is imperative that they have the one of the downsides. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.K. politics should be able to understand that May is at the end of what she can agree - she might not be able to get the existing deal through Parliament. I don’t understand how the EU cannot see this.
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get that they need to give on an item that is unlikely to happen. If we don’t agree a deal it will probably be down to them pushing too hard again, and therefore it is imperative that they have the one of the downsides. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.K. politics should be able to understand that May is at the end of what she can agree - she might not be able to get the existing deal through Parliament. I don’t understand how the EU cannot see this.
They probably, quite reasonably, assume that if this PM and Parliament can't pass a deal then they'll be dealing with a different cast of characters very shortly thereafter.
There have also been some direct bullying accusations against Bercow himself.
If they are proved, then the question becomes whether he is a fit and able person to look into how the culture needs to change.
I'd argue he isn't.
The question whether he is the right person to make the changes needed does not depend on whether the allegations against him are proved.
He has been in charge when this poor culture developed. How then can anyone reasonably expect him to understand what has gone wrong, why it has gone wrong and what needs to be done to make matters better?
This is not a question of rewriting procedures but of a leadership which sets the right example, is able to have the confidence of those workng in Parliament and the courage to stand up to those who behave badly or who want to make no more than token changes. Even if he personally has behaved well, that is not enough. Making this sort of leadership and cultural change is not the work of a few weeks or months but of years. That fact alone requires a new Speaker.
Agree with most of that. However I doubt the poor culture developed whilst he was in charge. It's probably always been like this, and modern communications and the fact allegations are more likely to be listened to has raised its prominence.
But he 'inherited' a HoC that had been rocked by the expenses and other scandals including the situation in which his predecessor vacated the role. He had an opportunity to change things then, and IMO did not.
And one other thing (which I know we've disagreed on before): procedures and rules are as vital as leadership. Falling back on one without the other is a recipe for disaster.
When one looks at the economy RIGHT NOW, the government is doing very well indeed - unemployment down 47,000; CPI, RPI inflation both under control, wage growth on the up, deficit reducing..
"Course, all this tells you all you need to know about the political games being played in London.
Those same games that are frankly sapping confidence in Brussels that May can get any kind of deal over the line."
Wasn't it clear yesterday afternoon that she can't get a deal through? If there is to be an alternative to no deal it won' be with her as PM
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get that they need to give on an item that is unlikely to happen. If we don’t agree a deal it will probably be down to them pushing too hard again, and therefore it is imperative that they have the one of the downsides. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.K. politics should be able to understand that May is at the end of what she can agree - she might not be able to get the existing deal through Parliament. I don’t understand how the EU cannot see this.
There are deals May could get through Parliament, but she will not propose them because they would split the Conservative party and bring her time as PM to an end.
More seriously, the DUP would vote against the budget... May knows where her bread is buttered.
Andrea Leadsom has an awkward timing question. If she resigns her position over Brexit, she won't be able to make a statement about the bullying allegations. Which takes precedence?
Where will she face most embarrassment? Or have to answer more awkward questions?
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get that they need to give on an item that is unlikely to happen. If we don’t agree a deal it will probably be down to them pushing too hard again, and therefore it is imperative that they have the one of the downsides. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.K. politics should be able to understand that May is at the end of what she can agree - she might not be able to get the existing deal through Parliament. I don’t understand how the EU cannot see this.
They probably, quite reasonably, assume that if this PM and Parliament can't pass a deal then they'll be dealing with a different cast of characters very shortly thereafter.
And if they think that cast will be more malleable, then yet again they are reading UK politics horribly wrong.
A Brexit game changer for me was when Ruth Davidson came out against a border between NI and mainland UK. This is because it could damage unionism and therefore the union between Scotland and the rest of the UK.
There are a dozen Scottish Conservative MPs and they can be expected to be loyal to Ruth Davidson rather than Theresa May.
The rest of the numbers suggest the UK job market is treading water.
A fall of 47k in unemployment is pretty good but I acknowledge that the number in work did not increase for the first time for quite a while. What we really need is an increase in productivity. Talking of which...
"Course, all this tells you all you need to know about the political games being played in London.
Those same games that are frankly sapping confidence in Brussels that May can get any kind of deal over the line."
Wasn't it clear yesterday afternoon that she can't get a deal through? If there is to be an alternative to no deal it won' be with her as PM
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get that they need to give on an item that is unlikely to happen. If we don’t agree a deal it will probably be down to them pushing too hard again, and therefore it is imperative that they have the one of the downsides. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.K. politics should be able to understand that May is at the end of what she can agree - she might not be able to get the existing deal through Parliament. I don’t understand how the EU cannot see this.
"Brussels need to worry"
A bit like the urban legend of the exchange between the US warship and the lighthouse station.
Andrea Leadsom has an awkward timing question. If she resigns her position over Brexit, she won't be able to make a statement about the bullying allegations. Which takes precedence?
Leadsom has the backing of the ERG, the Scottish Conservative group and the DUP. She doesn't need to resign.
There have also been some direct bullying accusations against Bercow himself.
If they are proved, then the question becomes whether he is a fit and able person to look into how the culture needs to change.
I'd argue he isn't.
The question whether he is the right person to make the changes needed does not depend on whether the allegations against him are proved.
He has been in charge when this poor culture developed. How then can anyone reasonably expect him to understand what has gone wrong, why it has gone wrong and what needs to be done to make matters better?
This is not a question of rewriting procedures but of a leadership which sets the right example, is able to have the confidence of those workng in Parliament and the courage to stand up to those who behave badly or who want to make no more than token changes. Even if he personally has behaved well, that is not enough. Making this sort of leadership and cultural change is not the work of a few weeks or months but of years. That fact alone requires a new Speaker.
Agree with most of that. However I doubt the poor culture developed whilst he was in charge. It's probably always been like this, and modern communications and the fact allegations are more likely to be listened to has raised its prominence.
But he 'inherited' a HoC that had been rocked by the expenses and other scandals including the situation in which his predecessor vacated the role. He had an opportunity to change things then, and IMO did not.
And one other thing (which I know we've disagreed on before): procedures and rules are as vital as leadership. Falling back on one without the other is a recipe for disaster.
I do not disagree about the importance of procedures and rules. But without the right leadership they are insufficient. My concern is that they will change the rules, make some nice sounding statements and the reality will be little real change.
I have had whistleblowers speak to me about their concerns. I can tell you that for every single one what really matters is that they can trust those who investigate their concerns and that they can trust those who receive their reports to take effective action. You can write the most perfect procedure down and plaster it all over an organisation’s walls. But without that trust - which depends on the integrity, courage and leadership of those who have to make those procedures a reality - you have a mere will o’ the wisp.
When one looks at the economy RIGHT NOW, the government is doing very well indeed - unemployment down 47,000; CPI, RPI inflation both under control, wage growth on the up, deficit reducing..
If the no in work has remained static but unemployment is down 47k, ce qui ce passe?? Something isn't right...perhaps Corbyn has a point.
The rest of the numbers suggest the UK job market is treading water.
Without increased productivity, above inflation wage increases can only come at the expense of increased inflation above the government target. So the B of E would have to turn the taps off.
When one looks at the economy RIGHT NOW, the government is doing very well indeed - unemployment down 47,000; CPI, RPI inflation both under control, wage growth on the up, deficit reducing..
When one looks at the economy RIGHT NOW, the government is doing very well indeed - unemployment down 47,000; CPI, RPI inflation both under control, wage growth on the up, deficit reducing..
The rest of the numbers suggest the UK job market is treading water.
There is a point at which you can't reduce unemployment any further. We may be approaching that point.
Some people will always be changing jobs eg employees of companies that stop trading or those who are long term sick or completely unemployable or playing the system.
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get that they need to give on an item that is unlikely to happen. If we don’t agree a deal it will probably be down to them pushing too hard again, and therefore it is imperative that they have the one of the downsides. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.K. politics should be able to understand that May is at the end of what she can agree - she might not be able to get the existing deal through Parliament. I don’t understand how the EU cannot see this.
They probably, quite reasonably, assume that if this PM and Parliament can't pass a deal then they'll be dealing with a different cast of characters very shortly thereafter.
And if they think that cast will be more malleable, then yet again they are reading UK politics horribly wrong.
Why would Corbyn worry about the DUP or, indeed, about NI having a different regime? He is not a Unionist. Quite the opposite.
Brussels might well feel that they can more easily get their NI backstop with Corbyn in charge and that if he is stupid enough to stay out of the SM that will be to the very great advantage of the rest of the EU.
Tories who want to stay out of the SM are being utterly stupid. It is the one bit of the EU that really benefits us and it provides some protection against the inanities of Corbyneconomics. Since they are not doing anything about immigration and, bluntly, it is immigration from non-EU countries which most of their fervid followers are most bothered about, they may as well stay in the SM. Their position makes absolutely no sense.
I do not disagree about the importance of procedures and rules. But without the right leadership they are insufficient. My concern is that they will change the rules, make some nice sounding statements and the reality will be little real change.
I have had whistleblowers speak to me about their concerns. I can tell you that for every single one what really matters is that they can trust those who investigate their concerns and that they can trust those who receive their reports to take effective action. You can write the most perfect procedure down and plaster it all over an organisation’s walls. But without that trust - which depends on the integrity, courage and leadership of those who have to make those procedures a reality - you have a mere will o’ the wisp.
Indeed. But the opposite also plays out: if you have an organisation of (say) 1,000 or more people, especially on different sites, then you essentially have levels of leadership, geographically separate. Fostering a set leadership and set of morals onto such an organisation is next to impossible without rules and procedures, especially where there are cultural differences.
The issue is getting everybody playing from the same book.
Leadsom raising an UQ on Bercow bullying, while Thornberry and Eagle publicly state "this is not the time to change the speaker" does not do any of them any favours. Stinks of political manoeuvring rather than any desire to engage with bullying and harassment.
Undermines the righteous outrage over the Kavanaugh appointment.
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get that they need to give on an item that is unlikely to happen. If we don’t agree a deal it will probably be down to them pushing too hard again, and therefore it is imperative that they have the one of the downsides. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.K. politics should be able to understand that May is at the end of what she can agree - she might not be able to get the existing deal through Parliament. I don’t understand how the EU cannot see this.
They probably, quite reasonably, assume that if this PM and Parliament can't pass a deal then they'll be dealing with a different cast of characters very shortly thereafter.
And if they think that cast will be more malleable, then yet again they are reading UK politics horribly wrong.
Why would Corbyn worry about the DUP or, indeed, about NI having a different regime? He is not a Unionist. Quite the opposite.
Brussels might well feel that they can more easily get their NI backstop with Corbyn in charge and that if he is stupid enough to stay out of the SM that will be to the very great advantage of the rest of the EU.
Tories who want to stay out of the SM are being utterly stupid. It is the one bit of the EU that really benefits us and it provides some protection against the inanities of Corbyneconomics. Since they are not doing anything about immigration and, bluntly, it is immigration from non-EU countries which most of their fervid followers are most bothered about, they may as well stay in the SM. Their position makes absolutely no sense.
It would be hilarious (in a really really bad way) if the DUP bring down May, get Corbyn, who then sells them up the river...
I've only just caught up with the reality of last night's alternative cabinet meeting - the one with the Foreign Secretary, the Brexit secretary and other with a pile of pineapple pizzas.
Glad to see that collective cabinet responsibility is intact when half the cabinet sans the PM can conspire informally about whatever they were talking about. I'm sure all were discussing how they could lend the PM their full support for her clear and effective Brexit strategy.
Perhaps the Guardian would consider who is going to pay for the public services and publicly funded and third sector jobs in its jobs vacancies page without tax revenue and big charitable donations from the City of London?
Read the article and it explains. The theory is that the city of London sucks talent out of other industries, and that has a negative impact overall.
Sounds suspiciously like a theory created to point to the desired conclusion.
Indeed. Total bollocks.
There's plenty of research which shows that up to a point a growing financial sector is helpful for growth, but after that it becomes harmful to economic growth.
Then you have the political economy effects of having a very powerful financial sector. Regulatory capture, politicians kowtowing to the golden goose, economic policy designed to benefit the financial sector rather than the wider economy... I think you can convincingly argue the UK has seen all of this in the past two decades.
A country needs banks that are sufficiently well capitalised that they can grow prudential lending.
Banks which think they are overcapitalised tend to make imprudent loans at too low an interest rate or on weak terms - which ultimately leads to bad debts and banks shutting up shop.
It is a tricky balance for bank regulators and when the bank regulation was moved from the B of E to a newly formed FSA in 1997 the scene was set for an unsustainable bank lending boom leading up to the 2007/8 crash.
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get that they need to give on an item that is unlikely to happen. If we don’t agree a deal it will probably be down to them pushing too hard again, and therefore it is imperative that they have the one of the downsides. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.K. politics should be able to understand that May is at the end of what she can agree - she might not be able to get the existing deal through Parliament. I don’t understand how the EU cannot see this.
They probably, quite reasonably, assume that if this PM and Parliament can't pass a deal then they'll be dealing with a different cast of characters very shortly thereafter.
And if they think that cast will be more malleable, then yet again they are reading UK politics horribly wrong.
Why would Corbyn worry about the DUP or, indeed, about NI having a different regime? He is not a Unionist. Quite the opposite.
Brussels might well feel that they can more easily get their NI backstop with Corbyn in charge and that if he is stupid enough to stay out of the SM that will be to the very great advantage of the rest of the EU.
Tories who want to stay out of the SM are being utterly stupid. It is the one bit of the EU that really benefits us and it provides some protection against the inanities of Corbyneconomics. Since they are not doing anything about immigration and, bluntly, it is immigration from non-EU countries which most of their fervid followers are most bothered about, they may as well stay in the SM. Their position makes absolutely no sense.
It would be hilarious (in a really really bad way) if the DUP bring down May, get Corbyn, who then sells them up the river...
If the DUP helps to deliver a No Deal Brexit that leads to job losses and cuts in public services mainland indifference to Northern Irish unionism may develop into something a little more hostile.
The rest of the numbers suggest the UK job market is treading water.
A fall of 47k in unemployment is pretty good but I acknowledge that the number in work did not increase for the first time for quite a while. What we really need is an increase in productivity. Talking of which...
Is this because Poles etc are going home and the jobs they were doing are being taken by previously unemployed Brits?
I do not disagree about the importance of procedures and rules. But without the right leadership they are insufficient. My concern is that they will change the rules, make some nice sounding statements and the reality will be little real change.
I have had whistleblowers speak to me about their concerns. I can tell you that for every single one what really matters is that they can trust those who investigate their concerns and that they can trust those who receive their reports to take effective action. You can write the most perfect procedure down and plaster it all over an organisation’s walls. But without that trust - which depends on the integrity, courage and leadership of those who have to make those procedures a reality - you have a mere will o’ the wisp.
Indeed. But the opposite also plays out: if you have an organisation of (say) 1,000 or more people, especially on different sites, then you essentially have levels of leadership, geographically separate. Fostering a set leadership and set of morals onto such an organisation is next to impossible without rules and procedures, especially where there are cultural differences.
The issue is getting everybody playing from the same book.
Agreed. It is most unlikely to happen if those at the top do not recognise their own failings.
My guess is that there are too many vested interests and egos in Parliament for any real change to happen. There will be some token changes but MPs and others consider themselves too important to think that they have anything to learn or any reason to change and abide by the same rules as the rest of us.
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get that they need to give on an item that is unlikely to happen. If we don’t agree a deal it will probably be down to them pushing too hard again, and therefore it is imperative that they have the one of the downsides. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.K. politics should be able to understand that May is at the end of what she can agree - she might not be able to get the existing deal through Parliament. I don’t understand how the EU cannot see this.
They probably, quite reasonably, assume that if this PM and Parliament can't pass a deal then they'll be dealing with a different cast of characters very shortly thereafter.
And if they think that cast will be more malleable, then yet again they are reading UK politics horribly wrong.
Why would Corbyn worry about the DUP or, indeed, about NI having a different regime? He is not a Unionist. Quite the opposite.
Brussels might well feel that they can more easily get their NI backstop with Corbyn in charge and that if he is stupid enough to stay out of the SM that will be to the very great advantage of the rest of the EU.
Tories who want to stay out of the SM are being utterly stupid. It is the one bit of the EU that really benefits us and it provides some protection against the inanities of Corbyneconomics. Since they are not doing anything about immigration and, bluntly, it is immigration from non-EU countries which most of their fervid followers are most bothered about, they may as well stay in the SM. Their position makes absolutely no sense.
It would be hilarious (in a really really bad way) if the DUP bring down May, get Corbyn, who then sells them up the river...
If the DUP helps to deliver a No Deal Brexit that leads to job losses and cuts in public services mainland indifference to Northern Irish unionism may develop into something a little more hostile.
lol
you think it can get any more hostile ? Try reading some of the comments on here.
I've only just caught up with the reality of last night's alternative cabinet meeting - the one with the Foreign Secretary, the Brexit secretary and other with a pile of pineapple pizzas.
Glad to see that collective cabinet responsibility is intact when half the cabinet sans the PM can conspire informally about whatever they were talking about. I'm sure all were discussing how they could lend the PM their full support for her clear and effective Brexit strategy.
Brussels need to worry. They keep pushing for more thinking May will roll over. She would if she could, but they just don’t get that they need to give on an item that is unlikely to happen. If we don’t agree a deal it will probably be down to them pushing too hard again, and therefore it is imperative that they have the one of the downsides. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of U.K. politics should be able to understand that May is at the end of what she can agree - she might not be able to get the existing deal through Parliament. I don’t understand how the EU cannot see this.
They probably, quite reasonably, assume that if this PM and Parliament can't pass a deal then they'll be dealing with a different cast of characters very shortly thereafter.
And if they think that cast will be more malleable, then yet again they are reading UK politics horribly wrong.
Why would Corbyn worry about the DUP or, indeed, about NI having a different regime? He is not a Unionist. Quite the opposite.
Brussels might well feel that they can more easily get their NI backstop with Corbyn in charge and that if he is stupid enough to stay out of the SM that will be to the very great advantage of the rest of the EU.
Tories who want to stay out of the SM are being utterly stupid. It is the one bit of the EU that really benefits us and it provides some protection against the inanities of Corbyneconomics. Since they are not doing anything about immigration and, bluntly, it is immigration from non-EU countries which most of their fervid followers are most bothered about, they may as well stay in the SM. Their position makes absolutely no sense.
It would be hilarious (in a really really bad way) if the DUP bring down May, get Corbyn, who then sells them up the river...
If the DUP helps to deliver a No Deal Brexit that leads to job losses and cuts in public services mainland indifference to Northern Irish unionism may develop into something a little more hostile.
lol
you think it can get any more hostile ? Try reading some of the comments on here.
Comments
Can't see it myself, despite the current driver market being perhaps the most turbulent I can remember.
This is getting even worse for May. The all UK backstop that she wants is at best only going to be in the political declaration - eg not binding. The NI backstop will be in the binding WA.
The EU have not moved at all towards the UK position.
At one time I employed, in England, an Ulster Protestant who assured me that his father was one of several who had signed the Covenant in blood.
As his employer, in a small company, I was invited to the chap’s daughters wedding, around 1975 where I was introduced to my employee’s brother. He asked me what i thought of ‘the Ulster situation’. Trying to be diplomatic, ........after all, I was a guest ......... I said that looking from England it was ‘very difficult’ and received in response a tirade of abuse about Catholics in general and Sinn Fein in particular.
Well, it's a niche view....
If you say so.
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/52-per-cent-of-britons-dont-believe-in-moon-landings-and-that-number-sounds-familiar-say-experts-20160720111106
No border at all
After years of screeching “We’re full!” it might seem odd to have no border. However Brexiters are mainly concerned with keeping out Eastern Europeans and Muslims, whereas the Irish are okay, like Liam Neeson or Val Doonican.
Mr. eek, my understanding was that he did. Even if he does, promoting Schumacher at this stage would probably be too early (for F1, at least).
Changing the structure of the economy is a long term project.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1052113308273266695
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1052114107200098304
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/16/jamal-khashoggi-disappearance-mike-pompeo-saudi-arabia-salman
Is an alternative crown prince to be crowned ?
He has been in charge when this poor culture developed. How then can anyone reasonably expect him to understand what has gone wrong, why it has gone wrong and what needs to be done to make matters better?
This is not a question of rewriting procedures but of a leadership which sets the right example, is able to have the confidence of those workng in Parliament and the courage to stand up to those who behave badly or who want to make no more than token changes. Even if he personally has behaved well, that is not enough. Making this sort of leadership and cultural change is not the work of a few weeks or months but of years. That fact alone requires a new Speaker.
I did warn you.
https://twitter.com/yougov/status/1052113316477325312?s=21
I guess what they mean is "virtually everyone ... moved their view to unfavorable or still don't know", but that's very different to what they said.
The Commons and the Lords cannot vote to keep the UK in the SM+CU (or they can but it is not in any way binding). Parliament cannot negotiate. It cannot direct the Government to negotiate. The only rights Parliament has it to approve legislation or form a new Government if it has no confidence in the current Government or force a general election.
The only way the UK can do what you suggest is if the Government propose it as Government policy. If you think a Tory Government under May will do this, fair enough, but stop pretending Parliament can do it. May will not propose it, because it still needs acceptance of the backstop. If she was able to accept the backstop, no deal would not arise. Circular argument.
Norway is not an option because it does not include the CU and therefore does not solve the EUs 'issues' with NI.
The SM+CU is not an 'off the shelf' option. It does not currently exist. It would need to be negotiated from scratch under s207 of TFEU - the EU is not legally allowed to enter into this deal under A50.
Therefore, the backstop would need to apply while it is negotiated, and the backstop will remain in case the UK leave that arrangement later. The backstop cannot pass Parliament because in fact there is no majority for a permanent NI backstop, something you seem to have overlooked.
Focus on the backstop.
https://twitter.com/DUPleader/status/1052097800215953408
Another politician who broke his promise.
https://financecurse.net/research/academic-papers-too-much-finance/
Then you have the political economy effects of having a very powerful financial sector. Regulatory capture, politicians kowtowing to the golden goose, economic policy designed to benefit the financial sector rather than the wider economy... I think you can convincingly argue the UK has seen all of this in the past two decades.
But he 'inherited' a HoC that had been rocked by the expenses and other scandals including the situation in which his predecessor vacated the role. He had an opportunity to change things then, and IMO did not.
And one other thing (which I know we've disagreed on before): procedures and rules are as vital as leadership. Falling back on one without the other is a recipe for disaster.
There are a dozen Scottish Conservative MPs and they can be expected to be loyal to Ruth Davidson rather than Theresa May.
A bit like the urban legend of the exchange between the US warship and the lighthouse station.
Yes - but the same one? The padded walls are a nice touch. Must make the banging of head against the wall that much more comfortable. I do not disagree about the importance of procedures and rules. But without the right leadership they are insufficient. My concern is that they will change the rules, make some nice sounding statements and the reality will be little real change.
I have had whistleblowers speak to me about their concerns. I can tell you that for every single one what really matters is that they can trust those who investigate their concerns and that they can trust those who receive their reports to take effective action. You can write the most perfect procedure down and plaster it all over an organisation’s walls. But without that trust - which depends on the integrity, courage and leadership of those who have to make those procedures a reality - you have a mere will o’ the wisp.
https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-economic-growth-within-g7/
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1052129053300408320
Some people will always be changing jobs eg employees of companies that stop trading or those who are long term sick or completely unemployable or playing the system.
Brussels might well feel that they can more easily get their NI backstop with Corbyn in charge and that if he is stupid enough to stay out of the SM that will be to the very great advantage of the rest of the EU.
Tories who want to stay out of the SM are being utterly stupid. It is the one bit of the EU that really benefits us and it provides some protection against the inanities of Corbyneconomics. Since they are not doing anything about immigration and, bluntly, it is immigration from non-EU countries which most of their fervid followers are most bothered about, they may as well stay in the SM. Their position makes absolutely no sense.
The issue is getting everybody playing from the same book.
Undermines the righteous outrage over the Kavanaugh appointment.
Unless his mouth is open to ...
No, I'm not going there.
Glad to see that collective cabinet responsibility is intact when half the cabinet sans the PM can conspire informally about whatever they were talking about. I'm sure all were discussing how they could lend the PM their full support for her clear and effective Brexit strategy.
Banks which think they are overcapitalised tend to make imprudent loans at too low an interest rate or on weak terms - which ultimately leads to bad debts and banks shutting up shop.
It is a tricky balance for bank regulators and when the bank regulation was moved from the B of E to a newly formed FSA in 1997 the scene was set for an unsustainable bank lending boom leading up to the 2007/8 crash.
Yeah, I know I’m a Remainer. And I still am.
My guess is that there are too many vested interests and egos in Parliament for any real change to happen. There will be some token changes but MPs and others consider themselves too important to think that they have anything to learn or any reason to change and abide by the same rules as the rest of us.
you think it can get any more hostile ? Try reading some of the comments on here.
https://twitter.com/lionelbarber/status/1052086172674154496
He will say that it is in the national inteest that he stays to provide stability at a crucial time.
All too easy.
Like Boris, Bercow's actions revolve around the best interest of himself.