Jump to content

blandy

Moderator
  • Posts

    25,403
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Everything posted by blandy

  1. If you’re saying what I wrote won’t happen then I beg to differ. Chances are I’ll be wrong, because my run of luck in working out what will happen can’t last.
  2. There’s 2 angles to this. Firstly, you’re right, the UK red lines, set by May’s personal preferences and nothing more, effectively limit the scope of what could be offered for negotiation. There’s no motivation whatsoever for the EU to change that stance. But the other aspect is that a deal is better than no deal, for both sides. The current (thrice rejected) deal is not acceptable to the UK parliament, even though the then UK PM signed off on it. So right now there’s no deal. A deal is needed by both sides. The May deal won’t be changed IMO, as per angle 1, above. So the wording around what comes next, how the two sides arrange things after we have left, which can be changed, will have to satisfy both parties. Trouble is, it’s not legally binding....But it’s the easiest thing by far to alter and allow both sides to settle down. This whole 3 year period is the easy bit. The harder, by far, part is the detail of the future relationship between the EU and UK. There’s another decade of all this to come. We’ll be 4 governments in before it’s remotely sorted.
  3. As excellent as she is, my perception is there's absolutely no chance for all kinds of reasons, some of which are already covered/implied in what you and @HanoiVillan have written. Whether Labour or Tory, MPs would be as reluctant (completely averse) to giving the Green party a boost by having a Green lead parliament and the country. They, for partisan reasons, will never do that. So IMO it's a complete non starter, sadly. I also agree that a GONU is highly unlikely. There are not enough MPs who would put country first, or would even believe that such a thing would put country first. If we go back to the turn of the year, Jan, Feb etc. it was blatantly obvious that the (then) March default deadline of "we crash out" was going to shift, that we weren't going to crash out and there would be an extension. Many but not all of the reasons that applied then, still apply. The country and the Government are still not remotely ready for such an event to happen at end October, nor will they be by that time. The necessary legislation is not and won't be in place. Laws for dealing with the changed aspects of our trade and civil operation etc. will still not be in place. Back in February we had a PM who was saying all kinds of crap about "no deal is better than a bad deal" while obviously not remotely believing it. Parliament also didn't believe it. The "choice" then was between a bad deal and (theoretically at least, but not in reality) no deal. Because broadly, everyone knew no deal was not a genuione option, they could reject the bad deal May had negotiated. So they did, despite all the party loyalty and political games. The EU could decline to negotiate further, because they knew that "no deal" wasn't a genuine option. It was also clear that May was going to be toast. So what's changed? Not nearly as much as is being sort of told as a story. The laws still aren't ready. The EU and the UK are more aware of how bad no deal would be, the reality is clearer even than it was. The May deal is still comatose/dead. The EU still say they won't change it, the UK say, still, it's not acceptable. The UK government is making much more noise about being "prepared" to go for no deal, but on the other hand it has an even smaller majority, though, and this may drop further to no majority at all by October. The EU has various new MEPs leaders and so on, and the EU national governments, or some of them will be less inclined to indulge the UK. The chances of the EU therefore effectively washing their hands of it all and being willing to let no deal happen have gone up from basically zero, to a small, but significant chance. The UK Government says they're willing to let no deal happen, but they don't have the maths for that to be the choice of parliament, yet they also know as absolute fact that it would be a disaster (yes there are a few who hold a different view, but they're a small minority). So what we're seeing now is a re-run of what was happening in Jan/Feb/March, but with the only changes being the willingness of both sides to have another extension being reduced, and the consequences of no deal being more starkly apparent. Leave and remain MPs are making more noise about forcing their will, one way or another, but neither side looks likely to be able to actually achieve their claimed aims. From the entrenched postions, the ways out, without losing face for the two sides are for the EU to change the political statement that goes with the negotiated agreement, and for the UK, which has talked itself into a corner over the deadline it's either to also have changed wording to the Political statement, or to have themselves "forced" by nasty others to break their promise - via an election, or a VONC or whatever. An election would be a massive gamble for all the MPs, apart from the SNP, a VONC - I just don't see the bottle there for it when it comes to the crunch. Most likely outcome therefore, some fettling of the political statement/agreement around the Irish border and then a vote and then it (the agreement already made) getting passed and the UK leaves by the end of the year, or thereabouts.
  4. When the government takes in tax and then when the government pays benefits that is an example of redistribution of taxing and spending. taxation does not “enhance” the spending power of any group Unless revenue is shared with another group. income tax rates affect the amount of money people receive relative to each other, which can be called redistribution, yet the proceeds, and they are there, whether you think they’re medieval or not, are then passed back by government to workers, businesses, services and so on. Or redistributed, or spent. You can see from charts of tax and spending, for example https://www.ukpublicrevenue.co.uk that the Gov'ts have chosen, somehow, to spend and tax at levels which in the big scheme of things rather match(ish). Revenue has been redistributed (spent).
  5. Sorry to hear that. Can I have your telly when you die?
  6. How aware of Asbestos are you now? Please select only one option a) very aware b) moderately aware c) not very aware d) not at all aware - WTF is this asbestos thing?
  7. Those two things are the same thing. The Government "redistributing" revenue they take from various taxes IS "Government spending" (not all of the Gov't's spending, but it absolutely is some of it).
  8. It came up on my twitter earlier, where Dominic Grieve was saying in some TV interview, that Cummings understanding "is simply wrong" on the whole VONC and what happens next thing.Grieve was fairly insistent that (as I blearily understood him) if Johnson lost a VONC, then a crash out Brexit could absolutely be stopped.
  9. blandy

    U.S. Politics

    They should be somewhere way down the pecking order. Surely there should be consistency. For example, when terrorists who are muslims have done attacks, the idea of "and the religious leanings of the scumbag were... " is quite rightly called out as trying to pin blame on muslims generally. So same with this. This latest terrorist bell end may have been Republican (or whatever) leaning, politically, but trying to pin blame on Republicans generally for this murdering whooper is not the way to go - is it? Better to concentrate on radicalisation, extremism, prevention, monitoring, gun control and all the rest, surely? It's true, I think, that right wing/republican types need to reflect on how what they say and do might influence people, how those in positions of responsibility need to not preach hate, but tolerance and how they might do well to pay more attention to the ones they see or hear talking about terror or hate or etc. whether in real life or on the facebook etc. Maybe report more people to the police. Perhaps the feds need to have a word with that fat fella - you know the one, a sort of blow-hard tangerine turd type - goes by the name of (something like) "The Resident" or "The Dim old", though I may have misheard.
  10. The washing machine died. Smoke came out of it, the drum pretty much siezed up and made a horrible gravelly noise. When I drained it, bits of sort of ceramicy rubble came out. Then when I disconnected it all, I had to change some of the pipes under the sink, so that the sink could be drained. The pipes needed cleaning out, too. There was some residue gathered there, restricting water-flow. I went on an internet and ordered another washing machine today and when it comes, I'll have to reverse the removal process. I had thought about repair, but based on the age of the old one, and the multiple faults, it's probably better to get a new one and let the 19 year old machine go to the Broken household appliance national forest.
  11. Fancy foreign muck, that! And onion gravy's a bit posh for Burnley, so was that 'eck as like 'is wages.
  12. Very much agree. It “looked” deliberate, and he had previous. At the time the weight of balance, I think, supported your view. I don’t think I said so, but I shared it. Since then there’s been a whole lot of evidence of his character and nature that tilts the balance back towards it probably wasn’t deliberate.
  13. Two tiny quote extracts, but I think (at least for me) if I speak as a private citizen about something my Company is doing or did, then there is no legal leg to stand on for my Co. to sack me, or discipline me. Of course with an MP, it's to an extent different, because they are always both, but "As a resident of Town, I reject Fracking and the risks associated with it, even though it's X party policy" is a frequent type of an MP objection/rebellion. Or "as a shareholder I am massively disappointed with the performance of the shares under the Chairmanship of X" - it's fine. On HV's quote - both peter and HV seem to take the (perfectly fair) view that "members decide and they can decide what the heck they like". That's fine as a view. My observational point is that if/where this goes against wider interests of the local community, say then our political and voting (election) system can mean that good people are binned off because entryists or whoever effectively hijack/legitimately*, democratically decide to hoof out whoever. * delete as appropriate to your views. As HV says "there are consequences" - and not just politically, but for the local population or nation. Just because Blairites allegedly did X, doesn't mean it's OK for Corbynites to allegedly do it. If it's wrong, it's wrong. Anyway, Labour's stuffed with Corbyn as leader and his angry tramps trying to deselect large numbers of MPs. Comply or die (metaphorically) is not a good ethos for an open, broad church kind of party. The tories have gone the same way. They're goosed, too.
  14. My perception is very much the opposite of that. An MPs performance as an MP, where they have a duty to represent ALL their constituents, rather than do what their local party wants them to. Though I suppose it's a partially grey area because if an MP has one set of views and a leader another - then the MP will almost, by default, either be speaking against the party and Leader's (new) line or failing to properly put across their views. Mostly, my perception is that MPs, and Labour in particular wants to remove those not "loyal to Jeremy". It's nothing to do with how well they've done their jobs as MPs representing the constituents, and all to do with "She said Jeremy needed to do more on AS" etc. We even had Chris Williamson a year or so ago, going round the constituencies of MPs he felt insufficiently loyal to Saint Jeremy, with his "Democracy Roadshow" sort of wondering out loud if "carry on like you are and you might have a little democratic accident". That's former PFI supporting, Tory co-operating, Chris Williamson (now suspended) MP.
  15. The EU are on their holidays too, so not much negotiating of some dream new Unicorn agreement is going to be done (if any). So it'll either be another kick down the road, or a massive showdown. Happy Days.
  16. That would be nice, but I fear the people he's picked ot be his team, being almost universally a bunch of throbbers, means not (in as much as there's any kind of plan at all).
  17. blandy

    Wolves

    Please stay at least slightly on topic Villans (and Lupine visitors). Ta.
  18. Len McLuskey is extremely influential and close with Catweazle, unfortunately. He's been spouting off on everything from AS to Brexit for a while. I cancelled the political part of my Union fees to Unite because of him and the way he [note to self, don't write a libel] "won" the Unite leadership contest, amongst other things. But probably the unions overall are no more left or right than previously.
  19. Much of that is fair comment, though I'm not sure I see all of Labour's problems (and there are many) down to Corbyn. The LP is massively divided, and my comment was in the context of him being (possibly) claimed as just the type of character to bring together a divided party. He hasn't, IMO, he's made it much more divided. The aspect of MPs and party selection (and it applies ot any party, really) is interesting. If, say, an party MP has been in a seat for a good while, consistent large majorities from the voters, and then the party Leader changes and is now someone who holds different kinds of views, should that MP be removed because 65 out of 100 Local Party members have the hump with them? - it applies to Tories in seats where loads of former UKIP members have joined, or Labour where momentum types have joined, or wherever. Isn't there also an aspect of the overall constituency repeatedly voting in the MP by large numbers being effectively deprived of a good MP by a few 10s or a couple of hundred Brexity throbbers - like with Johnson becoming PM via the votes of a tiny fraction of the countiry's electorate? There has to be recognition of parties being able to choose who represents them, but also of voters (wider than just the party) not having their wishes overridden. Whether Blair or Corbyn, May or Major, parties have always placed some "preferred" candidates in some seats - either to give them a first taste of an election or to actually get them elected. As you say many local parties accept that. Some moan, some really kick-off. I'm sure we won't see Corbyn's son, or any of his Union leader chums' children or favourites getting cushy seats, right?
  20. I don't know what these centrist Dads maintain (or indeed who they are) - are you talking about "if only we could find a new messiah" people? But surely the "messiah" thing is something that is (or was) kind of attached to Saint Jeremy by the momentum lot - all the "Oh, Jeremy Corbyn" chanting, the cult of Corbyn stuff and how he's all different and has principles, not like other politicians. The article is dead right that "finding a messiah" doesn't solve anything. It's wholly unrealistic. Jeremy wasn't the prvious one, and whoever's next won't be either. The other parts of the article, seem fairly standard common sense. They also seem to identify exactly why Corbyn is struggling. "For Labour, I’d contend, it is a need to unite the PLP and grassroots. This requires emollience, charisma and person-management skills rather than a talent for policy development, because in the economic sphere at least this has been going well." The PLP and grassroots are not only not for uniting, it's Corbyn more than anyone who has disunited them. He's about as divisive a charachter as you could imagine (in the Labour party). Further "We should ask of leaders: what processes have you put in place to facilitate improvement? It could be that the best such processes require less "strong leadership" and more decentralized or collegiate decision-making " Probably best steer clear of the anti-semitism stuff, but there's not much evidence (i.e. none at all) that Corbyn's done well with this. Again, the opposite applies. As the article extract concludes, it's maybe too far gone now, whoever and however they take over.
×
×
  • Create New...
Â