PDA

View Full Version : UK (and Irish) elections and politics



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Andrew Hardegen
25-06-2016, 08:12 PM
And 'independence' is a long way away (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/24/brexit-fallout-what-we-know-so-far): "Boris Johnson said Britain should not immediately trigger article 50 to start exit negotiations, saying there was “no need for haste” and “nothing will change in the short term”, in his first press conference after the vote."

These seem like sensible things to say. Talk of large-scale short-term changes would induce more speculation and panic.


After Article 50 is triggered, there could be another two years before the UK actually leaves (it it's still the UK!), and it will be subject to all EU regulations during that time, but will be powerless to affect them.

I hope that the UK will not be subject to any kind of vindictive tactics. Having said this, I don't think that any attempt to punish the UK for leaving will dissuade other countries from going the same way. Perhaps the contrary.

Desmond
25-06-2016, 08:47 PM
It is very natural to try to read between the lines, but Garvin's post consisted of only one line. Seems to me that he was simply trying to determine the identity of the other person who chose "Leave".

I also believed that UK should leave the EU, but I didn't vote in this forum poll.
You can see who voted which way by clicking on the numbers.

Patrick Byrom
25-06-2016, 09:12 PM
I hope that the UK will not be subject to any kind of vindictive tactics. ...
I wasn't suggesting that the EU would do that, only that Leave voters wouldn't get their 'independence' for several years. And two other major reasons for their vote have turned out to be lies (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/25/leave-campaign-rows-back-key-pledges-immigration-nhs-spending):

... But within hours of the result on Friday morning, the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, had distanced himself from the claim that Ł350m of EU contributions could instead be spent on the NHS, while the Tory MEP Daniel Hannan said free movement could result in similar levels of immigration after Brexit.

Andrew Hardegen
26-06-2016, 02:58 PM
And two other major reasons for their vote have turned out to be lies (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/25/leave-campaign-rows-back-key-pledges-immigration-nhs-spending):

... But within hours of the result on Friday morning, the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage, had distanced himself from the claim that Ł350m of EU contributions could instead be spent on the NHS, ...

I think this question is mainly academic. Firstly, given that UKIP is not one of the two main parties and will not govern in its own right in the near future, Farage will not be able to deliver on the supposed promise, even if he believes that the money should be spent on the NHS. Another problem is that currency is fungible: even if an extra 350 million pounds were spent on the NHS, it would be meaningless to ask whether this extra spending is the same money that would previously have been spent on EU contributions. The money could equally be considered to be a component of additional revenues made in other areas. It will never be possible for Farage to prove that he has delivered on the statement attributed to him. Which rather explains why many continue to attribute it to him.

This is a standard trap set by left-leaning commentators. The main aim in imposing such a constraint is not to ensure that the funding for the NHS increases by at least 350 million pounds. Rather, it is to make it impossible for cuts to be made. I strongly believe in the NHS, but I also support reasonable attempts by conservative governments to deal with inefficiencies where they are present. Any such attempts would result in reduced NHS spending, after the 350 million pounds has been added on. Leftists would then point out that overall funding for health has increased, but not by the required amount. This would be branded a `broken promise’. The Left wins in all variations.




... while the Tory MEP Daniel Hannan said free movement could result in similar levels of immigration after Brexit.

This is just the Guardian putting words in people’s mouths, as usual. The article attributes the following quotes directly to Hannan:

“Frankly, if people watching think that they have voted and there is now going to be zero immigration from the EU, they are going to be disappointed.”

“All we are asking for is some control over roughly who comes in and roughly in what numbers.”

Yet the journalist interprets these statements as a concession that the levels of immigration could stay the same. I can't see how a balanced journalist might reasonably summarise Hannan's statements in this way.

Andrew Hardegen
26-06-2016, 03:10 PM
You can see who voted which way by clicking on the numbers.

Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks!

Every time I visit this forum, I learn something new. :)

Patrick Byrom
26-06-2016, 04:41 PM
I think this question is mainly academic. Firstly, given that UKIP is not one of the two main parties and will not govern in its own right in the near future, Farage will not be able to deliver on the supposed promise, even if he believes that the money should be spent on the NHS. ...But the claim was made by the Vote Leave campaign, not just by Farage. If you're saying the promise was meaningless, then voters were obviously deceived.


This is just the Guardian putting words in people’s mouths, as usual. The article attributes the following quotes directly to Hannan:

“Frankly, if people watching think that they have voted and there is now going to be zero immigration from the EU, they are going to be disappointed.”
“All we are asking for is some control over roughly who comes in and roughly in what numbers.”
Yet the journalist interprets these statements as a concession that the levels of immigration could stay the same. I can't see how a balanced journalist might reasonably summarise Hannan's statements in this way.If the UK remains as part of the single market, then it will almost certainly have to accept free movement, so I'm not sure how it will control the level of immigration. This is what Hannan is presumably admitting.

One of the problems with Brexit is that the Leave campaign has no clear strategy, which is creating a lot of market uncertainty.

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2016, 01:32 AM
I'm sure there were some people who voted Leave who did so for very sound reasons based on their own view of the world and got exactly what they wanted but it seems that many who did so just had no idea and some were even protesting about something without believing that Leave could actually win. This sort of thing is why referenda are a bad way to decide things and should be avoided except when absolutely necessary. The whole thing would be funny were it not so destabilising in its impacts; I just hope some country with its head screwed on better gets ahead out of all this.

Even Nick Clegg saw what would happen rather accurately:
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/will-wake-vote-leave/

but he was one of "them" (the political/expert class) so people didn't listen.

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2016, 02:06 AM
But then there is 4 Myths About Brexit, And 3 Reasons It’s A Good Idea (http://www.dailywire.com/news/6885/4-myths-about-brexit-and-3-reasons-its-good-idea-ben-shapiro)

Why should the UK not be able to trade freely with Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, now that it's out of the protectionist cartel of the EU? Boris Johnson is a strong free-trader. Some of the same economic problems were predicted when the UK refused to drop the pound for the euro, but it turned out well to be out of the Germany–Greece struggle.

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2016, 02:17 AM
I'm sure there were some people who voted Leave who did so for very sound reasons based on their own view of the world and got exactly what they wanted but it seems that many who did so just had no idea and some were even protesting about something without believing that Leave could actually win. This sort of thing is why referenda are a bad way to decide things and should be avoided except when absolutely necessary.
What would you replace them with, at least for this type of issue (cf. Australia on whether we should become a Republic)? Mind you, legal scholar Ilya Somin, a libertarian of the type you would probably approve of, thought that Brexit was the result of political ignorance (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/24/thoughts-on-the-brexit-vote/), while agreeing that the Leave side did have some good arguments. He has written a whole book deploring widespread political ignorance (https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Political-Ignorance-Smaller-Government/dp/0804799318), although admitting that this is rational from the point of view of voters (http://balkin.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-political-ignorance-is-serious.html) whose votes can't change much in a complex and remote government.

Capablanca-Fan
27-06-2016, 05:25 AM
David Hannan, MEP, on why the UK should vote to make his position redundant. Australia and New Zealand even got a mention.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=405&v=6YNcF3h3NgQ

Kevin Bonham
27-06-2016, 10:59 AM
What would you replace them with, at least for this type of issue (cf. Australia on whether we should become a Republic)?

Becoming a republic is an "absolutely necessary" case constitutionally in Australia.

Patrick Byrom
27-06-2016, 05:21 PM
But then there is 4 Myths About Brexit, And 3 Reasons It’s A Good Idea (http://www.dailywire.com/news/6885/4-myths-about-brexit-and-3-reasons-its-good-idea-ben-shapiro)

Why should the UK not be able to trade freely with Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, now that it's out of the protectionist cartel of the EU? Boris Johnson is a strong free-trader. Some of the same economic problems were predicted when the UK refused to drop the pound for the euro, but it turned out well to be out of the Germany–Greece struggle.
One of those 'myths' seems to be fairly real (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/26/city-of-london-expecting-further-post-brexit-losses-when-trade-reopens):

US bank JP Morgan has warned 4,000 jobs will go and HSBC has said 1,000 City jobs will move to France. Rumours are sweeping the City that alternative trading sites are being set up in a number of other financial centres, including Luxembourg.
And Johnson is claiming that the UK will remain part of the single market, but also be able to control its own immigration and do free trade deals with other economies. Which sounds great for the UK, but it's hard to see the other EU countries agreeing to it.

Capablanca-Fan
28-06-2016, 01:16 AM
One of those 'myths' seems to be fairly real (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/26/city-of-london-expecting-further-post-brexit-losses-when-trade-reopens):

US bank JP Morgan has warned 4,000 jobs will go and HSBC has said 1,000 City jobs will move to France. Rumours are sweeping the City that alternative trading sites are being set up in a number of other financial centres, including Luxembourg.
Yes, "rumours" and other scaremongering. They tried in vain to scare Britons from voting for independence, and now they are trying to scare them into thinking they made the wrong choice.


And Johnson is claiming that the UK will remain part of the single market, but also be able to control its own immigration and do free trade deals with other economies. Which sounds great for the UK, but it's hard to see the other EU countries agreeing to it.
Well, yes, the EU is a protectionist cartel that is unfair to third world countries and to Au, NZ, USA with its trade barriers. Note that this is a big difference between Boris Johnson and Donald Trump: Johnson is a strong free-trader while Trump is a fanatical protectionist.

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2016, 01:39 AM
Anti-Corbyn forces are trying to blast out Corbyn by resigning; he's refusing and saying they will have to beat him in a ballot.

(For those wondering, one reason Corbyn is under attack is that he was pretty lukewarm on remaining. The other is that some people just want any excuse to get rid of him.)

On the Tory side, new PM by September 2 apparently.

Capablanca-Fan
28-06-2016, 03:02 PM
Noel Whittaker on Brexit and personal finance:

Welcome to our last newsletter for the current financial year – and we can certainly say the year is going out with a bang. Not only do we have an election just two days into the new financial year, we have also just been subjected to the shock of Brexit.

Having spent most of May in the United Kingdom the result does not surprise me. Almost everybody we spoke to was tired of the bloated bureaucracy that calls itself the European Union and the fact that Britain had to pay Ł350 million a month just to prop it up. The Brits were also tired of having two thirds of their laws dictated to by Europe. One, that has caused considerable annoyance is the EU decree that banned referees whistles at school football matches on the grounds that they could frighten to timid children!

In the next few months there will be much about Britain in the news, but bear in mind the media tends to focus on the negative news. If you watched the 6 PM news on Friday you may well have been scared to death. We were told that millions had been wiped off our superannuation as markets fell, oil prices had plunged, and the British pound had suffered one of its biggest losses in history. Yes – this was all true, but they did not mention that when the All Ordinaries index fell 3% it had simply taken back the gains of the week before. Similarly, Japanese shares were down 8% on Friday, but they had risen 5% over the prior five days.

I think much of the blame for the Brexit vote can be attributed to the scare campaign run by Prime Minister David Cameron. He warned of drastic consequences and even hinted that leaving the EU could lead to a world war. To make matters worse supporters of remain tried to paint the supporters of Brexit as racist.

If we take an Australian view, the fact that the British pounds has fallen 9% means it will be cheaper for us to holiday in Britain, and their exports will become more competitive. And keep in mind that the days when Britain was a major trade partner with Australia are long gone – the vast majority of our trade is now with Asia.

History tells us that markets tend to rebound quickly after crises. Even the bombing of Wall Street in September 2001, and the Japanese tsunami and nuclear crisis in March 2011 were quickly forgotten - markets recovered a few weeks later.

In short, expect volatility, look for buying opportunities if you have money available and take a long term view. The American economic recovery, and the Trump versus Clinton in the United States presidential elections will soon be back in the headlines.

Patrick Byrom
28-06-2016, 06:43 PM
Yes, "rumours" and other scaremongering. They tried in vain to scare Britons from voting for independence, and now they are trying to scare them into thinking they made the wrong choice.If they're not scared by the biggest two-day fall in world stock-markets ever, and Britain losing its AAA credit rating, perhaps they should be.


Well, yes, the EU is a protectionist cartel that is unfair to third world countries and to Au, NZ, USA with its trade barriers. ...Okay, so what happens if the EU rejects the UK's request to be part of the single market? The UK will then face tariff barriers with its major trading partners in the EU. Even if it then negotiates free trade agreements with other countries, there would have to be a major restructuring of the UK economy - businesses currently trading with the EU would either have to find other partners or collapse.

ElevatorEscapee
28-06-2016, 10:17 PM
3167

ER
28-06-2016, 11:02 PM
Chess players humour at Facebook! :P :)

3168

Agent Smith
28-06-2016, 11:48 PM
Dumb and dumber ... dead ringers :)

Yah - big comeupance in the football. England getting beat up by Iceland, a country with a population of 300 000.

Some crazeds Icelandic commentator:

Live the way you want England. Iceland is going to play France on Sunday. France Iceland! You can go home! You can go out of Europe! You can go wherever the hell you want!
http://static.dnaindia.com/sites/default/files/styles/half/public/2016/06/28/476422-brexit-2.jpg?itok=lYCRkSi0
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/B7CD/production/_90135074_eex28p001-1st.jpg

Capablanca-Fan
29-06-2016, 01:14 AM
If they're not scared by the biggest two-day fall in world stock-markets ever,
As usual, stockmarkets recover from even worse news such as 11-9. Sure enough, Pound and shares rally after two days of record Brexit losses (https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/jun/28/brexit-3-trillion-stock-markets-sterling-ftse-business-live) – business live. The fall doesn't even count as a "stockmarket correction (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/correction.asp)" which is a loss of 10–20%, and this occurs on average every 26 months (http://time.com/money/2962986/the-stock-market-correction-that-nobody-noticed/).


and Britain losing its AAA credit rating, perhaps they should be.
Obamov lost the USA's AAA credit rating and you still adore him.


Okay, so what happens if the EU rejects the UK's request to be part of the single market? The UK will then face tariff barriers with its major trading partners in the EU.
Proving my point that the EU is a corrupt crony capitalist protectionist cartel. The UK can now trade again with free-trading nations like Oz and NZ. Or else they could do what Norway and Switzerland do: trade with European nations if the protected nations see it as beneficial (which it is).


Even if it then negotiates free trade agreements with other countries, there would have to be a major restructuring of the UK economy - businesses currently trading with the EU would either have to find other partners or collapse.
Yes, getting rid of costly and burdensome EU regulations that UK never voted for.

Kevin Bonham
29-06-2016, 01:27 AM
Corbyn has lost a confidence vote of his party, but that's not the end for him (unless he decides to quit), he can still take it to a ballot.

pax
29-06-2016, 12:59 PM
Corbyn has lost a confidence vote of his party, but that's not the end for him (unless he decides to quit), he can still take it to a ballot.

With less than 20% support, I can't see him holding on for long.

Patrick Byrom
29-06-2016, 05:39 PM
Proving my point that the EU is a corrupt crony capitalist protectionist cartel. The UK can now trade again with free-trading nations like Oz and NZ. Or else they could do what Norway and Switzerland do: trade with European nations if the protected nations see it as beneficial (which it is).And also accept free movement of EU citizens (http://openeurope.org.uk/intelligence/immigration-and-justice/norway-and-switzerland/):

However, in fact, Norway and Switzerland have far higher levels of EU immigration than the UK as a proportion of their populations. These countries do operate under slightly different legal arrangements to the UK when it comes to EU migration. In practice, though, they are fully integrated into the EU’s free movement rules, and the EU has repeatedly made it clear that free movement of people is the price that must be paid for access to the single market.
An excellent solution - but free movement is the opposite of what Johnson and Farage have been promising. And leaving the single market is also the opposite of what Johnson has been promising. So unless the EU reverses it's position, the final outcome will be the opposite of what the Leave voters were promised would happen (one way or another).

Patrick Byrom
29-06-2016, 06:42 PM
As usual, stockmarkets recover from even worse news such as 11-9. ...The pound hasn't recovered to anywhere near its pre-Brexit level. But the general recovery isn't that surprising - it's now obvious that Brexit won't actually happen for years, and will probably involve a 'Norway' solution. Of course, millions of UK voters would be extremely unhappy with the UK agreeing to free movement of EU citizens, and paying the same amount of money to the EU that they do now, but what could they do about it - they voted to leave, and the UK left.

Capablanca-Fan
30-06-2016, 02:11 PM
Now (http://www.fool.com.au/2016/06/30/asx-200-to-continue-post-brexit-rally-9-shares-to-watch/):

The S&P/ASX 200 (Index: ^AXJO) (ASX: XJO) is expected to trade higher again today following positive leads from international markets.

Here’s a recap:

FTSE 100 (UK): up 3.58%
DAX (Germany): up 1.75%
CAC 40 (France): up 2.60%
Dow Jones (USA): up 1.64%
NASDAQ (USA): up 1.86%

In London, shares continued to rally with the FTSE 100 now trading higher than it was at the close on the evening before Brexit. The London-listed shares of BHP Billiton Limited (ASX: BHP) and Rio Tinto Limited (ASX: RIO) also rallied, rising 3.2% each, suggesting today could be a good day for their local counterparts.

Kevin Bonham
30-06-2016, 06:40 PM
Oh this is fun. Michael Gove is running against Boris Johnson for the top job and has put out quite a nice presser arguing his case for why. Unlike Boris he sounds like he knows what he wants to do with the baby they've been left holding.

I've seen this list of candidates so far:

Theresa May
Michael Gove
Boris Johnson
Stephen Crabb
Andrea Leadsom
Liam Fox
John Baron

Patrick Byrom
30-06-2016, 11:13 PM
...I've seen this list of candidates so far:
Theresa May
Michael Gove
Boris Johnson
Stephen Crabb
Andrea Leadsom
Liam Fox
John Baron
Now minus Boris Johnson, leaving May and Gove the hot favourites.

Rahane_S (Axiom)
01-07-2016, 12:06 AM
Now minus Boris Johnson, leaving May and Gove the hot favourites.

Boris Johnson - All Puff No Pastry!

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2016, 12:39 PM
Boris knew his hand was rubbish after the Gove intervention so he folded.

The party votes to reduce them to two and then those two are voted on by members.

Patrick Byrom
01-07-2016, 08:57 PM
A lot of people in the UK not happy with the outcome of Brexit (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2016/jul/01/brexit-live-michael-gove-to-set-out-his-vision-for-britain-as-conservatives-reel-from-boris-johnsons-exit):

More than half of all Britons believe the country’s position in the world has got worse and 54% believe the economy has got worse since the Brexit vote, a poll by Opinium has found. The results of the poll found 7% of leave voters now regret their decision, and a clear majority, 60%, believe there should be a general election before article 50 is invoked and negotiations begin with the EU. A third say immigration controls should be the number one issue but 37% insist staying in the single market is the most important factor.
That's the problem with a referendum of course - if you change your mind, you don't get a second chance at the next election.

Desmond
01-07-2016, 11:19 PM
Boris knew his hand was rubbish after the Gove intervention so he folded.
Was it a case of a dog chasing a car, and then not knowing what to do when he catches it?

Capablanca-Fan
02-07-2016, 12:41 AM
Was it a case of a dog chasing a car, and then not knowing what to do when he catches it?

Or was it following Australia's recent custom of Prime Ministers being knifed in the back?

Capablanca-Fan
02-07-2016, 05:04 AM
Legal scholar Ilya Somin is an expert on the regrettable problem of rational voter ignorance (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/10/11/ilya-somin/democracy-political-ignorance), and thinks on balance voters made the wrong choice with Brexit (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/24/thoughts-on-the-brexit-vote/) although both sides had good arguments (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/11/the-cross-ideological-debate-over-brexit/). But he points out some reasons why referenda can be good despite voter ignorance:

1. With one main issue, voters can concentrate on this to try to become informed; with elections, voters have many issues to consider.
2. Elected politicians are still elected by ignorant voters, and therefore can exploit this for their own ends:

Some of the most egregious manipulation of political ignorance in recent years has occurred in the context of elections or ordinary legislative decision-making, not referenda. Consider the rise of Donald Trump (http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/opinions/political-ignorance-somin/), or the Obama administration’s exploitation of “the stupidity of the American voter” to pass the Affordable Care Act (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/12/jonathan-gruber-was-right-about-political-ignorance/).
3. What about leaving it to unelected bureaucrats who don't need to worry about ignorant voters? But bureaucrats "often have serious information problems of their own, as well as perverse incentives (http://volokh.com/2010/04/19/does-the-supposedly-superior-expertise-of-regulators-justify-libertarian-paternalism/)."

Does the Brexit vote prove that democracies should not use referenda? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/01/does-the-brexit-vote-prove-that-democracies-should-not-use-referenda/?wpisrc=nl_volokh&wpmm=1)
By Ilya Somin, Volokh Conspiracy, 1 July 2016

Patrick Byrom
02-07-2016, 11:41 AM
Legal scholar Ilya Somin is an expert on the regrettable problem of rational voter ignorance (http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/10/11/ilya-somin/democracy-political-ignorance), and thinks on balance voters made the wrong choice with Brexit (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/06/24/thoughts-on-the-brexit-vote/) although both sides had good arguments (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/11/the-cross-ideological-debate-over-brexit/). But he points out some reasons why referenda can be good despite voter ignorance:
1. With one main issue, voters can concentrate on this to try to become informed; with elections, voters have many issues to consider.
I agree that referenda are okay when there are clear achievable alternatives presented. But what specifically were Leave voters voting for? During the campaign, they were promised two outcomes that are (almost certainly) mutually incompatible: a single European market and control over immigration. Not to mention the NHS promise.

2. Elected politicians are still elected by ignorant voters, and therefore can exploit this for their own ends:Undoubtedly. But voters have a chance at the next election for a 'do-over'. If they believed that Obama didn't carry out his promises, they could vote against him - which they obviously didn't do. But now that we know Johnson lied about the NHS, there's nothing they can do. And if the UK goes into a recession (as is now being widely predicted), they can't undo the vote to Leave.

Patrick Byrom
06-07-2016, 04:58 PM
And now Farage has also quit. This highlights an unfortunate recent trend in the right-wing Anglosphere: Politicians who are very good at destruction, but useless at construction - Johnson and Farage in the UK, Abbott in Australia, and Trump and Cruz in the US.

And the financial effects of Brexit are still causing serious problems, especially in the UK. (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/06/brexit-pound-plunges-to-30-year-lows-as-eu-fears-bite-into-global-markets-again)

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2016, 12:17 AM
Nigel Farage: The Greatest British Politician Since Margaret Thatcher (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/05/nigel-farage-greatest-british-politician-since-margaret-thatcher/)
by JAMES DELINGPOLE, 5 Jul 2016

Nigel Farage – who has announced his (presumably temporary) retirement from politics – is without question the most important, influential and courageous British politician since Margaret Thatcher.
And just like Margaret Thatcher his reward for this has been consistently to be reviled by the Wankerati as the most evil figure in European politics since probably the days of Adolf Hitler.

I call them the Wankerati because that is what they are: the smug, impeccably right-on, hive-minded cabal of left-leaning comedians, luvvies, columnists, greasy-pole-climbers and overpromoted elite grandees who claim to set the tone for politics in Britain. (And indeed across the world, for the UK Wankerati, of course, have very powerful associate branches from Hollywood to DC, from Sydney to Toronto, and beyond).

And the reason for this is very simple. It’s not because – as his critics would have you believe – that he is racist or xenophobic or fascistic or even dislikable. Rather, it’s because as Rod Liddle argues here (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/praise-nigel-farage/), he has been so successful.


Nigel Farage is the most important British politician of the last decade and the most successful. His resignation leaves a hole in our political system. With enormous intelligence and chutzpah and a refreshingly unorthodox approach, he built Ukip up from nothing to become established as our third largest party and succeeded in his overriding ambition – to see the UK vote to leave the European Union. He is also extremely good company and likeable – unless you are one of those infants who screams ‘fascist!’ whenever his name is raised. Or if you are BBC PM’s presenter Eddie Mair, who – fatuously enough – seemed to suggest Farage was to blame for racist assaults taking place in the country.

Liddle, himself a life-long socialist and Labour-voter, is one of very few commentators, on the left or the right, who you’ll find admitting such things in public.

That’s because, just like “Thatcher”, the very word “Farage” has entered our modern lexicon as the very examplar of unvarnished hatefulness. No need to explain yourself; no need to demonstrate your case. Simply utter the word “Farage” in a sneering tone and that’s it: not only have you won whatever argument you are trying to win but,

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2016, 12:34 AM
Don’t blame populism for Brexit (http://capx.co/dont-blame-populism-for-brexit/)
By Nicolň Bragazza, 6 July 2016

To support the gradualism and concreteness of the English democracy, Conquest brings in examples from the Industrial Revolution and the 19th century, and focuses on the role of the working class in providing a good stimulus to the political debate. Specifically, the British working class used to be very pragmatic in solving disputes and for this reason was relatively immune to the viruses of socialism and populism, even when these movements were about to take hold in Europe. For instance, The People’s Charter movement had a prominent role in promoting political reforms in Britain in a peaceful and concrete manner and was rarely infected by radicalism even if some radicals were part of it. After the Chartism reforms, the British elite prevented the diffusion of Communism in the UK and forced socialists to acquire a practical view in line with the prevalent political tradition inspired by scepticism toward sudden changes.

As Conquest made clear, it is more important to achieve a concrete goal rather than a adhere perfectly to abstract principles with little or no connection to reality. The British political tradition has been shaped by the acceptance of the imperfection of human affairs and has always conceived politics as a tool to solve practical issues rather than creating an ideal order. In this regard, arguing that the Brexit vote was mainly the outcome of populist pressure means forgetting 200 years of British political history and at least 15 years of growing Euroscepticism all over Europe.

In its “Reflections on the French Revolution” of the 1790, Edmund Burke clearly highlighted gradualism and the reference to the past political tradition as the fingerprints of the English politics – in sharp contrast with the French Revolutionary manner of turning over power and settled customs. Gradualism and the need for compromises to preserve liberty in line with the past are key and cannot be abandoned without giving up to the inherited freedom and to the social order. The need for gradualism and compromise has always had a central role in the conservative tradition and inspired many political leaders, from Winston Churchill to Margaret Thatcher.

Given the historical background, the Brexit vote finds its meaning in the consistency with a respectable political tradition that aims to preserve the very essential features of the British democracy in order to protect citizens from government intrusions.

On the other side, the political heritage of the European Union derives directly from the French enlightenment which theorized the possibility of changing a society quickly and imposing rules ex novo without taking into account past traditions. Hence, societies can be changed through a top down approach and enforcing laws with rigor. Clearly, such an approach is antithetical with respect to the political tradition of the UK and this difference can explain a great deal of the current debate in the UK.

Capablanca-Fan
08-07-2016, 12:49 AM
Angela Merkel reacting to Britain pulling out of Europe.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SXbmeFCnTM

Patrick Byrom
08-07-2016, 01:55 PM
It's a shame that Brexit supporters don't seem to be worried about the current UK economic problems which are hurting ordinary Britons - not to mention the looming economic disaster that most economists are predicting (and which they warned about before Brexit, of course). Instead, they're always celebrating the glorious Brexit utopia which they know is coming ... eventually.

Rahane_S (Axiom)
08-07-2016, 09:33 PM
Angela Merkel reacting to Britain pulling out of Europe.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SXbmeFCnTM

-This video is not available-

Desmond
08-07-2016, 09:46 PM
Was it a case of a dog chasing a car, and then not knowing what to do when he catches it?Seems Farage also preferred to wander off and find a bone, or perhaps hope someone would pat him on the head and call him a Good Boy, rather than do something with the car he caught.

Rahane_S (Axiom)
08-07-2016, 10:12 PM
Seems Farage also preferred to wander off and find a bone, or perhaps hope someone would pat him on the head and call him a Good Boy, rather than do something with the car he caught.

Or he released the car back into the stream knowing it was in the correct current, and has bigger fish to fry?

;)

Kevin Bonham
08-07-2016, 11:20 PM
Theresa May vs Andrea Leadsom for Conservative Party leader and therefore PM now.

Capablanca-Fan
09-07-2016, 12:04 AM
-This video is not available-

Works OK for me. It's a scene near the end of From Russia with Love.

Rahane_S (Axiom)
09-07-2016, 01:22 AM
Works OK for me. .

Hmmm Maybe it's geographic dependent.

Kevin Bonham
11-07-2016, 09:40 PM
Leadsom has withdrawn, apparently because too many people correctly observed she's an idiot and that her slur on May for not having children was extremely out of order. There will now be a decision on whether to endorse May or put her candidacy to an approval ballot.

Kevin Bonham
11-07-2016, 11:53 PM
Angela Eagle vs Corbyn for Labour leader is on now as she has enough signatures for a ballot.

Eagle was joint 1976 British Girls Chess Champion (U18) !

Kevin Bonham
12-07-2016, 02:15 AM
Cameron stepping down on Wednesday so looks like May will be PM this week.

Patrick Byrom
12-07-2016, 07:42 PM
Cameron stepping down on Wednesday so looks like May will be PM this week.Which means that Johnson, Gove, Farage and Leadsom - all Leave supporters - have all bailed out, leaving May and Osborne - both Remain supporters - to deal with the disaster that Brexit is becoming.

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2016, 07:25 AM
Which means that Johnson, Gove, Farage and Leadsom - all Leave supporters - have all bailed out,
Infighting among a cause's best supporters does not necessarily mean that the cause is flawed.


leaving May and Osborne - both Remain supporters - to deal with the disaster that Brexit is becoming.
Who says it's a disaster now that the UK won its independence from Europe? The FTSE 100 is at an 11-month high (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36762631).

Rincewind
13-07-2016, 12:05 PM
FTSE 100 is at an 11-month high.

A relatively insignificant local maximum on the back of a pro-Remain Tory getting the PMship is hardly a glowing endorsement for the Leave decision.

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2016, 01:21 PM
A relatively insignificant local maximum on the back of a pro-Remain Tory getting the PMship is hardly a glowing endorsement for the Leave decision.

But we already knew that the Political Class loves Europe, while the people wanted independence.

Patrick Byrom
13-07-2016, 01:23 PM
Infighting among a cause's best supporters does not necessarily mean that the cause is flawed.If Brexit is such a great idea, why are no Leave supporters prepared to stay and lead us to the glorious Utopia :)


Who says it's a disaster now that the UK won its independence from Europe? The FTSE 100 is at an 11-month high (http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36762631).The FTSE 100 is mainly internationally-oriented stocks, which benefit from the lower pound (now down to US$1.29!), while the FTSE 250, which has more domestic companies, has crashed (http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/07/11/ftse-100-hits-new-11-month-high-but/).

Capablanca-Fan
13-07-2016, 02:37 PM
If Brexit is such a great idea, why are no Leave supporters prepared to stay and lead us to the glorious Utopia :)
Who knows? But they don't need Europe to hold its hand. Maybe UK will start trading with Australia and New Zealand


The FTSE 100 is mainly internationally-oriented stocks, which benefit from the lower pound (now down to US$1.29!), while the FTSE 250, which has more domestic companies, has crashed (http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/07/11/ftse-100-hits-new-11-month-high-but/).

What are you talking about?
BREXIT BOOM CONTINUES: FTSE 100 and 250 surge carries on after EU vote (http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/688759/FTSE-100-and-250-continue-to-surge-in-post-Brexit-leap)
BRITISH stock markets have continued to rally as Theresa May prepares to take over from David Cameron as Prime Minister.
LANA CLEMENTS, 12 July 2016

The FTSE 100 is now sitting at 11 month highs, following a surge that started soon after Britain's vote to leave the European Union (EU).


And the top index yesterday officially entered 'bull' territory after jumping by more than 20 per cent from its recent lows in February.

The FTSE 250 has also moved to back toward levels seen before the referendum outcome, as the confirmation of a new leader helped bolster investor confidence.

The index, which contains more British-based companies, is now just three per cent below the level it was before the in-out vote.

Patrick Byrom
13-07-2016, 03:14 PM
So the pound and the FTSE 250 are still well down from where they were before Brexit, even after the "rally". But it's understandable that the markets feel much safer with Remain supporters in charge!

Patrick Byrom
14-07-2016, 02:55 PM
One reason the economy isn't doing so badly, of course, is that the government and the Bank of England are doing their best to stimulate it.

However, May's appointment of Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary (!), and sacking the Chancellor may not help stability.

Capablanca-Fan
15-07-2016, 11:17 AM
Britain’s New Prime Minister Drives A Stake Through The Heart Of The Green Vampire (http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/14/britains-new-prime-minister-drives-a-stake-through-the-heart-of-the-green-vampire/)
by JAMES DELINGPOLE, 14 Jul 2016

Official: Britain no longer has “the greenest government ever.”
Incoming Prime Minister Theresa May has driven a stake through the heart of her predecessor David Cameron’s fluffy, faux-Conservative project by scrapping the Department of Energy And Climate Change (DECC).

Established in 2008, DECC was a hangover from the Gordon Brown era of woeful misgovernance. Its first Secretary of State was future failed Labour leader candidate Ed Miliband whose only significant political achievement also happened to be one of the most expensive and pointless in British parliamentary history: the drafting of the truly disastrous Climate Change Act.

Here is what the Global Warming Policy Forum‘s (http://www.cityam.com/223149/it-s-right-climate-scrap-department-energy-and-climate-change) Benny Peiser suggested it might save when he campaigned for its closure last year:


Furthermore, many unnecessary green expenditure items could be phased out altogether. Spending in areas such as Renewable Heat, Carbon Capture and Storage and on the Committee on Climate Change should all be scrapped.

Merging DECC into other government departments would bring the UK in line with other developed nations too. Australia recently abolished its Climate Commission, transferring its essential functions to the Environment Department.

Were the UK to introduce similar efficiencies along with the removal of wasteful spending, the Exchequer could save Ł380m by 2020-21, according to analysis by the Taxpayers’ Alliance.

It’s true that the most significant benefit its closure will bring lies not so much in saved costs as in the likelihood of reduced regulation. In Britain, as in the rest of the world, green taxes and regulations have added a significant burden to economic growth, as well as having a distorting effect on energy markets.

This is good news. Very good news. The agonised screeching of all the usual suspects in the Environmental movement will be enough to sustain many of us in lols for weeks and months to come.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2016, 04:16 AM
Why Libertarians Should Be Wary of Brexit 'Victory' (http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/12/why-libertarians-should-be-wary-of-brexi)
Brexit is a dangerous blow to openness and free trade.
Johan Norberg, Reason, 12 July 2016


The E.U. commission has 33,000 employees—half the number employed by the U.S. Social Security Administration alone. The E.U. has no right to tax, and its budget is around 1 percent of the GDP of the E.U. countries, compared to around 20 percent in the U.S.

More importantly, the E.U. only has the powers member states give it. Decisions are taken by consensus or a qualified majority. Every member—including Britain, until now—has a veto against new powers. So when states complain of the E.U.'s tyranny, it is often because they play a little game—they want X done, but don't know how to tell the voters, so they consent to X in Brussels and then go home and tell voters that they are now forced to do X. (This is also, obviously, one of the reasons why voters think that the E.U. is power grabbing and out of control.)

Most often, nationalists complain that Brussels is promoting a "neo-liberal" agenda that stops them from protecting their markets with tariffs and technical trade barriers and from subsidizing national champions and local industry.

A Timbro study by Alexander Fritz Englund showed that E.U. membership for the 28 countries resulted in a statistically significant increase in economic freedom in all of the sub-categories in The Economic Freedom of the World index. The biggest improvement comes in the year of membership, but it increases afterwards as well.

This must come as a surprise to everyone who has ever read about all the silly regulations emanating from Brussels. But most often, these are attempts to streamline national regulations, so that, for example, 28 different sets of rules for vacuum cleaners (which often are designed for local producers to keep competitors out) can be replaced with a common set of rules that allow free trade across borders.

Personally, I would prefer a system where countries automatically accept unrestricted imports of all goods that have passed the regulatory hurdles in the exporting country, but that's not an option that interests any E.U. country, including Britain. Unfortunately, their alternative to E.U. rules is not laissez-faire, but national rules, which would block much of the trade that goes on unhindered today.

Even though the E.U. sets too many rules and intervenes too much, most of the policy is still made back home. There is sufficient room for national maneuvering so that one E.U. member, Ireland, can implement policies that make it the eighth economically freest country in the world, and another, Greece, the 85th economically freest, according to The Economic Freedom of the World.

This is what was so strange about the Brexit campaign. Many complained about Brussels' red tape, but the regulations that hold Britain back the most are often made in London: Harsher financial regulation than in the rest of E.U. since the financial crisis, insane planning restrictions that block new housing, and a high minimum wage recently introduced by the Conservative government. Farmers complain about E.U. red tape, but many of the rules have in fact been introduced in Brussels by the British government, especially when it comes to environmental regulation.

Capablanca-Fan
16-07-2016, 04:23 AM
Britain Should Emulate Singapore (http://reason.com/archives/2016/07/12/britain-should-emulate-singapore)
Free trade, low taxes, cheap energy.
Marian Tupy, Reason, 12 July 2016

Andrea Leadsom's withdrawal from the Conservative Party's leadership race ensures that Home Secretary, Theresa May, will become the next Prime Minister of Great Britain, on Wednesday afternoon. What should May's priorities be?

First, she should endorse Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne's suggestion to cut the corporate tax rate from its current 20 percent rate to a 15 percent rate, which would make it the second lowest corporate tax rate in the OECD. In fact, she should go even lower and match Ireland's 12.5 percent corporate tax rate. That way, the newspapers will not write about a "tax cut," but instead about the "lowest" tax rate in the rich world. A low corporate tax rate will indicate to the rest of the world that Britain will retain its business-friendly environment.

Second, … Britain should opt for unilateral trade liberalization: eliminating all tariffs on goods and services vis-ŕ-vis the rest of the world. Such legislation would come into effect following Brexit, which is to say, in about two years. That should give companies plenty of time to adjust and to make future plans. Additionally, the free trade legislation could be passed with the current Tory majority in Parliament and thus be in place before the next election and before the possible return to power of a more dirigiste Labour Party.

Decline in the cost of inputs would make British outputs, including British exports, more affordable and, consequently, more competitive. Reduced cost of British goods and services would thus offset much of the EU's tariff on non-EU countries, including Britain. Importantly, reduction in the cost of goods and services would provide relief to the British citizenry.

Third, Britain is currently committed to the EU's immensely expensive green energy policies. This self-inflicted wound makes heating a luxury for many poor Europeans and contributes to making European enterprises less competitive overseas. British commentators believe that Theresa May will be open to a more customer-friendly energy policy. Undoubtedly, she will be crucified by the affluent progressives in London, which is fine since they opposed Brexit and would not vote for the Tories anyway. She will also help the "energy poor" public and the manufacturing sector.

Patrick Byrom
16-07-2016, 12:18 PM
And I assume that the massive tax cuts would magically eliminate the budget deficit - as they completely failed to do under Reagan and GW Bush?

Presumably the promise made by Leave to massively increase spending on the NHS will just be ignored - so much for improving voter trust :)

Patrick Byrom
16-07-2016, 09:44 PM
Amazingly, there are things in British politics even crazier than the appointment of Boris Johnson as the Foreign Secretary, after he has spent an entire career ridiculing other world leaders.

Confirmed Brexit supporter David Davis, now the Cabinet Minister in charge of Brexit, is suing the British government. And his lawsuit is based on the very EU laws he wants Britain to be free from! (http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/07/brief-minister-david-davis-is-suing-government-dripa/)


Tory MP David Davis—an outspoken critic of Theresa May's push for greater online surveillance powers, who is currently suing the government over the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act (DRIPA)—has been appointed as the new prime minister's secretary of state for exiting the European Union. Davis, who is MP for Haltemprice & Howden, is a strong eurosceptic and has a consistent record of fighting government surveillance. In 2008, when he was shadow home secretary, he resigned from the House of Commons in order to stand on a platform of defending "British liberties." His legal assault, alongside Labour deputy leader Tom Watson, on the UK's 2014 DRIPA law began in June last year, when the MPs challenged the law in the High Court in London. In July 2015, the court found that sections 1 and 2 of DRIPA were "incompatible with the British public’s right to respect for private life and communications and to protection of personal data under Articles 7 and 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights."

Capablanca-Fan
18-07-2016, 07:03 AM
And I assume that the massive tax cuts would magically eliminate the budget deficit - as they completely failed to do under Reagan and GW Bush?
In both cases, they were a good thing, raising total revenues. But Leftists have blind dogmatic faith the government can spend money better than those who earned it.


Presumably the promise made by Leave to massively increase spending on the NHS will just be ignored - so much for improving voter trust :)
Hence some Libertarian cautions about Brexit.

Capablanca-Fan
19-07-2016, 01:51 AM
UK offered Brexit free trade deal with Australia (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36818055)
BBC, 17 July 2016

Desmond
19-07-2016, 08:29 AM
UK offered Brexit free trade deal with Australia (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36818055)
BBC, 17 July 2016
Don't hold your breath.


Britain is Australia's seventh largest trading partner, and is second only to the United States when it comes to direct foreign investment down under.
Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said a free trade agreement with the UK was a priority, although such treaties are complicated and can be time-consuming.
Australia's recent trade deal with China, for example, took a decade to negotiate.

Patrick Byrom
23-07-2016, 12:55 AM
The Brexit slump is already starting (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/22/britains-economy-shrinking-at-fastest-rate-since-2009-says-survey):

The UK economy shrank at its fastest rate since the peak of the financial crisis seven years ago, after the vote to leave the European Union, according to a survey of business activity. Chancellor Philip Hammond, speaking in China, said the report showed the Brexit vote had damaged confidence and created a period of uncertainty. In the first survey of business confidence since the referendum on 23 June, the services sector was particularly hard hit, showing its biggest drop on record. With manufacturing dropping to its lowest level since February 2013, the survey suggests UK GDP could shrink by 0.4% in the third quarter, according to Markit, which compiles the data in its purchasing managers’ index (PMI).

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2016, 02:53 AM
New Zealand might also be able to trade with the UK, without a protectionist EU bureaucrat getting in the way. As one Kiwi organic dairy farmer writing in an article defending free trade and abolition of subsidies (http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/miracle-down-under-how-new-zealand-farmers-prosper-without), pointing out also that free trade is better for the environment:


Overcoming the “Fear Factor”

The New Zealand experience brings two key messages to the world trading environment. The first is that producers must focus on the consumer. The reason we want liberalization in trade is so that we can talk directly to consumers in individual countries. We want to be able to tailor our products specifically to the market in each country. It’s not just about world trade in the abstract; it’s about reaching out to each country’s individual consumers and supplying them with what they want.

I recently attended the World Farmers Congress of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers. A continual theme I heard was “Exports are good, imports are bad,” and that “When you liberalize world trade, it’s a race to the bottom.” Well, in New Zealand we are in a race to the top. But every time we race to the top, a bureaucrat somewhere else in the world tries to squash us. The classic example is Europe, where we exported “spreadable” butter. Because it didn’t meet the specifications of the regulators as butter, they prevented it from entering Europe, even though the demand from the consumer was strong. We were adding value, creating a better product, and meeting what the consumer wanted, but a bureaucrat said, “Ah, but it’s not butter, because it is too soft.” These are the types of issues we have to deal with in global negotiations.

The second message from the New Zealand experience is that we use our resources well. We’ve put our resources where they are most efficiently used. For sustainability, we want the world to use its resources well. Agriculture plays a huge part in that process. It makes no sense for farmers in Europe and the United States to produce sugar at three or four times the world price when you can more efficiently produce it in many tropical countries around the world. The tropical countries can produce sugar at a fraction of the cost and with much more efficient use of world resources. Our vision is for a dual outcome—to liberalize trade and to make better use of the world’s resources as each country produces to its comparative advantage.

Capablanca-Fan
23-07-2016, 02:36 PM
Brexit will help make British universities the envy of the world (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/22/brexit-will-help-make-british-universities-the-envy-of-the-world/)
ANGUS DALGLEISH, Telegraph, 22 JULY 2016


The EU Clinical Trials Directive is a grim case that had disastrous consequences for academic research. It destroyed innovative new approaches and treatments overnight and, according to one Cambridge professor of pharmacology, was the cause of thousands of unnecessary deaths.

There are other examples where EU directives have directly damaged patient care. The Working Time Directive obstructs and reduces high-quality specialist training. The president of the Royal College of Surgeons, Clare Marx, confirms that abandoning it will improve patient safety. The college calculates that it costs trainee surgeons 3,000 hours of precious experience. Miss Marx rightly adds the potentially and actually fatal dangers to patients from lax EU medical language requirements and inadequate standards for clinical instruments. This is concrete evidence that the NHS will be safer out of the hands of the EU. In understated words, Miss Marx says that Brexit is “quite an opportunity”.

Professor Angus Dalgleish is Foundation Professor of Oncology at St Georges University of London; Professor Gwythian Prins is Emeritus Research Professor at the London School of Economics

Patrick Byrom
23-07-2016, 04:26 PM
Brexit will help make British universities the envy of the world (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/22/brexit-will-help-make-british-universities-the-envy-of-the-world/)
ANGUS DALGLEISH, Telegraph, 22 JULY 2016 …
Professor Angus Dalgleish is Foundation Professor of Oncology at St Georges University of London ...He is also an unsuccessful UKIP candidate - funny that neither the Telegraph nor C-F bothered to mention that! And he has a history of unreliable claims - for example, claiming that the NHS was going to collapse because of the cost of treating EU immigrants.

The real experts have been proven correct about the economic consequences, so I'm sticking with people like Paul Nurse, former president of the Royal Society, who has a completely different view.

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2016, 01:15 AM
He is also an unsuccessful UKIP candidate - funny that neither the Telegraph nor C-F bothered to mention that!
Well, makes a change. Often the leftmedia will identify someone is strongly right-leaning or staunch conservative, but rarely strongly left-leaning or staunchly liberal (in the USA sense).

Also, neither the Telegraph nor I mentioned that Dr Dalgliesh joined flying doctor service in Mount Isa then some hospitals in Brizzy then the Ludwig Institute for Cancer Research in Sydney.


And he has a history of unreliable claims - for example, claiming that the NHS was going to collapse because of the cost of treating EU immigrants.
Unfortunately even a lot of Brexiters lack some imagination when it comes to free market economics, such as at least a partial privatization of their socialized medical system.


The real experts have been proven correct about the economic consequences,
What, even with your favorite British sharemarket index, from two days ago: BREXIT BOOST: Now FTSE 250 soars to post Referendum high despite Remain doom-mongering (http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/691565/brexit-ftse-250-soaring-referendum-remain-project-fear):


THE FTSE 250 index has soared to a post-EU Referendum high today, finishing just marginally lower than it's level before the Brexit vote.

Yes, the pound has dropped against the US$, but then the Au$ has also fallen by 21% in just two years.


so I'm sticking with people like Paul Nurse, former president of the Royal Society, who has a completely different view.

What, you don't like the idea of the UK freely trading with Australia and New Zealand? You prefer that UK was stuck in the protectionist EU cartel? In the case of Nurse and science, he just whinged about the "isolationism" of Brexit, when the truth is the opposite: Brexit ends the protectionism of Europe and allows Britain freer access to non-European science. Other scaremongering is "Scientists in Britain are at risk of being excluded from major European research projects (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/30/uk-scientists-already-risk-exclusion-from-eu-projects-in-wake-of-brexit-vote-jo-johnson)", but that just reinforces what bullies the EU are.

Patrick Byrom
24-07-2016, 09:21 AM
Well, makes a change. Often the leftmedia will identify someone is strongly right-leaning or staunch conservative, but rarely strongly left-leaning or staunchly liberal (in the USA sense).His membership of UKIP is directly relevant to the subject of the article.


What, even with your favorite British sharemarket index, from two days ago: ...That was two days ago. The more recent evidence is that the real economy is crashing after Brexit (as I posted recently): "The UK economy shrank at its fastest rate since the peak of the financial crisis seven years ago, after the vote to leave the European Union, according to a survey of business activity."

Capablanca-Fan
31-07-2016, 12:51 PM
The map in this link (http://order-order.com/2016/07/29/brexit-breaking-free-global-markets/) "shows all the countries in which government officials or prominent business figures have declared a desire to secure a post-Brexit trade deal with Britain. Out of the 10 largest economies in the world, just two (France and Italy) have not yet made moves for a deal. Every continent on earth is represented, with 27 countries already signalling their intentions."

Obviously PB doesn't like a UK that can now freely trade around the world now that it's free of the EU protectionist cartel.

Patrick Byrom
31-07-2016, 01:33 PM
The map in this link (http://order-order.com/2016/07/29/brexit-breaking-free-global-markets/) "shows all the countries in which government officials or prominent business figures have declared a desire to secure a post-Brexit trade deal with Britain. Out of the 10 largest economies in the world, just two (France and Italy) have not yet made moves for a deal. Every continent on earth is represented, with 27 countries already signalling their intentions."Leaving aside the dubious reliability of that website, "a desire" is not the same as an actual deal, which could take years - or even decades. And even if they all eventuate, there's no guarantee the UK will finish any better off than it would have been if it had stayed in the EU. What we do know is that, so far, Brexit has been an economic disaster for the UK.

Desmond
31-07-2016, 01:37 PM
Every continent on earth is represented, No they aren't.

Capablanca-Fan
01-08-2016, 07:54 AM
Leaving aside the dubious reliability of that website, "a desire" is not the same as an actual deal, which could take years - or even decades. And even if they all eventuate, there's no guarantee the UK will finish any better off than it would have been if it had stayed in the EU. What we do know is that, so far, Brexit has been an economic disaster for the UK.

We know nothing of the sort. There is also no reason why an Aussie or Kiwi trade deal with UK should be as problematic as one with Communist China or the protectionist USA.


No they aren't.
Well, I don't think lack of free trade with Antarctica is going to hurt UK post-Brexit.

Desmond
01-08-2016, 08:10 AM
Well, I don't think lack of free trade with Antarctica is going to hurt UK post-Brexit.
I guess it sounded good, but it wasn't true. 27 countries out of some 200 doesn't sound great.

Capablanca-Fan
01-08-2016, 01:42 PM
I guess it sounded good, but it wasn't true. 27 countries out of some 200 doesn't sound great.

Still better than the small number of European states in the protectionist cartel. Also, a lot of those 27 countries have large economies and are open to free trade in general.

Desmond
01-08-2016, 05:23 PM
Still better than the small number of European states in the protectionist cartel. Also, a lot of those 27 countries have large economies and are open to free trade in general.
Actually there's 28 in the EU itself not counting agreements outside. And what's it going to cost the UK if they lose Scotland?

Patrick Byrom
01-08-2016, 10:21 PM
We know nothing of the sort. There is also no reason why an Aussie or Kiwi trade deal with UK should be as problematic as one with Communist China or the protectionist USA.I've already twice quoted economic data showing how bad things are in the UK. Perhaps you have more positive data - the only benefit appears to have been an increase in the FTSE 100?

I'm surprised that such a strong supporter of free trade as yourself would want the UK to sign a 'protectionist' deal with Australia or NZ. Shouldn't the UK use this opportunity to remove all tariffs on its imported goods, abandon all trade agreements, and embrace completely free trade?

UPDATE (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/01/uk-manufacturing-decline-adds-pressure-on-bank-to-cut-interest-rates-pmi):
Britain’s manufacturing sector shrank at the fastest pace for more than three years in the wake of the vote to leave the EU, forcing factories to cut jobs as they grappled with higher costs and lower demand.
And worse to come:

The flash post-referendum PMI report in July already suggested activity fell at the sharpest pace on record in the services sector, which makes up the lion’s share of the UK economy and covers a wide range of businesses from hotels to insurance.

Capablanca-Fan
02-08-2016, 04:11 AM
I've already twice quoted economic data showing how bad things are in the UK. Perhaps you have more positive data - the only benefit appears to have been an increase in the FTSE 100?
What is your data to the contrary? Markets have already bounced back, and the Au$ has falled worse than the pound in the last few years. Even your data are more likely temporary blips rather than a long-term trend.


I'm surprised that such a strong supporter of free trade as yourself would want the UK to sign a 'protectionist' deal with Australia or NZ.
I do not. I support a free trade deal with Au and NZ, not to the exclusion of any other countries.


Shouldn't the UK use this opportunity to remove all tariffs on its imported goods, abandon all trade agreements, and embrace completely free trade?
Of course!!

Anyway, here is the late great Milton Friedman fielding Q&A about complete and unilateral free trade:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gid1kQd2eiE

Adamski
02-08-2016, 08:19 AM
Interesting to read that Theresa May is a Christian. Practising Anglican and daughter of a minister.

Rincewind
02-08-2016, 09:11 AM
Interesting to read that Theresa May is a Christian. Practising Anglican and daughter of a minister.

Wow! Finally we have an Anglican prime minister of the UK. I didn't realise how historic an event this was.

Kevin Bonham
02-08-2016, 09:12 AM
Interesting to read that Theresa May is a Christian.

It would have been much more interesting to read that an incoming Tory Prime Minister wasn't a Christian.

Patrick Byrom
02-08-2016, 10:06 AM
What is your data to the contrary? Markets have already bounced back, and the Au$ has falled worse than the pound in the last few years. Even your data are more likely temporary blips rather than a long-term trend.
Even if this is only a "temporary blip", I'm not sure that those workers losing their jobs as a result of Brexit will be too happy (quoted from a previous post): "Britain’s manufacturing sector shrank at the fastest pace for more than three years in the wake of the vote to leave the EU, forcing factories to cut jobs as they grappled with higher costs and lower demand."

Rincewind
02-08-2016, 10:52 AM
It would have been much more interesting to read that an incoming Tory Prime Minister wasn't a Christian.

Or even wasn't a protestant. Blair was the closest thing to a Catholic PM and he didn't officially convert until after he left office.

Patrick Byrom
02-08-2016, 06:09 PM
Or even wasn't a protestant. Blair was the closest thing to a Catholic PM and he didn't officially convert until after he left office.Blair wasn't a Tory, of course - at least not officially! James Callaghan (Labour) is probably the best potential candidate for a non-Christian British PM; he may even have been an atheist.

Patrick Byrom
02-08-2016, 06:42 PM
What is your data to the contrary? Markets have already bounced back, and the Au$ has falled worse than the pound in the last few years. Even your data are more likely temporary blips rather than a long-term trend.
More terrible post-Brexit economic data (https://www.theguardian.com/business/blog/live/2016/aug/02/uk-construction-to-suffer-another-slide-in-activity-business-live): "Britain’s construction industry shrank at the fastest pace in seven years in July following the Brexit vote, according to a closely-watched industry survey. The construction PMI from Markit/CIPS fell to 45.9 from 46.0 in June."

I don't see how all this bad news can just be a blip - it's all coming before the UK has even left the EU.

Desmond
02-08-2016, 07:34 PM
I don't see how all this bad news can just be a blip - it's all coming before the UK has even left the EU.You also have to wonder if the markets are pricing in the factor of: they won't really really leave when it comes down to it, will they?

Rincewind
02-08-2016, 09:41 PM
Blair wasn't a Tory, of course - at least not officially! James Callaghan (Labour) is probably the best potential candidate for a non-Christian British PM; he may even have been an atheist.

Not openly atheist.

Patrick Byrom
04-08-2016, 12:21 AM
What is your data to the contrary?
And even more bad news (https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/aug/03/markets-await-uk-services-data-ahead-of-bank-of-england-meeting-business-live?page=with:block-57a1b17ce4b07e27cb7e05b6#liveblog-navigation): "Ahead of Thursday’s Bank of England meeting, the UK economy has been confirmed as slowing at its fastest rate since the financial crisis following the Brexit vote."

This confirms the pre-Brexit predictions by almost all economists that Brexit would damage the UK economy.

Capablanca-Fan
05-08-2016, 12:13 AM
Opinion: The Bank of England blew it: Biggest risk is a Brexit boom, not a Brexit bust (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bank-of-england-should-worry-about-a-brexit-boom-not-a-brexit-bust-2016-08-03)
Market Watch: 4 Aug 2016


In fact, the British economy was already in a perfectly healthy state when the electorate decided to leave the European Union. Since then, there has been a massive devaluation of the pound GBPUSD, -1.4334% , and the government has effectively abandoned fiscal restraint.

What happens when you take an economy running at capacity and stimulate it? It starts to overheat.

The real risk for the U.K. is not of a Brexit bust, despite all the warnings in the immediate aftermath of the vote. It is of a Brexit boom — an overheating economy that may ultimately crash. The best way to avoid that would be to keep rates on hold.

True, if you look at the survey data, there is plenty of evidence of a significant knock to confidence in the wake of the referendum result. Companies are certainly feeling less bullish.

Then again, what would you expect? Every expert on the planet has been saying that Brexit is the worst thing to happen to the economy since the Black Death. If that doesn’t make you think again about building that new warehouse, or expanding your call center, it is hard to know what will.

The hard data tell a different story. The jobs market? Pretty good. Figures published on July 20 showed unemployment hitting a 11-year low of 4.9% with the number of people in work at an all-time high. House prices are still rising. Average wages are going up at slightly more than 2% — not fantastic, but respectable when inflation is close to zero. Retail sales have taken a hit, but that has more to do with a soggy, rainy summer than anything else.

You need a very nervous personality to describe any of that as a crisis.

Patrick Byrom
05-08-2016, 12:35 AM
Opinion: The Bank of England blew it: Biggest risk is a Brexit boom, not a Brexit bust (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bank-of-england-should-worry-about-a-brexit-boom-not-a-brexit-bust-2016-08-03) Market Watch: 4 Aug 2016…
He doesn't actually think Brexit will necessarily be good for the economy - he's just arguing that an excessive response may be worse:

Is a cut in interest rates really necessary on top of that? It is perfectly possible that leaving the EU will be damaging to the U.K. eventually. But it hasn’t happened yet, and we don’t know what the terms will be. Britain may well negotiate full or partial access to the single market, in which case most companies will hardly notice the difference.

And staying in the single market is not what you want to happen.

But even if the economic problems that Brexit has caused are all because of gloomy predictions - which seems highly unlikely - Brexit is still responsible.

Capablanca-Fan
05-08-2016, 06:46 AM
He doesn't actually think Brexit will necessarily be good for the economy - he's just arguing that an excessive response may be worse:

Is a cut in interest rates really necessary on top of that? It is perfectly possible that leaving the EU will be damaging to the U.K. eventually. But it hasn’t happened yet,
Yet you were scaremongering that it had happened.


And staying in the single market is not what you want to happen.
Free trade with this market is fine, just not to the exclusion of non-European countries.


But even if the economic problems that Brexit has caused are all because of gloomy predictions - which seems highly unlikely - Brexit is still responsible.
No, just scare-mongering about it.

Patrick Byrom
05-08-2016, 10:16 AM
Yet you were scaremongering that it had happened.Where did I say that the UK had left the EU? I'm using the term "Brexit" the same way everyone else does, which includes the vote to leave, and the preparation for leaving, as well as the actual separation.


No, just scare-mongering about it.It's "scare-mongering" to report facts :)

Rincewind
05-08-2016, 10:44 AM
It's "scare-mongering" to report facts :)

It is scare-mongering when the truth is scary. Or at least scarier than the truthiness.

Capablanca-Fan
19-08-2016, 12:57 AM
Betraying Brexit: the revolt of the elites against the people (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/betraying-brexit-revolt-elites-people/)
Brendan O'Neill, Spectator, 15 August 2016

Why is everyone so chilled out about the threats to Brexit? Why isn’t there more public fury over the plotting of lords and academics and experts to stymie Brexit and thwart the will of 17.4m people? In all the years I’ve been writing about politics, I cannot remember a time when democracy has been treated with as much disgust, with as much naked, Victorian-era elitism, as it is being today. And yet we’re all bizarrely mellow. We’re going about our business as if everything is normal, as if the elites aren’t right now, this very minute, in revolt against the people. We need to wake up.

Every day brings fresh news of the revolt of the elite, of the march of the neo-reactionaries against the mandate of the masses. At the weekend it was revealed that Brexit might not happen until 2019, because David Davis and Liam Fox can’t get their departments in order, the amateurs. The lovers of the EU and loathers of the blob could barely contain their glee. March for Europe, a celeb-backed, media-cheered chattering-class outfit agitated by the throng and the dumb decision it made on 23 June, spied an opportunity to do over Brexit entirely. ‘[W]e can help delay Brexit further and ultimately defeat it altogether,’ it said yesterday. ‘We can win this.’

‘We can win this.’ The ‘we’ they’re talking about is a minority view, backed by the likes of Bob Geldof, Owen Jones and Jarvis Cocker, yes, but by only 10,000 people on Facebook. And the thing they think they can win is the overthrow of the largest democratic mandate in British history. Can we ditch the euphemisms, please? Can we stop referring to these pro-EU groups and sad-eyed marchers for Brussels as progressives simply trying to keep Britain open and cosmo? Because in reality this is a nasty, elitist political strain, driven by an urge to silence the ignorant people.

Then there’s the business class. Sections of it are pumping money into the revolt of the elite. Richard Branson wants a second referendum. The law firm Mishcon de Reya is representing various ‘business interests’ — ie. very rich people — who want to prevent the triggering of Article 50. One of those business interests — Gina Miller, an investment manager — says the people ‘have been fooled’ and now we need ‘better-informed debate’ and another vote. Normally the left would be up in arms at the sight of wealthy folks using their clout to slow down democratic sentiment. Not this time, though, because most of what now passes for the left — from the Guardian to the supposedly liberal expert set — is totally on board with the revolt of the elite, with this polite putsch, with this open war on what the people want.

Among the political class, both Tim Farron and Owen Smith – leader and aspiring leader of oppositional parties – say they will prevent Brexit or call a second referendum. Seeking electoral support by promising to stifle the electorate’s loud, democratic cry of just two months ago? It’s an interesting approach, I’ll give them that. It’s also deeply, irritatingly anti-democratic.

It has to stop. We’re witnessing an explicit use of power and influence to overthrow, or at least water down, the say of the people. It is an outrage. And it’s being made worse by the uselessness of Theresa May’s cabinet, whose constant pushing back of triggering Article 50 gives the impression that it’s a scary, difficult thing to do (which it isn’t) and in the process inflames the anti-democratic ambitions of the new elites. We need to get real, and fast. Not only is Brexit at stake — so is democracy itself. Earlier generations took to the streets to roar against less ugly elitist campaigns than the one we’re currently living through. So why aren’t we on the streets protesting? I’m serious. They might have money and titles and newspaper columns, but we have the masses on our side. Let’s remind them of that.

Patrick Byrom
19-08-2016, 01:45 AM
Betraying Brexit: the revolt of the elites against the people (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/betraying-brexit-revolt-elites-people/) Brendan O'Neill, Spectator, 15 August 2016

Among the political class, both Tim Farron and Owen Smith – leader and aspiring leader of oppositional parties – say they will prevent Brexit or call a second referendum. Seeking electoral support by promising to stifle the electorate’s loud, democratic cry of just two months ago? It’s an interesting approach, I’ll give them that. It’s also deeply, irritatingly anti-democratic.It's "anti-democratic" to have a vote? What is Brendan O'Neill afraid of - that voters have realised what a disaster Brexit is, and won't be fooled again by the false promises of the Leave campaign?

Anyway, another vote is inevitable, as voters have to be given a choice on what type of Brexit they want - do they want to stay in the single market and accept free movement, for example?

Capablanca-Fan
19-08-2016, 08:04 AM
It's "anti-democratic" to have a vote? What is Brendan O'Neill afraid of - that voters have realised what a disaster Brexit is, and won't be fooled again by the false promises of the Leave campaign?

Anyway, another vote is inevitable, as voters have to be given a choice on what type of Brexit they want - do they want to stay in the single market and accept free movement, for example?

Typical of Lefties: keep the masses voting until the vote the way the Left wants.

Kevin Bonham
19-08-2016, 06:36 PM
Anyway, another vote is inevitable, as voters have to be given a choice on what type of Brexit they want - do they want to stay in the single market and accept free movement, for example?

I'm not sure why the voters have to be given such a choice. The referendum only happened because David Cameron promised it and then went through with his promise. The decision about implementation of the will of the people can be made by the politicians, who can commission polling (such as it is in the UK) or run various other processes to determine what the people want in this regard.

Capablanca-Fan
19-08-2016, 11:49 PM
I'm not sure why the voters have to be given such a choice.
Of course not; the masses should just follow their betters and submit to the rule of unaccountable Eurocrats.


The referendum only happened because David Cameron promised it and then went through with his promise.
A radical idea to keep a promise, I realize. It might set a dreadful precedent.


The decision about implementation of the will of the people can be made by the politicians, who can commission polling (such as it is in the UK) or run various other processes to determine what the people want in this regard.
Indeed, and Sir Humphrey Appleby explained how this should be done:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0ZZJXw4MTA

Patrick Byrom
20-08-2016, 01:16 AM
I'm not sure why the voters have to be given such a choice. The referendum only happened because David Cameron promised it and then went through with his promise. The decision about implementation of the will of the people can be made by the politicians, who can commission polling (such as it is in the UK) or run various other processes to determine what the people want in this regard.A second referendum may not be inevitable, but politicians will probably find it highly desirable. The political problem is that all the promises made by the Leave campaigners may not be able to be implemented. Specifically, the promise to simultaneously remain in the single market and eliminate free movement is not acceptable to the EU, which insists that the UK must choose one or the other. This would be an extremely unpleasant choice, so I suspect the politicians will want the people to make it, thus absolving themselves of responsibility.

Patrick Byrom
22-08-2016, 12:50 PM
More disastrous fallout from Brexit (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/22/race-hate-crime-uk-railways-soared-after-brexit-vote-figures-show):

The number of suspected race hate crimes on Britain’s railways jumped sharply following the EU referendum, figures show. In the fortnight after the vote, British Transport police (BTP) recorded 119 incidents including allegations of racist abuse and attacks at stations – equivalent to eight a day. The number of alleged race hate offences logged by the force between 24 June and 7 July amounts to a 57% increase on the previous two weeks, and an even sharper rise of 78% on the equivalent period in 2015. The findings – described by one campaign group as “very worrying” – chime with a spike revealed in data from forces around the country.

Kevin Bonham
24-09-2016, 01:00 AM
It looks like the attempt to get rid of Corbyn is about to fail with Corbyn beating off the leadership challenge based on the votes of members. Not sure quite where Labour goes from here.

Capablanca-Fan
24-09-2016, 05:32 AM
More disastrous fallout from Brexit (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/22/race-hate-crime-uk-railways-soared-after-brexit-vote-figures-show):

The number of suspected race hate crimes on Britain’s railways jumped sharply following the EU referendum, figures show. In the fortnight after the vote, British Transport police (BTP) recorded 119 incidents including allegations of racist abuse and attacks at stations – equivalent to eight a day. The number of alleged race hate offences logged by the force between 24 June and 7 July amounts to a 57% increase on the previous two weeks, and an even sharper rise of 78% on the equivalent period in 2015. The findings – described by one campaign group as “very worrying” – chime with a spike revealed in data from forces around the country.

More absurd post hoc ergo propter hoc from those who think that unelected Brussels bureaucrats should tell Britons what to do.

Patrick Byrom
24-09-2016, 04:18 PM
More absurd post hoc ergo propter hoc from those who think that unelected Brussels bureaucrats should tell Britons what to do.So the fact that the areas with the greatest level of support for Brexit have the largest rises in hate crimes ( (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crime-racism-immigration-eu-referendum-result-what-it-means-eurospectic-areas-a7165056.html)doubling and tripling in some cases!) is presumably just a coincidence :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2016, 03:34 AM
So the fact that the areas with the greatest level of support for Brexit have the largest rises in hate crimes ( (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brexit-hate-crime-racism-immigration-eu-referendum-result-what-it-means-eurospectic-areas-a7165056.html)doubling and tripling in some cases!) is presumably just a coincidence :hmm:

Again, this doesn't justify your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. If Brexit had been defeated and resulted in more of the so-called hate crimes out of resentment, would that have justified blaming the Remain eurolackeys?

Anyway:

Laws made in a British Parliament and enforced by British judges - Brexit will make us an independent country once again (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/26/laws-made-in-a-british-parliament-and-enforced-by-british-judges/)
Norman Tibbit, Telegraph, 26 SEPTEMBER 2016

o the puzzlement of the rump of fanatical Remainers, Brexit is simply about regaining control of the country in which the British people live.

The United Kingdom was, until 1972, a self-governing independent sovereign state. That is, it had a government with power to protect its people and territory, and to govern their conduct with one another and their relations with the state.

To maintain such statehood a government must be able to defend its territory against outsiders. It must maintain peace and order and ensure that people may go about their lawful business in peace. It must provide a currency to facilitate commerce and be a store of value. It must provide a system of law and justice to uphold the peace, to arbitrate between citizens and between citizens and the state. And to exercise such functions it must have a monopoly power to tax.

Some of those changes were abrupt, almost seismic events. Some permeated more slowly. But for more than 800 years since Magna Carta, English law has developed on a different path to continental law. Essentially, our law sets out what is prohibited. Continental law sets out what is permitted.

That is no pedantic distinction. My colleagues at the Council of Ministers made it plain that while they believed in a right of free speech, that was a right given by law to say what the law permitted, and what was not permitted was therefore forbidden. They mostly had difficulty in grasping that we British enjoyed the right to say whatever we wished, except that which the law prohibited.

Maxwell Fyfe was an enthusiast for European integration and the European Court of Human Rights is essentially continental in its approach. It was criticised by Lord Hoffman for “seeking to aggrandise its jurisdiction” or, as I would call it, “judicial imperialism” in such matters as its insistence that Britain should give the vote to convicted criminals in jail.

It is, therefore, good news that Justice Secretary Liz Truss has said that she intends to repeal the Human Rights Act, which sought to incorporate into British law the rights set out in the ECHR. Unhappily, the suggestion is that it will then be replaced with a British Bill of Rights.

This would become a Bill of Entitlements. We have no need of such continental-style, socialist-inspired legislation. Our rights have been secure for generations. They should be neither muddled with our perceived entitlements or with fashionable ways of social conduct. Brexit gives us the chance to be governed again by Parliament and judged in our own courts by our own judiciary.

Let us not muff it.

Patrick Byrom
27-09-2016, 07:51 PM
Again, this doesn't justify your post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. If Brexit had been defeated and resulted in more of the so-called hate crimes out of resentment, would that have justified blaming the Remain eurolackeys?There will still be resentment, since the Leave campaign made numerous promises that will never be kept (such as the extra money promised to the NHS). But the Brexit campaign also implicitly - and sometimes explicitly - blamed many of the UK's problems on immigration, thus legitimising xenophobia. The referendum victory has thus been seen by some people as further legitimising hatred of immigrants. After all, why would it be necessary to prevent EU citizens (such as Poles) from entering the UK unless there is something wrong with them?

Capablanca-Fan
27-09-2016, 10:23 PM
So Britain should submit to Brussels bureaucrats? And now Aussies and Kiwis have an equal right to immigrate with Poles. How is that a bad thing?

Patrick Byrom
27-09-2016, 10:42 PM
...And now Aussies and Kiwis have an equal right to immigrate with Poles. How is that a bad thing?It's bad for the Poles who are already living in the UK, who may have to leave or face increased restrictions - depending on when and how Brexit is implemented, of course. Aussies and Kiwis have no such problems.

Capablanca-Fan
04-10-2016, 01:59 AM
It's bad for the Poles who are already living in the UK, who may have to leave or face increased restrictions - depending on when and how Brexit is implemented, of course. Aussies and Kiwis have no such problems.

Except that under the EU cartel, there is neither open immigration nor free trade of the UK with Oz or NZ.

Patrick Byrom
04-10-2016, 08:29 PM
Except that under the EU cartel, there is neither open immigration nor free trade of the UK with Oz or NZ.There won't be open immigration after Brexit (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/04/no-plans-to-make-it-easier-for-australians-to-enter-uk-home-secretary-says)is completed either:

The UK home secretary, Amber Rudd, has slapped down the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, and insisted the government had “no plans” to make it easier for Australians to come to the UK after Brexit. Rudd said she did not want to increase immigration from Australia, despite the foreign secretary’s insistence last month that it would be a “fantastic thing” if the UK had a “more sensible system” for dealing with migration between the two countries.

Capablanca-Fan
05-10-2016, 12:56 AM
There won't be open immigration after Brexit (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/04/no-plans-to-make-it-easier-for-australians-to-enter-uk-home-secretary-says)is completed either:

The UK home secretary, Amber Rudd, has slapped down the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, and insisted the government had “no plans” to make it easier for Australians to come to the UK after Brexit. Rudd said she did not want to increase immigration from Australia, despite the foreign secretary’s insistence last month that it would be a “fantastic thing” if the UK had a “more sensible system” for dealing with migration between the two countries.

Well, let's hope Boris' more sensible policy prevails. He was one of the leaders of the Brexit campaign, and one of his strong points was freeing up both immigration and trade outside the EU cartel.

Patrick Byrom
15-11-2016, 08:23 PM
It seems that a lot of Brexit voters are already having second thoughts:
(https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/12/brexit-article-50-parliament-eu-farron-may)
The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2016, 05:25 AM
It seems that a lot of Brexit voters are already having second thoughts:
(https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/12/brexit-article-50-parliament-eu-farron-may)
The new poll – for online campaign group Avaaz – finds that 33% of voters support Brexit unconditionally. Almost a quarter (23%) oppose it unconditionally, 32% say it depends on the terms of the deal and 12% are undecided.

Tough. They had their vote. We don't keep on having votes until the elitists get the result they want. Learn a lesson from Australia: we had the monarchy vs republic referendum once, and it wasn't done again because the various republican factions didn't like the result.

Patrick Byrom
16-11-2016, 09:55 AM
Tough. They had their vote. We don't keep on having votes until the elitists get the result they want. Learn a lesson from Australia: we had the monarchy vs republic referendum once, and it wasn't done again because the various republican factions didn't like the result.So even if the vast majority of people oppose the result, the UK is still stuck with it - that doesn't seem logical? Anyway, the courts have decided (subject to appeal) that it is parliament's decision on what happens next.

Ian Murray
16-11-2016, 10:16 AM
Tough. They had their vote. We don't keep on having votes until the elitists get the result they want. Learn a lesson from Australia: we had the monarchy vs republic referendum once, and it wasn't done again because the various republican factions didn't like the result.

The 1999 referendum wasn't monarchy vs republic, but whether Australia should become a republic with a President appointed by Parliament. The way a president should be selected split the republican vote.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2016, 10:39 AM
The 1999 referendum wasn't monarchy vs republic, but whether Australia should become a republic with a President appointed by Parliament. The way a president should be selected split the republican vote.

That's on the republicans for not making up their minds what they wanted to replace the monarchy with. Another idea would have been a Condorcet vote with the three options: status quo, parliament appoints president with a supermajority, or popularly elected president.

Rincewind
16-11-2016, 11:31 AM
That's on the republicans for not making up their minds what they wanted to replace the monarchy with. Another idea would have been a Condorcet vote with the three options: status quo, parliament appoints president with a supermajority, or popularly elected president.

No it was on John Howard.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2016, 11:37 AM
That's on the republicans for not making up their minds what they wanted to replace the monarchy with. Another idea would have been a Condorcet vote with the three options: status quo, parliament appoints president with a supermajority, or popularly elected president.

To have a Condorcet referendum you would first need to have a referendum changing the Constitution to allow Condorcet referendums.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2016, 12:32 PM
To have a Condorcet referendum you would first need to have a referendum changing the Constitution to allow Condorcet referendums.

So we are only allowed referendums with yes or no options? For a country with preferential voting, albeit of IRV and STV varieties, it is strange that we can't have a type of preferential system in the referendum when there were three main views, and Condorcet seems the best for three.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2016, 12:34 PM
No it was on John Howard.

More likely, it was all the ads about "no to a politician's republic", although a popularly elected president would have to be a politician.

Rincewind
16-11-2016, 12:38 PM
More likely, it was all the ads about "no to a politician's republic", although a popularly elected president would have to be a politician.

The only way with a realistic way forward is to have a process to determine the most acceptable republican model and then having a referendum on whether to move to that model or not.

Patrick Byrom
16-11-2016, 01:38 PM
The only way with a realistic way forward is to have a process to determine the most acceptable republican model and then having a referendum on whether to move to that model or not.Which is exactly the problem with the Brexit referendum - there is no way of knowing whether voters were supporting a 'hard' Brexit or a 'soft' Brexit (remaining in the single market). No amount of Trump-like rhetoric about "elites" will solve this problem; either the government (preferably parliament) makes a choice, or there has to be another referendum.

Capablanca-Fan
17-11-2016, 02:00 AM
Private prisons are demonstrably harmful to the inmates …

Further on this, USA Republican platform is very good, and if implemented, should reduce America's obscenely high incarceration rates and some of the bad prison conditions, although it unfortunately doesn't address the proliferation of private prisons:

Criminal Justice Reform (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-you-should-know-about-the-republican-party-platform)


Urges caution in the creation of new “crimes”ť and a bipartisan presidential commission to purge the code and the body of regulations of old “crimes.”
Calls for mens rea elements in the definition of any new crimes to protect Americans who, in violating a law, act unknowingly or without criminal intent. Urges Congress to codify the Common Law’s Rule of Lenity, which requires courts to interpret unclear statutes in favor of a defendant.
Calls for mandatory prison time for all assaults involving serious injury to law enforcement officers.
Supports protecting the rights of victims and their families by allowing them to be told all relevant information about their case, allowed to be present for its trial, assured a voice in sentencing and parole hearings, given access to social and legal services, and benefit from the Crime Victims Fund.
Supports protecting prisoners against cruel or degrading treatment by other inmates.
Encourage states to offer opportunities for literacy and vocational education to prepare prisoners for release to the community.


For the other side, there are a few things in the Dem platform (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/what-you-should-know-about-the-democratic-party-platform) that are good, and would probably be supported by many Republicans (the following are extracted):


Supports reforming mandatory minimum sentences and closing private prisons and detention centers.
Supports requiring the use of body cameras.
Supports states and localities “who help make those investigations and prosecutions more transparent, including through reforming the grand jury process.”
Supports assisting states in providing a system of public defense that is adequately resourced and meets American Bar Association standards.
Supports reforming the civil asset forfeiture system to “protect people and remove perverse incentives for law enforcement to ‘police for a profit.’”
Supports expanding re-entry programs, and restoring voting rights for felons. [Good, if it means, once they have done their time, not while they are in prison]
Supports, whenever possible, prioritizing prevention and treatment over incarceration when tackling addiction and substance use disorder.
Endorses the use of effective models of drug courts, veterans’ courts, and other diversionary programs that “seek to give nonviolent offenders opportunities for rehabilitation as opposed to incarceration.”

Patrick Byrom
24-11-2016, 12:55 AM
UK Chancellor admits Brexit has been a disaster for the budget (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/23/philip-hammond-brexit-vote-borrowing-autumn-statement):

Philip Hammond has admitted the Brexit vote’s blow to the economy would force the government to borrow Ł122bn more than hoped as he pushed back government plans to balance the books in his autumn statement.

Kevin Bonham
02-12-2016, 10:54 PM
Tory Zac Goldsmith resigned his seat and recontested it as an independent in protest at approval of a third Heathrow runway. However, he lost the seat to a Liberal Democrat in the by-election. The winning Liberal Democrat had been a party member for only 18 months. Labour contested the by-election but lost their deposit.

Patrick Byrom
03-12-2016, 01:28 AM
Tory Zac Goldsmith resigned his seat and recontested it as an independent in protest at approval of a third Heathrow runway. However, he lost the seat to a Liberal Democrat in the by-election. The winning Liberal Democrat had been a party member for only 18 months. Labour contested the by-election but lost their deposit.The main issue appears to have been Brexit, with Goldsmith mildly pro and the LDP mildly anti. Although Goldsmith's islamophobic comments during the London mayoral race (won by the Muslim candidate) probably didn't help.

pax
03-12-2016, 11:54 AM
The extraordinary result seems to be Labour's 3.6%. Even running dead, that is a terrible indication of their current status. They could be facing a wipeout.

Patrick Byrom
03-12-2016, 02:09 PM
The extraordinary result seems to be Labour's 3.6%. Even running dead, that is a terrible indication of their current status. They could be facing a wipeout.Since Labour never had a chance of winning, it made sense under the stupid FPP system for their voters to vote for the LD candidate. Whether that translates to a general election, which can't be held for several years, remains to be seen.

Capablanca-Fan
03-12-2016, 04:10 PM
Since Labour never had a chance of winning, it made sense under the stupid FPP system for their voters to vote for the LD candidate. Whether that translates to a general election, which can't be held for several years, remains to be seen.

So you also agree that FPP is crass?

Patrick Byrom
03-12-2016, 05:00 PM
So you also agree that FPP is crass?Have I ever said it wasn't? It may be acceptable in some cases, however.

Capablanca-Fan
09-12-2016, 01:06 AM
Europe’s divisions, not its unity, drive its success (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/europes-divisions-not-its-unity-drive-its-success/news-story/2da598f5724d35cea85b77249c8f7c8b)
Matt Ridley, Times / Austalian, 5 December 2016

Against this background, it is worth recalling that the leading theory among economic historians for why Europe after 1400 became the wealthiest and most innovative continent is political fragmentation. Precisely because it was not unified, Europe became a laboratory for different ways of governing, enabling the discovery of regimes that allowed free markets and invention to flourish, first in northern Italy and some parts of Germany, then the low countries, then Britain. By contrast, China’s unity under one ruler prevented such experimentation.

It is generally assumed that it was Charles, Baron Montesquieu who first articulated this theory, in De L’Esprit Des Lois (1748). In contrast to the great empires of Asia, he remarked, Europe’s “many medium-sized states” had incubated “a genius for liberty, which makes it very difficult to subjugate each part and to put it under a foreign force other than by laws and by what is useful to its commerce”.

I think David Hume got there first, however. In his 1742 essay Of the Rise and Progress of the Arts and Sciences, he mused on why China’s “considerable stock of politeness and science” had not ripened, and blamed the fact that it was one vast empire, so “the authority of any teacher, such as Confucius, was propagated easily from one corner of the empire to the other. None had courage to resist the torrent of popular opinion.” By contrast, Europe is the continent “most broken by seas, rivers, and mountains” and so “the divisions into small states are favourable to learning, by stopping the progress of authority as well as that of power”.

Whereas the states system positively encouraged governments to be moderate in political, religious and fiscal terms or lose their talent, the commission detests jurisdictional competition, in taxes and regulations. The larger the empire, the less brake there is on governmental excess.

So, an ambitious genetic engineer, who has devised a way in the laboratory to suppress agricultural pests and eradicate disease-carrying mosquitoes, by releasing genetically modified males that cause infertility among their offspring, has nowhere to go within the EU to find a regime that will license his experiment in the wild. Like Columbus leaving Genoa for Spain, he goes to the United States instead, eventually selling his British-born business to an American company that can afford to build a GM-mosquito factory in Brazil to combat the zika and dengue viruses. This is a real example: the company is called Oxitec.

In effect, the European continent is saying to innovative thinkers the opposite of what it said for centuries. Where once it signalled that they could exile themselves and take their ideas with them to sow in more fertile ground, now it is saying: it does not matter how far you move within Europe, we want to be sure you can never escape the same rules. With east-west and north-south differences within the EU building, that feels increasingly like a tension that must break in the years ahead.

Capablanca-Fan
11-12-2016, 02:28 PM
British sheep farmers sound alarm over free trade deal (http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/84554371/British-sheep-farmers-sound-alarm-over-free-trade-deal)
GERARD HUTCHING, 22 September 2016


Prime Minister John Key and his British counterpart Theresa May have sounded a positive note on trade this week, yet UK sheep farmers are lobbying for tighter controls on New Zealand lamb imports.

Key and May met in New York, with May telling Key there would be new opportunities for trade between New Zealand and Britain following Brexit.

Key said the two had already discussed a free trade agreement, when he first telephoned to congratulate her on winning the top job.

New Zealand Meat Industry Association chief executive Tim Ritchie said tensions over exports to the UK arose usually at the shoulders of the seasons. New Zealand acted responsibly and did not flood the market with meat because it was in no-one's interest to do so.

He foresaw difficulties occurring post-Brexit if the UK was unable to export a third of its lamb production to Europe as it does at present.

"That would set the tone as to how we would get on. It would put more pressure on the UK domestic market," Ritchie said.

The other key issue would be if the floodgates were open to Australian imports. Most Australian sheepmeat goes to China, the Middle East and the United States.

Australia produced 516,366 tonnes of lamb and 196,040 tonnes of mutton in 2015–16, exporting 56 per cent of total lamb production and 91 per cent of mutton production.

Capablanca-Fan
06-01-2017, 04:17 AM
Brexit Is Like Repealing the Corn Laws All Over Again (https://fee.org/articles/brexit-is-like-repealing-the-corn-laws-all-over-again/)
Paul Marshall, FEE, 5 January 2017

That was also Britain’s choice in 2016. Would we continue to subscribe to a customs union which imposed tariffs of up to 30 per cent on agricultural products from Africa and prevented us from striking free-trade agreements with the developing (and developed) world? Or would we choose to break free and restore our status as the world’s beacon of free trade?

Thankfully we chose the latter.

In 1846, the Repeal of the Corn Laws opened up a new era of unparalleled prosperity for this country based on the expansion of trade. Hopefully, Brexit will do the same as we gain access to the developing world for our service industries in return for opening up our agricultural markets.

Yet the Liberal “Democrats” have set their face firmly, not only against the democratic will of the people but also against our re-opening to the world. Vince Cable, for one, must feel conflicted. In his contribution to the Orange Book (which I edited with David Laws in 2004), he described the Common Agricultural Policy as “an economic, environmental and moral disgrace”.

Capablanca-Fan
16-01-2017, 05:01 AM
Britain has world’s top economy (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/britain-has-worlds-top-economy-after-brexit-rt7j9lccb)
Brexit vote was Bank’s ‘Michael Fish moment’
Philip Aldrick, Economics Editor | Francis Elliott, Political Editor
Sunday Times, 6 Jan 2017

Britain ended last year as the strongest of the world’s advanced economies with growth accelerating in the six months after the Brexit vote.

Business activity hit a 17-month high last month, meaning that the economy grew by 2.2 per cent last year — more than the six other leading nations, including the US, Germany and Japan.

Far from slowing after the referendum in June, as predicted by the Treasury and Bank of England, growth appeared to have improved. GDP grew at 0.3 per cent and 0.6 per cent in the first two quarters of last year, compared with 0.6 per cent and an estimated 0.5 per cent in the final period.

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2017, 01:01 PM
Labour has lost a by-election for one of their own seats to the Tories, which should be pretty embarrassing for them. It's the first by-eletion gain by a government for 35 years. Also the UKIP leader failed to win another by-election from Labour and was exposed as having made numerous false claims about his past.

Kevin Bonham
20-03-2017, 09:52 PM
Rumours that the Tories might be going to a snap election in May to seek a Brexit mandate.

Rincewind
29-03-2017, 09:25 AM
Theresa May signed Article 50 today. The trigger has been pulled.

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2017, 04:37 AM
Brexit Is Happening—So Let's All Cheer up about It (https://fee.org/articles/brexit-is-happening-so-lets-all-cheer-up-about-it/)
Daniel Hannan, FEE, 6 April 2017

Birds flying high, you know how I feel. Sun in the sky, you know how I feel. Leaves driftin’ on by, you know how I feel. With the serving of Article 50, Brexit becomes a legal fact.

When it comes to the media, though, I’m in a distinct minority. Our public discourse on Brexit is angry, discordant and, above all, morose. We’re often told that Leavers and Remainers have little in common – but judged solely by their online debates, they’re united in their grumpiness.

It’s fair enough for online Remainers to be in a strop, I suppose. They lost narrowly and unexpectedly and, frankly, I’d like to see much more acknowledgment of the closeness of the result. But that doesn’t explain why their mood has worsened as the economic climate has improved.

In the aftermath of the vote, many of my Remainer friends were genuinely worried about an abrupt economic shock. In a lot of cases, indeed, this was their chief reason for having voted to stay in.

And in fairness, it wasn’t just the Remain campaign that prophesied frogs and locusts. Most academic economists, along with the Treasury, the Bank of England, the IMF and the OECD, forecast an immediate downturn as a result of a Leave vote.

In the event, all these organisations have since been scrabbling to revise their predictions upwards, and you can see why. Britain grew more strongly in the six months after the vote than in the six months before it, and ended 2016 as the world’s most successful major economy. Employment, investment, share prices, retail activity, manufacturing output and exports are all rising.

In the real world, most of the 48 percent have breathed a sigh of relief and, if opinion polls are to be believed, there would be a slightly larger Leave vote today.

But the remains of Remain, the irreconcilable Europeans, are behaving like doomsday cultists, constantly deferring the date of the coming apocalypse. Being cultists, they can’t quite hide the fact that they relish the prospect of obliteration – however unappealing that attitude is to everyone else.

Not that they are alone in their gloom. There are plenty of Leavers who, after years of defeat and marginalization, simply can’t take yes for an answer. Again, these are loudest online, but a fair number of them are trying to breathe new life into UKIP as a vehicle for the permanently outraged.

If, for example, we plan to scrap a regulation, we are “taking away protections”. If we keep it, we might as well have stayed in the EU. The idea that it will be our decision, that we are a robust democracy, perfectly capable of running our affairs, doesn’t get a hearing.

Indeed, the real miracle is that this pessimism is not more widespread. The general population are more resilient than opinion-formers like to tell themselves. Offline, most Remainers, like most Leavers, want the best outcome for Britain.

Patrick Byrom
07-04-2017, 01:59 PM
Brexit Is Happening—So Let's All Cheer up about It (https://fee.org/articles/brexit-is-happening-so-lets-all-cheer-up-about-it/) Daniel Hannan, FEE, 6 April 2017
... In the event, all these organisations have since been scrabbling to revise their predictions upwards, and you can see why. Britain grew more strongly in the six months after the vote than in the six months before it, and ended 2016 as the world’s most successful major economy. Employment, investment, share prices, retail activity, manufacturing output and exports are all rising. ...How can this be the result of Brexit, when Brexit hasn't happened yet? It's clearly the result of the massive stimulus the UK government is using to protect Britain from the negative outcomes of Brexit.

Capablanca-Fan
10-04-2017, 06:56 AM
Remain campaigners should accept they gave the referendum their best shot and did well to run Leave so close (http://brexitcentral.com/james-hannam-remain-campaigners-accept-gave-referendum-best-shot-well-run-leave-close/)
James Hannam, 16 Oct 2016

In the aftermath of the referendum, two myths have quickly taken root: that David Cameron made a reckless gamble when he called a vote on the EU and that Britain Stronger in Europe was a disunited rabble that fought a dreadful campaign.

These myths are dangerous because they fuel the calls for a second referendum. Europhiles tell themselves that if the vote was a gamble, another throw of the dice might produce a different result. And they imagine that a more focused and positive campaign for Remain could win the day.

Let me address these two myths in turn.

That is not to say Matthew Elliott’s fantastic Vote Leave didn’t matter. The point of a political campaign is not really to win the argument. Rather, it must identify its supporters and motivate them to get to the polling station on the big day. Vote Leave did that brilliantly.

The important point is that the referendum was not won because of narrow tactical concerns, mistakes made by Mr Cameron or Britain Stronger in Europe, or even because Leave voters were just protesting and didn’t mean to win. All these erroneous excuses have been made by Europhiles since 23rd June.

Leave triumphed because it is the settled will of the British people that they do not wish their country to be part of the European Union. Given that fact, Remain did as well as they could have done by pushing us so close. David Cameron deserves credit from Europhiles for giving Remain the best possible chance.

James Hannam is a Conservative councillor in Tunbridge Wells and author of the forthcoming book, What Everyone Needs to Know about Tax, out in 2017 from Wiley.

Kevin Bonham
18-04-2017, 08:11 PM
Theresa May has called a general election for June 8th. She requires a two-thirds majority in Commons for the election to be held.

Kevin Bonham
18-04-2017, 11:55 PM
Which apparently she will get because fixed-term parliament laws are pointless for the reasons explained here:

https://constitution-unit.com/2017/04/18/the-fixed-term-parliaments-act-and-the-snap-election/

Patrick Byrom
19-04-2017, 06:04 PM
I suspect May knows what a disaster Brexit will be, and wants to avoid the immediate fallout. Otherwise why not wait until after Brexit and bask in the wonderful success that right-wingers keep telling us is coming?

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2017, 01:58 AM
I suspect May knows what a disaster Brexit will be, and wants to avoid the immediate fallout. Otherwise why not wait until after Brexit and bask in the wonderful success that right-wingers keep telling us is coming?

Who says it's just right wingers? A lot of traditional Labour voters supported it, while big business (often regarded as right wing, although wrongly) in London opposed it.

Kevin Bonham
08-05-2017, 11:35 PM
Added a new poll for the current UK election. As a big Tory win is widely expected I've put mostly Tory options on the seat split. There are 650 seats and presently the Conservatives (Tories) hold 330.

Capablanca-Fan
10-05-2017, 02:39 AM
On this Europe Day, Let's Oppose the EU for the Right Reasons (https://fee.org/articles/on-this-europe-day-lets-oppose-the-eu-for-the-right-reasons)
Bill Wirtz, FEE, 9 May 2017

While the EU might celebrate the legacy of Robert Schuman's free trade advocacy, its political structure has degenerated into something far more invasive than the mere easement of political dialogue. It actively combats the free market. For instance, the EU constantly considers tax harmonisation and over-regulates people's personal habits (the EU recently introduced heavy regulation regarding e-cigarettes).

While trade barriers inside the EU have been abolished, the EU acts like a protectionist block when it comes to non-EU members: it subsidises European farmers, sets very high food standards (which keep African goods off the market) and imposes import taxes.

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2017, 09:23 PM
A stunning day for Corbyn today - his party manifesto was leaked; while he was trying to avoid the media while attending a meeting about this, his car ran over a cameraman's foot.

Kevin Bonham
11-05-2017, 09:25 PM
Posts moved

Surprisingly there is already a thread about Irish blasphemy laws so the blasphemy posts have been moved there. It's in the religion section.

Kaitlin
12-05-2017, 05:19 AM
Posts moved

Surprisingly there is already a thread about Irish blasphemy laws so the blasphemy posts have been moved there. It's in the religion section.

I rest my case ☺

Kevin Bonham
22-05-2017, 10:11 AM
Labour's polling is improving as the election approaches, although the Tories still have a large lead. Basically support for minor parties is crashing.

Kaitlin
22-05-2017, 11:27 AM
Ireland isn't indicative of World Trends.... just look at their dancing !

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2017, 01:03 AM
Enabling Murder (https://www.city-journal.org/html/enabling-murder-15209.html)
Western politicians worry more about being called “Islamophobic” than they do about stopping jihadist slaughter.
Bruce Bawer, City Journal, 23 May 2017

Damn these jihadist murderers of children. And damn the politicians who have, in many cases, helped make these murders possible but who are quick, this time and every time, to serve up empty declarations of “solidarity”even as the bodies of innocents are still being counted.

Manchester City Council leader Sir Richard Leese also spoke of “fear” and “division”: “Manchester is a proud, strong city and we will not allow terrorists who seek to sow fear and division to achieve their aims.” Guess what, pal? They did achieve their aims: they killed 22 people, including children, and injured several dozen. Dead infidels: that’s their objective, period. (Or, as you would say, full stop.)

Naturally, Manchester’s mayor, Andy Burnham, put out a statement. Burnham, as it happens, is a radical socialist who has wrung his hands for years about Islamophobia and has fought tooth and nail against a nationwide “anti-extremism” program called Prevent on the grounds that it “singles out one community for different treatment.” After yesterday’s atrocity, Burnham said: “We are grieving today, but we are strong.”

Strong? No, Mr. Burnham, you are anything but strong. You are cowards, all of you. You are more scared of being called bigots than of the prospect of children under your official protection being slaughtered by jihadists.

Three-quarters of a century ago, Britain stood shoulder to shoulder in true solidarity while under violent assault by the diabolical ideology of Nazism. Today, its leaders speak of the same kind of solidarity—but it’s nothing but talk. In Rotherham, gangs of Muslim men sexually abused 1,400 girls—and police and other officials who knew about it did nothing for years lest they be accused of racism or Islamophobia. Almost certainly, similar mass-scale rapes are still occurring right now in other British cities, with similar silence and inaction on the part of pusillanimous authorities. Today, British leaders refuse to deport imams who preach murder but ban from their shores respected writers and knowledgeable critics of Islam who dare to take on those imams and their theology.

Rincewind
25-05-2017, 08:12 AM
Three-quarters of a century ago, Britain stood shoulder to shoulder in true solidarity while under violent assault by the diabolical ideology of Nazism.

Britain was dragged into WWII after years of appeasement of Hitler's regime and wilful ignorance of human rights abuses. Britain also participated in the Evian conference to address the 1930's Jewish refugee crisis but (along with most participants) they did not increase their quotas. Their one saving grace was the Kindertransport which was approved by the British parliament but largely instigated from without.

Patrick Byrom
25-05-2017, 01:37 PM
Enabling Murder (https://www.city-journal.org/html/enabling-murder-15209.html)
Western politicians worry more about being called “Islamophobic” than they do about stopping jihadist slaughter.
Bruce Bawer, City Journal, 23 May 2017...
Three-quarters of a century ago, Britain stood shoulder to shoulder in true solidarity while under violent assault by the diabolical ideology of Nazism. Today, its leaders speak of the same kind of solidarity—but it’s nothing but talk. In Rotherham, gangs of Muslim men sexually abused 1,400 girls—and police and other officials who knew about it did nothing for years lest they be accused of racism or Islamophobia. Almost certainly, similar mass-scale rapes are still occurring right now in other British cities, with similar silence and inaction on the part of pusillanimous authorities. Today, British leaders refuse to deport imams who preach murder but ban from their shores respected writers and knowledgeable critics of Islam who dare to take on those imams and their theology.…But Britain wasn't under assault by the ideology of Nazism, it was under assault by a country. It's obvious how to fight a country, but fighting an ideology is much more difficult. And suggesting - without evidence - that there are mass rapes by Muslims which are being covered up is probably not going to help.

Capablanca-Fan
25-05-2017, 02:24 PM
But Britain wasn't under assault by the ideology of Nazism, it was under assault by a country. It's obvious how to fight a country, but fighting an ideology is much more difficult. And suggesting - without evidence - that there are mass rapes by Muslims which are being covered up is probably not going to help.

Rotherham child abuse: The background to the scandal (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28934963)
BBC, 5 February 2015

A report commissioned in the wake of revelations that "at least" 1,400 children were sexually exploited in Rotherham has branded the local authority "not fit for purpose" and left it facing takeover by government commissioners. How did it reach this point?

The issue of child sex abuse in Rotherham first came to light in November 2010 when five men from the town's Asian community were jailed for sexual offences against underage girls.

But suspicions were already growing that the scale of the town's problem was far more widespread.

Almost two years later, in September 2012, Andrew Norfolk, a journalist on The Times newspaper, published an investigation which revealed a confidential 2010 police report had warned thousands of such crimes were being committed in South Yorkshire each year by networks of Asian men.

The town's former Labour MP, Denis MacShane, claimed police had kept the abuse secret from politicians (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-19701760).

Patrick Byrom
26-05-2017, 12:49 AM
Rotherham child abuse: The background to the scandal (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-28934963) BBC, 5 February 2015
...Almost two years later, in September 2012, Andrew Norfolk, a journalist on The Times newspaper, published an investigation which revealed a confidential 2010 police report had warned thousands of such crimes were being committed in South Yorkshire each year by networks of Asian men.
…That is disturbing evidence, although more recent reports would be more convincing. But there have been similar problems, and cover-ups, in other organisations, so I'm not sure it is connected to Islam.

This illustrates my point about ideology - it's such a vague term, that anything can be included under it. I think that it would be better to concentrate on fighting terrorism using standard police procedures, rather than making it an ideological conflict.

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2017, 04:46 AM
Why Labour’s Corporation Tax Increases Will Hurt the Many, not the Few (http://know-tax.com/why-labours-corporation-tax-increases-will-hurt-the-many-not-the-few)
by James Hannam, 11 May 2017

Rises in company taxes are less unpopular than income tax increases because we imagine that people don’t actually pay company taxes. This is wrong. It is one of the golden rules of tax that no matter what name is on the bill, all taxes are ultimately suffered by human beings.

The other thing a company can do with its profits is invest them in growing its business. In other words, corporation tax is a tax on investment. Directly taxing the investment the country desperately needs to improve productivity is not a terribly good idea. Most politicians realise this, which is why the rate of corporation tax has been cut from 30% in 2007 to 20% from 2015, and 17% in 2020. It was 52% in the 1970s. Jeremy Corbyn is proposing to reverse this trend.

Alternatively, the company might feel it needs extra profits to pay the extra tax. To do that, it either has to pay its staff less or charge customers more. Again, we see that the increase in corporation tax is actually being passed on to real people. All the money that the company has really belongs or is owed to someone else. Some economists have argued that it is workers who take the biggest hit from corporate taxes. But whether that is true or not, the fact is someone has to pay them. And that someone is you and me.

In essence, the only way to raise large amounts of extra money from taxation is by increasing how much ordinary people pay. Corporation tax is just a stealth tax which the Labour Party hopes ordinary people won’t notice that they are paying.

Desmond
27-05-2017, 04:57 AM
Why Labour’s Corporation Tax Increases Will Hurt the Many, not the Few (http://know-tax.com/why-labours-corporation-tax-increases-will-hurt-the-many-not-the-few)
by James Hannam, 11 May 2017

In essence, the only way to raise large amounts of extra money from taxation is by increasing how much ordinary people pay. Corporation tax is just a stealth tax which the Labour Party hopes ordinary people won’t notice that they are paying.
Sure but at least it's paid progressively. One of the half truths trotted out frequently is how we all benefit from company profits because we likely have a share of them in our superannuation investments. But the "ordinary people" have much less shares of it than richer people. The richer people are happy to reduce tax paid this way, and move it to regressive measures instead like GSTs. Ordinary people are not stupid.

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2017, 11:08 AM
Sure but at least it's paid progressively.
But still paid ultimately by ordinary people.


One of the half truths trotted out frequently is how we all benefit from company profits because we likely have a share of them in our superannuation investments.
Exactly. I miss Australia's great superannuation scheme.


But the "ordinary people" have much less shares of it than richer people.
But they are still richer than they would be otherwise. Are you like those that Mrs Thatcher famously denounced as wanting the poor to be poorer, as long as the rich are less rich.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw


The richer people are happy to reduce tax paid this way, and move it to regressive measures instead like GSTs. Ordinary people are not stupid.
Excise taxes were just as regressive as GST.

Capablanca-Fan
27-05-2017, 11:17 AM
May vs Corbin exchange:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAlnHWvWPak

Patrick Byrom
27-05-2017, 12:23 PM
But they are still richer than they would be otherwise. Are you like those that Mrs Thatcher famously denounced as wanting the poor to be poorer, as long as the rich are less rich.Which doesn't correspond to reality - the countries where the rich are richest are also the countries where the poor are poorest.

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2017, 03:45 AM
Which doesn't correspond to reality - the countries where the rich are richest are also the countries where the poor are poorest.

What on earth do you mean. America has the richest people, but its "poor" are of the same material level as the average in Western Europe (https://mises.org/blog/poor-us-are-richer-middle-class-much-europe).

Patrick Byrom
28-05-2017, 08:22 AM
What on earth do you mean. America has the richest people, but its "poor" are of the same material level as the average in Western Europe (https://mises.org/blog/poor-us-are-richer-middle-class-much-europe).Even your link agrees that Norway, with greater equality, is doing much better than the US.

Desmond
28-05-2017, 08:57 AM
But still paid ultimately by ordinary people.What does that mean? Someone on a half-mil a year or more might be socking hundreds of thousands into their tax-reducing super account and they might have 100X more super & shares than what many would consider an "ordinary person". I'm fine for it to be paid progressively.


But they are still richer than they would be otherwise. Are you like those that Mrs Thatcher famously denounced as wanting the poor to be poorer, as long as the rich are less rich.
The great thing about mankind's collective knowledge is that it is increasing as we go along. We now know that Inequality hurts economic growth (http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm), so while it might be intellectually expedient to look at one of your ideological heroes from a couple of generations ago, it's actually helpful to look up every once in a while and see what is happening in the world.

Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research (http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/inequality-hurts-economic-growth.htm)
OECD 2014


Reducing income inequality would boost economic growth, according to new OECD analysis. This work finds that countries where income inequality is decreasing grow faster than those with rising inequality.

The single biggest impact on growth is the widening gap between the lower middle class and poor households compared to the rest of society. Education is the key: a lack of investment in education by the poor is the main factor behind inequality hurting growth.

“This compelling evidence proves that addressing high and growing inequality is critical to promote strong and sustained growth and needs to be at the centre of the policy debate,” said OECD Secretary-General Angel Gurría. “Countries that promote equal opportunity for all from an early age are those that will grow and prosper.”

Rising inequality is estimated to have knocked more than 10 percentage points off growth in Mexico and New Zealand over the past two decades up to the Great Recession. In Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States, the cumulative growth rate would have been six to nine percentage points higher had income disparities not widened, but also in Sweden, Finland and Norway, although from low levels. On the other hand, greater equality helped increase GDP per capita in Spain, France and Ireland prior to the crisis.
...

xyprxOa1H1s

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2017, 01:11 PM
Well, the OECD is a cartel of government bureaucracies. The above doesn't demonstrate cause and effect. Absolute poverty and wealth are more important than relative amounts.

Capablanca-Fan
28-05-2017, 01:12 PM
Even your link agrees that Norway, with greater equality, is doing much better than the US.

But not most of Europe without Norway's oil wealth.

Patrick Byrom
28-05-2017, 04:17 PM
But not most of Europe without Norway's oil wealth.The UK had massive amounts of North Sea oil too, until it squandered it all on tax cuts. It is a much more unequal society than Norway, and also much poorer. I'm not a great fan of Corbyn, but he is clearly hoping to replicate Norway's success through increasing equality.

Desmond
28-05-2017, 06:16 PM
Well, the OECD is a cartel of government bureaucracies. The above doesn't demonstrate cause and effect. Absolute poverty and wealth are more important than relative amounts.

Anything apart from ad hominem dismissal? Deal with the evidence perhaps?

Capablanca-Fan
29-05-2017, 02:20 AM
The UK had massive amounts of North Sea oil too, until it squandered it all on tax cuts.
The above leftist again shows that his true god is the State. He treats tax cuts as squandering money that really belongs to his god, when in reality tax cuts mean taking less money by force from those who earned it.


It is a much more unequal society than Norway, and also much poorer. I'm not a great fan of Corbyn, but he is clearly hoping to replicate Norway's success through increasing equality.
Or replicating the successes of Venezuela?

Patrick Byrom
29-05-2017, 12:29 PM
The above leftist again shows that his true god is the State. He treats tax cuts as squandering money that really belongs to his god, when in reality tax cuts mean taking less money by force from those who earned it.Except that the tax cuts were paid for with North Sea oil, which is a finite resource. Why do you think Norway is so much wealthier than the UK if tax cuts are such a great idea?


Or replicating the successes of Venezuela?That's unlikely, but I'm not a Corbynite anyway.

Patrick Byrom
06-06-2017, 08:29 PM
Brexit is starting to have an effect in the UK (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/28/uk-gdp-growth-inflation-economy-brexit-vote): "The UK economy suffered a sharp slowdown in the opening months of this year, as the post-referendum rise in living costs took its toll on British households and hit consumer spending. GDP growth fell more than expected to 0.3% in the first quarter from 0.7% in the previous quarter, the Office for National Statistics said."

Patrick Byrom
06-06-2017, 10:48 PM
And the latest poll is showing Labour only one point behind - could Corbyn actually win!?

Capablanca-Fan
06-06-2017, 11:01 PM
And the latest poll is showing Labour only one point behind - could Corbyn actually win!?

Teresa May seems to be doing her best to lose, anyway. E.g.:

MRS MAY’S DEATH TAX (http://www.melaniephillips.com/mrs-mays-death-tax/)
Melanie Phillips, 18 May 2017

Is Theresa May trying to lose the general election? Her proposal to require people to pay for the long-term domestic care they receive at home by asset-stripping their own house, with a floor of Ł100,000 below which its value would not fall, could do for the Conservative party what student loans did for the LibDems: turn thousands of hitherto loyal voters against it.

The fairest and most appropriate response to this crisis, however, is to change the system altogether to the European model of social insurance (and the NHS should be replaced by this too). This means everyone pays into an insurance scheme delivering social care, with those who really can’t pay being subsidised by those who can. Unlike private insurance, it thus pools risk and combines taking personal responsibility for your own future care with social responsibility for those who are too poor to do so.

Blunderbuss
07-06-2017, 10:25 AM
Interesting article with a theory on May's under performance in the election campaign : -
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2017/jun/06/political-culture-shock-could-paris-syndrome-explain-theresa-mays-meltdowns

Desmond
08-06-2017, 07:24 AM
Interesting article with a theory on May's under performance in the election campaign : -
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2017/jun/06/political-culture-shock-could-paris-syndrome-explain-theresa-mays-meltdowns

Could just be a case of the glass cliff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_cliff).

Ian Murray
08-06-2017, 09:42 AM
Interesting article with a theory on May's under performance in the election campaign : -
https://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2017/jun/06/political-culture-shock-could-paris-syndrome-explain-theresa-mays-meltdowns

I'm trying to think who this reminds me of:


Many people like a sense of control. It prevents feelings of uncertainty, which can be psychologically unsettling due to the effects it has on our brains. But some take it too far, becoming convinced that everything can and should be controlled, and get very irate and aggressive when this belief is challenged are thwarted. Such people are known as “control freaks”, a questionable label for many reasons, not least because it implies they’re rare. They aren’t, as anyone who’s had a micromanaging boss will know.

Control freaks are rarely much fun to be around. Their need for control applies to other people, who are invariably too unpredictable, chaotic and independent to submit to their will. This “loss” of control makes them angry and desperate to regain it, often going to illogical extremes like, I don’t know, appealing to the supreme court for no reason when you’re told you can’t just do what you want. Or refusing to see sense when you’re told you can’t deport someone.

There are knock on effects to this. By surrounding yourself with only those who agree with you, you end up arriving at uninformed, more extreme conclusions, always a bad idea in politics. You have no reason to doubt how right you are.

Capablanca-Fan
08-06-2017, 09:44 AM
Trump? ↑

Ian Murray
08-06-2017, 09:46 AM
Trump? ↑

That's who!

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2017, 09:50 AM
Spread of final polling Tory leads posted by Britain Elects:

BMG: +13
ICM: +12
ComRes: +10
Panelbase: +8
Opinium: +7
TNS: +5
YouGov: +7
Survation: +1
Ipsos Mori: (edit: +5)

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2017, 09:56 AM
Also

Survey Monkey +4
Norstat +4
Qriously -3

(These are not British Polling Council members)

ORB +9

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2017, 08:51 PM
I'm hopeless at predicting elections in places where people don't have to vote (with the exception of Hobart City, that is). I'll go Tories 355.

Rincewind
08-06-2017, 09:12 PM
I'll go under. ca 330

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2017, 09:13 AM
Exit poll predicting a hung parliament with 314 Tory - 266 Labour. The swing in the early seats to be called is all over the place.

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2017, 09:53 AM
Reports that the YouGov pre-election modelling (which forecast a hung parliament) is holding up well on a seat by seat basis as results come in. This could be one of the most pointless early elections ever at this rate.

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2017, 11:02 AM
76/650 seats declared. Tories have gained one seat and lost two, Labour +3, SNP -2.

This battleground graphic is useful:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2017/jun/08/live-uk-election-results-in-full-2017

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2017, 11:30 AM
BBC revised forecast Tories 322 seats.

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2017, 11:57 AM
I'll go under. ca 330

Which is exactly what they got last time and is looking very close to what they will get this time.

Rincewind
09-06-2017, 12:13 PM
Which is exactly what they got last time and is looking very close to what they will get this time.

331 last time?

This time I'm seeing predictions of 314 on Sky. 266 Labor, 34 SNP and 14 held by the Lib Dems.

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2017, 12:36 PM
Tories have now lost their mathematical majority even if they don't lose any more seats.

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2017, 12:37 PM
331 last time?

331 last time if you include the Speaker.

Capablanca-Fan
09-06-2017, 12:41 PM
Theresa May's campaign made Hillary seem competent.

This election shows that even a communist can win by promising enough free stuff.

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2017, 12:41 PM
This time I'm seeing predictions of 314 on Sky. 266 Labor, 34 SNP and 14 held by the Lib Dems.

This was the exit poll and after looking like it might be a tad low for the Tories it is now looking very good. Tories have now dropped 10 with just over 60% declared, and they are running out of Scottish seats to win.

Blunderbuss
09-06-2017, 12:49 PM
It was 'stans' (see reason two) that swung it!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/09/jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-landslide-manifesto-youth-vote-conservative-campaign

Rincewind
09-06-2017, 01:49 PM
It was 'stans' (see reason two) that swung it!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/09/jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-landslide-manifesto-youth-vote-conservative-campaign

I don't buy that since stans still only vote once and May remained more popular that Corbyn. I think Labor's success (or Tory's failure) has been to focus the election on issues over personalities. Issues like education and health care are ones that matter to the electorate and which Labor's platform on those issues is more popular. While the Tory's were able to repeat the mantra Corbyn-chaos vs May-stabiluty they polled very well but the public/media narrative got away from them in the last few weeks.

Blunderbuss
09-06-2017, 02:18 PM
Yes, they only vote once, agreed. But I guess the idea is if somebody is raving about Corbyn in the pub then that might sway others in the room who were previously undecided. I’m not saying it’s true but there seems to be some logic to the idea.

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2017, 02:35 PM
Tory/DUP coalition is looking likely assuming that the DUP want it.

Kevin Bonham
09-06-2017, 06:09 PM
There's one seat on the wire where counting has stopped, the Tories should win the other two so most likely Tories 318-319 plus the DUP with 10 is it, and our poll performs superbly with nobody picking the correct outcome again!

Rincewind
09-06-2017, 07:37 PM
There's one seat on the wire where counting has stopped, the Tories should win the other two so most likely Tories 318-319 plus the DUP with 10 is it, and our poll performs superbly with nobody picking the correct outcome again!

So how long will May remain the PM after squandering a majority to govern in coalition?

Ian Rout
09-06-2017, 08:11 PM
Tony and (especially) Kevin might attribute the result to voters being stroppy about voting for one PM last time and ending up with another.

On a chess-related note, IM Mike Basman ran as an Independent in Kingston & Surbiton, won by the Lib-Dems on 27,810 votes. He trailed the winner by 27,710 but at a mere 68 vote shortfall was within striking distance of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.

Kevin Bonham
10-06-2017, 10:41 AM
Labour has won the final seat Kensington by 20 votes, overturning a 21% Tory majority from last time.

Tories 318
Labour 262
SNP 35
LibDems 12
DUP 10
Sinn Fein 7
Plaid Cymru 4
Green 1
Ind 1

Capablanca-Fan
11-06-2017, 03:13 AM
May made Malcolm’s mistakes (https://spectator.com.au/2017/06/may-made-malcolms-mistakes/)
Tim Andrews, Spectator Australia, 10 June 2017

Prime Minister May’s election campaign succeeded in the near impossible through turning a projected 100 plus seat majority into minority government, shocking the British political and media establishment. How could she do so poorly against such an extremist leader like Jeremy Corbyn?

But the flawed strategy that led to this outcome should have been obvious to all. Worse still, the two central mistakes of the British campaign are being committed by the Coalition in Australia.

In attempting to court the soft left vote, May violated a cardinal rule of politics: When you cede the intellectual argument to your opponents and play on their turf, you will always lose as a result. Not only are they much better at it than you are, voters will always choose the ‘real deal’ to the pretender.

Is it little wonder then with neither party supporting free markets then that voters chose to vote for the candidate who at least appeared to believe in what he was saying? Yet this is precisely the approach taken in the 2017-18 Australian Budget.

It is testament only to Jeremy Corbyn’s repeated bungles that the Tory’s were able to scrape through with a minority government. Fortunately for the Coalition, the robotic Shorten does not pose the challenge a more authentic figure such as Albo would, yet unless the Coalition changes track and embraces the insights of the UK experience, at the next election the swing against them will be too high for them to overcome.

We have the opportunity to bring about a transformation in society. Big-government programs have clearly failed people and they are desperate for change. It is through demonstrating our vision and bringing them with us that prosperity shall be restored. So called “moderates” have consistently argued the necessity of being “pragmatic”. Yet history has demonstrated time and time again that this is a failing strategy. The conviction politics of Thatcher, Reagan, Howard won resounding electoral success. The attempts to pitch to the left have consistently failed.

Rather than being in conflict, the principled is the pragmatic. We have the ideas that have been proven time and time again to not only work, but to win. They connect deeply with the core values in our national psyches, with the disenchantment of governments, and will resonate with electorates. It is time someone in our political classes remembered this and actually gave them a go.

Rincewind
11-06-2017, 09:26 AM
Tim Andrews is just a right-wing nutter and just tries to shoehorn the UK election result into his a priori narrative.

Capablanca-Fan
11-06-2017, 12:31 PM
I didn't notice any refutation from our resident left-wing extremist. The fact remains that May had a huge lead in the polls when she called the election, then almost lost it to a rabid Marxist and antisemite.

Patrick Byrom
11-06-2017, 10:43 PM
I didn't notice any refutation from our resident left-wing extremist. The fact remains that May had a huge lead in the polls when she called the election, then almost lost it to a rabid Marxist and antisemite.That's because there wasn't any evidence to refute. And the main reason May lost is that Corbyn is a much better campaigner than she is.

Kevin Bonham
11-06-2017, 10:50 PM
The Tory campaign did so many things wrong that singling out being supposedly too left-wing is way down the list. The argument also collapses given that David Cameron was pretty moderate but won an unexpected majority in 2015.

The deal with the DUP is actually not finalised and still being negotiated.

Patrick Byrom
12-06-2017, 12:13 PM
There's one seat on the wire where counting has stopped, the Tories should win the other two so most likely Tories 318-319 plus the DUP with 10 is it, and our poll performs superbly with nobody picking the correct outcome again!A Conservative led coalition government was actually my preferred outcome, mainly because it means the end of the 'hard' Brexit the Tories seemed to be aiming for. But I expected that May would probably be returned with a slightly increased majority.

The parallels between the recent Australian election and this one are interesting, given the completely different voting systems.

Capablanca-Fan
12-06-2017, 01:23 PM
Theresa May’s Train Wreck (http://catallaxyfiles.com/2017/06/12/theresa-mays-train-wreck/)
Catallaxy Files, 12 June 2017

Now this may sound a little silly*, but if you think like Malcolm Turnbull and act like Malcolm Turnbull, then there’s a very good chance that you’ll end up like Malcolm Turnbull – and have a bad time.

Of all the strategic blunders made by Theresa May, her decision to hire Turnbull’s failed election campaign adviser to help run her campaign (with fellow ‘guru’ Sir Lynton Crosby) was arguably the most significant.

You know, the same adviser who said this during Turnbull’s 2016 campaign:

“The qualitative evidence is they don’t matter,’’ Mr Textor said. “The sum of a more centrist approach outweighs any alleged marginal loss of so-called base voters.’’

Yes, that one.

Textor strikes again

For reasons not readily apparent, May agreed to implement the Textor-Turnbull election campaign system – a curious system under which the decision making prowess of a teenage girl running away from Jason Vorhees is employed on as many major campaign decisions as possible.

In its latest hit out, the Textor-Turnbull system included the following strokes of genius, coming straight out of the manual: …

Now where have we seen all this attempted before?

One can only assume that under the Textor-Turnbull system, it’s also mandatory to keep doing the exact same thing over and over again until you get a different result.

Keep going guys, I’m sure you’ve got Einstein covered.

Corbyn – a very dangerous man

Kevin Bonham
12-06-2017, 04:46 PM
For mine the problem with the Crosby-Textor approach is the talking down to people with abstract inane slogans supposedly backed with psychology. Voters don't fall for that caper all the time.

Kevin Bonham
12-06-2017, 11:09 PM
Queen's Speech likely to be delayed because negotiations aren't finished yet!

Kevin Bonham
15-06-2017, 09:24 PM
Tories extremely lucky the Grenfell fire didn't happen two weeks ago. They appear to be up to their necks in complicity for the disaster. May's new Chief of Staff especially.

Kevin Bonham
16-06-2017, 09:14 AM
My take on attempts to draw parallels between UK 2017 and Australia 2016:

http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/the-uk-and-australian-elections-werent.html

The UK And Australian Elections Weren't That Similar

Blunderbuss
16-06-2017, 11:55 AM
My take on attempts to draw parallels between UK 2017 and Australia 2016:

http://kevinbonham.blogspot.com.au/2017/06/the-uk-and-australian-elections-werent.html

The UK And Australian Elections Weren't That Similar

I’m not sure about the parallels with the way Trump and Corbyn have taken over their parties rings true.

Long before the UK Labour party changed the rules on electing its leader they moved to the left. In 1983, Thatcher won a landslide against Michael Foot. When famously the Labour manifesto was called the ‘longest suicide note in history’.

I think this time around the Tories saw a re-run of 1983 with May in the Thatcher role and Corbyn as Foot. However, as you point out with the Grenfell fire it’s events that often over take politicians ability to control the narrative. In 1983 Thatcher benefited from the Falklands conflict. Whereas in 2017 terrorist attacks served to highlight cuts in police numbers. I think it’s a neat irony that Jeremy Corbyn won his seat in the 1983 election.

Also, right up to the exit poll (at 10pm UK time) absolutely everyone was predicting a Tory landslide al la 1983 – as this fine film makes clear: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/video/2017/jun/09/the-britain-that-lost-and-the-britain-that-won-video

Rincewind
16-06-2017, 12:35 PM
Also, right up to the exit poll (at 10pm UK time) absolutely everyone was predicting a Tory landslide al la 1983 – as this fine film makes clear: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/video/2017/jun/09/the-britain-that-lost-and-the-britain-that-won-video

That might have been what some commentators were saying but the polls were not indicating a land-slide Tory win for the last couple of weeks. The problem may be that people believe punditry over data.

Kevin Bonham
21-06-2017, 07:22 PM
May still having trouble forming government. DUP not happy yet:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/20/theresa-may-under-pressure-as-dup-says-show-some-respect

Blunderbuss
22-06-2017, 10:29 AM
Interesting washup article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/General_election

Desmond
26-06-2017, 09:29 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qOyT3ZkUxI

Kevin Bonham
26-06-2017, 11:25 PM
The DUP have finally settled and signed off. The asking price was one billion pounds for Northern Ireland.

Patrick Byrom
01-07-2017, 06:32 PM
The Brexit disaster is worsening in the UK (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/30/britons-savings-at-record-low-as-household-incomes-drop-says-ons):

The consumer-driven momentum that has kept the British economy afloat since the Brexit vote is declining rapidly, with new data showing households in the grip of the most protracted squeeze on living standards since the economic crisis of the mid-1970s. Against a backdrop of rising prices and stagnant wage growth, incomes adjusted for inflation have now fallen for three successive quarters, the first time this has occurred since the International Monetary Fund had to bail Britain out in 1976. At the same time, the amount being set aside as savings has now slipped to just 1.7% of disposable income – the lowest level on record, and a fraction of the near-10% average for the last 50 years. Just a year ago, it was more than three times the current rate.

Capablanca-Fan
20-07-2017, 12:59 PM
Conservative Saffron Walden MP Kemi Badenoch MP (née Adegoke), who has degrees in engineering and law:

'If it's not messy, you are not doing it right': Tory MP compares democracy to sex in cheeky maiden speech quoting Woody Allen (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-mp-compares-democracy-sex-10833172)
In a light-hearted speech, New Saffron Walden MP Kemi Badenoch said she would bring "colour and spice" to Parliament
BY LIZZY BUCHAN
Mirror, 19 JUL 2017

"We live in difficult times and face historic challenges.

"People are rightly concerned about what Brexit will mean for the country, for their jobs and for their families.

"But I do not believe that winter is coming.

"I believe the vote for Brexit was the greatest ever vote of confidence in the project of the United Kingdom."

Ms Badenoch described the UK as "a beacon, a shining light" when she was growing up in Nigeria.

She said she was "inexplicably" confused as being a member of the Labour party as she condemned the socialist policies she grew up under in Nigeria as "not something I would wish on anyone".

Ms Badenoch added: "There are few countries in the world where you can go in one generation from immigrant to parliamentarian.

Capablanca-Fan
28-07-2017, 04:48 AM
The EU Is Keeping Poor Countries Poor (https://fee.org/articles/the-eu-is-keeping-poor-countries-poor)
Joseph Hackett, FEE, 27 July 2017

There are, however, many other ways in which the EU stunts the development of poorer countries. Take its tariff regime, which sets higher tariffs for more processed products. Raw coffee beans, for instance, can be exported to the EU tariff-free, while roasted coffee is subject to a 7.5 percent tariff. If the coffee is decaffeinated, the tariff rises to 9 percent. The same goes for chocolate – cacao beans have no tariff, but chocolate bars are subject to a 30 percent tariff.

This is no accident. It is designed to stop countries such as Ethiopia and Ghana processing their own produce and then exporting it, which EU leaders fear would threaten the lucrative food industry in Europe. Producers are instead encouraged to export the raw produce while the “generous” EU ensures that developing countries take only a fraction of their potential profit, preserving the spoils for itself. In fact, in 2014, Germany earned more from coffee exports than all of Africa combined.

When we get Britain out of the EU, we won't have to have anything to do with these practices. Outside the Customs Union, we will no longer have to set tariffs according to the special interests of 27 other EU Member States. We will be free to drop tariffs on processed food imports from the developing world, encouraging countries such as Ethiopia to process their own products and sell them to Britain – where they will then be cheaper than those currently on our shelves. In addition, we can either conclude our own, fair fisheries agreements with West African countries, or we can refrain from such deals altogether.

Capablanca-Fan
04-08-2017, 01:16 AM
The Good News on Brexit They’re Not Telling You (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/opinion/brexit-european-union-good-news.html)
By DANIEL HANNAN, NYT, 31 JULY 2017

The same confirmation bias can be seen in their determination to find bad economic news. Here is a selection of British reports from the past two weeks: Unemployment fell again, as every month since the vote, to 1.49 million (from 1.67 million in June of last year); manufacturing orders are at their highest level since August 1988; retail sales, official figures show, are up 2.9 percent on this time last year. Exports were up 10 percent year-on-year in May, helped by the long-overdue correction of the exchange rate. Remainers like to point to the fall in sterling, but rarely mention that, before the vote, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank of England agreed that Britain’s currency, seen as a haven from the travails of the euro, was artificially expensive.

Most people, whichever way they voted, are celebrating the good news. But a few Euro-fanatics, disproportionately prominent on the BBC and at The Financial Times, are acting like doomsday cultists, constantly postponing the date of their promised apocalypse. First, a Leave vote was supposed to wreck the economy. Then, it became “wait until we begin the disengagement.” Now it’s “wait until you see what a bad deal we get from the European Union.” It’s odd. The people who are the most pro-union are generally the most convinced that the union will act in a self-harming way out of spite. I have a higher opinion of our European allies. But even if I didn’t, I’d still expect a deal. Adam Smith observed that “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” It is not from the benevolence of the European Union that we expect a free-trade agreement: Exchange makes everyone richer.

Capablanca-Fan
28-08-2017, 01:31 AM
Brexit Britain Should Adopt Unilateral Free Trade (https://fee.org/articles/brexit-britain-should-adopt-unilateral-free-trade)
Kevin Dowd, a professor of finance and economics at Durham University in England
25 August 2017

Another way is to promote specialization in order to exploit the efficiency benefits of comparative advantage in production. To quote [Adam] Smith again:


It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy. The tailor does not attempt to make his own shoes, but buys them of the shoemaker... What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom.

It follows that tariffs are self-harmful, both because they make us pay more than we need to and because they impede efficient production.

These home truths should be the drivers of UK post-Brexit trade policy. The UK should, therefore, promote free trade, which would lower import prices and increase productivity and wages.

The primary way to promote free trade is to eliminate all tariff and non-tariff barriers to imports. Consumers can then buy at the cheapest prices.

Desmond
28-08-2017, 08:47 AM
^ Yeah of course Britain will hope for that but will the EU and others be so kind as to give it to them.

Capablanca-Fan
29-08-2017, 04:01 AM
^ Yeah of course Britain will hope for that but will the EU and others be so kind as to give it to them.

That will most likely be the EU's loss economically (http://www.express.co.uk/finance/city/786290/UK-trade-EU-trade-deal-tariffs-Brexit-negotiations), and also would show what a vile and vindictive bunch that protectionist cartel is, and thus why the British people were right to vote to leave.

Patrick Byrom
29-09-2017, 10:08 PM
It seems that free-marketeers in the UK are addicted to government support (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/28/boris-johnson-charged-with-breaching-ministerial-code-over-thinktank-launch):

Boris Johnson has been accused of breaching the ministerial code in an “astonishing lack of judgment” by allowing the launch of a right-leaning thinktank on Foreign Office premises. The Institute for Free Trade (IFT), set up and headed by the arch-Brexiter Daniel Hannan, held its first public meeting on Wednesday in the grand surroundings of the FCO’s Map Room, with guests including Johnson, Michael Gove and Liam Fox. Critics accused the foreign secretary of allowing public resources to be misused as Hannan called for the government to move towards a Singapore-style economy after Britain leaves the EU. Theresa May reassured EU leaders this week that Britain was not seeking to become an offshore tax haven like Singapore.
Of course, the UK government wants nothing to do with Hannan's crazy ideas.

Capablanca-Fan
30-09-2017, 07:02 AM
What are you whinging about now? The following is eminently sensible:


Daniel Hannan with Nigel Farage. Hannan has long been a proponent of turning the UK into a low-regulation, low-taxation economy.

At the event, Johnson again called for a swift end to any transition phase of the UK’s exit from the European Union, in another move that could be provocative towards May. He told guests: “You can imagine what our brilliant companies are able to do … Let’s hope the date is soon upon us, without too long a transition period.”

Hannan said: “I’m looking at [the] high commissioner of Singapore [in the front row]. They have gone from being half as rich as us to twice as rich as us. What was the magic formula? Just do it. They dropped their barriers.”

Patrick Byrom
04-10-2017, 05:51 PM
PM May knows Brexit is a disaster, so she wants to postpone full Brexit for as long as possible (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/22/theresa-may-asks-eu-for-two-year-brexit-transition-period):

Theresa May has proposed delaying a full Brexit until 2021 by asking EU countries to agree to a two-year transition period during which the UK would continue to enjoy unfettered access to the single market. The prime minister said the government would be prepared to accept EU rules in that time, including allowing EU citizens to live and work in Britain, submitting to European laws and continuing to pay into the EU budget.

Capablanca-Fan
05-10-2017, 12:20 PM
PM May knows Brexit is a disaster, so she wants to postpone full Brexit for as long as possible (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/22/theresa-may-asks-eu-for-two-year-brexit-transition-period):

Theresa May has proposed delaying a full Brexit until 2021 by asking EU countries to agree to a two-year transition period during which the UK would continue to enjoy unfettered access to the single market. The prime minister said the government would be prepared to accept EU rules in that time, including allowing EU citizens to live and work in Britain, submitting to European laws and continuing to pay into the EU budget.

It was always a bad idea to let a Remainder become PM.

Kevin Bonham
05-10-2017, 10:40 PM
May had a spectacularly awful conference speech (mostly because of incidents during it rather than the content) and the sharks are circling once again.

Patrick Byrom
15-10-2017, 05:12 PM
May had a spectacularly awful conference speech (mostly because of incidents during it rather than the content) and the sharks are circling once again.The government as a whole is falling apart over the issue of Brexit. One major issue is the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic: If there is no deal between the UK and the EU, then that would mean a hard border, which the DUP (which May relies on for support) won't accept.

Kevin Bonham
19-10-2017, 05:51 PM
Posts moved

I've moved posts on Austria to a new thread entitled "Politics of anywhere that doesn't have its own thread".

Australia (federal), Australia (state), NZ, USA and UK/Ireland already have their own threads. I think one for everywhere else will probably do.

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2017, 02:19 AM
A US-UK Free Trade Deal Is Inevitable (https://fee.org/articles/a-us-uk-free-trade-deal-is-inevitable)
With strong support for post-Brexit Britain by both the President and Congress, a bilateral trade deal will soon be a reality.
by Nile Gardner, FEE, 24 Oct 2017

In Europe, Donald Trump is regularly portrayed as a protectionist or isolationist populist who believes in raising drawbridges rather than lowering them. As with so many broad generalizations made about America’s 45th President by pundits and politicians across the Atlantic this assessment is simplistic and misleading.

Mr. Trump certainly advances an “America First” agenda, which places the national interest at the heart of US foreign and economic policy. His administration has opposed vast, multilateral trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which it sees as threatening American jobs, and has shown little interest in moving forward with the regulation-heavy US-EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). It also seeks to renegotiate and improve the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico.

In Trump’s own words, a US-UK free trade agreement will be “a very, very big deal, a very powerful deal, great for both countries and I think we will have that done very, very quickly.” That is an emphatic endorsement, from a president who told Theresa May when she visited the White House in January that Brexit is “a wonderful thing for your country.” There could not be a starker contrast with the immensely negative and supremely arrogant assertion by then US President, Barack Obama, back in April 2016, that the UK would be at “the back of the queue” for a trade deal if it dared break free of the shackles of Brussels.

There is tremendous goodwill towards Britain within the Executive Branch of the present US government. EU officials can only dream of the kind of warm reception that Liam Fox, the UK International Trade Secretary, received when he visited Washington in July and met with US Trade Representative Robert Lightizer and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross.

Both the United States and the United Kingdom have much to gain from a free trade deal between the world’s largest and fifth largest economies. Britain is the biggest direct foreign investor in the US, and British companies employ over a million American workers. More than 1.25 million Britons are employed by US affiliates in the United Kingdom. As the Congressional Research Service notes, Britain is America’s largest services trading partner, and the $5 trillion of U.S. corporate assets in the U.K. represents 22 percent of total U.S. corporate overseas assets. US and British negotiators should seek to agree on a trade deal that further advances economic opportunity for both sides, ideally with an agreement that eliminates all tariff barriers between the two countries.

A US-UK free trade deal will be a powerful force generator for economic liberty and prosperity. It will also be a dynamic symbol of the enduring ties that bind the two greatest forces for freedom in the world. Indeed, the Special Relationship will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of Brexit. And that is good news for Britain, America, and the free world.

Ian Murray
26-10-2017, 01:36 PM
A US-UK Free Trade Deal Is Inevitable
With strong support for post-Brexit Britain by both the President and Congress, a bilateral trade deal will soon be a reality.
by Nile Gardner, FEE, 24 Oct 2017

In Europe, Donald Trump is regularly portrayed as a protectionist or isolationist populist who believes in raising drawbridges rather than lowering them. As with so many broad generalizations made about America’s 45th President by pundits and politicians across the Atlantic this assessment is simplistic and misleading.

Mr. Trump certainly advances an “America First” agenda, which places the national interest at the heart of US foreign and economic policy. His administration has opposed vast, multilateral trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)...

Understanding international treaties is too hard for Trump. His grasp of diplomacy is simplistic - not only are multilateral agreements beyond his ken so too are bilateral agreements. He wants to terminate the US-ROK free trade pact.

He also says that international agreements should have a 30-day exit clause. He cannot be trusted to uphold a deal with Britain - the lengthy process of fashioning a free trade pact with the US would be a risky venture not worth the effort.

Capablanca-Fan
26-10-2017, 01:53 PM
The best of all would be unilateral free trade with total abolition of trade barriers and subsidies.

Ian Murray
27-10-2017, 08:15 AM
The best of all would be unilateral free trade with total abolition of trade barriers and subsidies.

Write to the White House and your congressman urging them to adopt the proposal. Good luck.

Blunderbuss
04-05-2018, 12:31 PM
UK Local elections early results from http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-43543775: -

3620

Looks like UKIP voters switching back to Tories and Lib Dems

Ian Rout
06-05-2018, 03:17 PM
On a chess-related note, IM Mike Basman ran as an Independent in Kingston & Surbiton, won by the Lib-Dems on 27,810 votes. He trailed the winner by 27,710 but at a mere 68 vote shortfall was within striking distance of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.I see that IM Basman attempted to redeem himself by standing as an Independent for the Kingston-upon-Thames council this week, in the Chessington South ward (really). He was partially successful in scoring 109 votes; while that doesn't sound like much of an improvement it was much closer in comparison to the 1784 achieved by the last councillor elected than his previous effort.

He did however again finish with the wooden spoon behind the Lib-Dems (who took all three seats in the ward and apparently wrested control of the council from the Conservatives), both major parties and UKIP.

Kevin Bonham
10-07-2018, 09:04 AM
David Davis and Boris Johnson have thrown in the towel because May's Brexit is not Brexity enough for them.

Patrick Byrom
10-07-2018, 04:30 PM
David Davis and Boris Johnson have thrown in the towel because May's Brexit is not Brexity enough for them.Davis has probably resigned on principle; Johnson's resignation is almost certainly based on self-interest.

Desmond
10-07-2018, 08:07 PM
Has anyone ever seen Boris Johnson and The Princess Bride's the Pit of Despair guy in the same place?
No, I didn't think so.


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YfVGjZu4D0k/VS-0GeYxGOI/AAAAAAAAXiQ/Qg6cDxxD3ls/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/Pit-of-Despair-words.jpg

https://images.thewest.com.au/publication/B88891532Z/1531145876952_GC01NGM9P.1-2.jpg?imwidth=1024

Patrick Byrom
13-07-2018, 04:15 PM
Unbelievable interview by Trump (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/13/mps-voice-outrage-at-repulsive-donald-trump-broadside-against-theresa-may):

Donald Trump’s incendiary newspaper interview on the eve of his first official visit to the UK, in which he took aim at Theresa May’s Brexit plans and suggested Boris Johnson would make a great prime minister, has been met with outrage by MPs, who have accused him of “disrespecting” the nation and suggested Theresa May should show him the door.

Of course, the only person who benefits from Trump's disruption of NATO and the UK government is ... Vladimir Putin.

Patrick Byrom
17-07-2018, 06:47 PM
The two main pro-Leave campaigns have both been charged with breaching electoral spending laws (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jul/17/brexit-trade-bill-vote-referendum-result-branded-dodgier-than-ever-after-vote-leave-found-to-have-broken-election-spending-law-politics-live).

Capablanca-Fan
10-11-2018, 01:26 AM
UK unemployment at lowest since 1975 (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45181079)
BBC News, 14 August 2018

UK unemployment fell by 65,000 to 1.36 million in three months to June—the lowest for more than 40 years, official figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show.

They also show a rise in productivity, but a slowdown in wage growth.

Wages, excluding bonuses, grew by 2.7% in the three months to June, compared with a year ago.

The unemployment rate fell to 4% in the quarter to June. That was the lowest since February 1975 and better than the figure expected by economists.

Here's something economists have thought for decades that they know for sure: that if unemployment keeps getting lower, wages will improve. For years, the economy's been rudely ignoring the economists' theory, with wages sagging even as the unemployment rate hits fresh lows.

But recently, reality's looked just a little more willing to conform to economic predictions. Pay rises (excluding bonuses) averaged 2.7% in the year to the end of June—higher than the official inflation number of 2.4% (but lower than the 3.4% rise in the old-style Retail Prices Index used to calculate rises in rail fares).

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2018, 08:26 PM
Another bunch of resignations today from May's cabinet over Brexit.

Desmond
15-11-2018, 08:30 PM
Another bunch of resignations today from May's cabinet over Brexit.

Does that mean the challenge will be on for her leadership?

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2018, 09:04 PM
Does that mean the challenge will be on for her leadership?

The theory is that it might embolden those thinking of collecting a petition for a spill.

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2018, 10:52 PM
It's a lot like the Turnbull spill actually, the vultures are circling. Eyes are on a few more influential ministers to see if they throw in the towel and render her position helpless.

Patrick Byrom
16-11-2018, 10:03 AM
It's a lot like the Turnbull spill actually, the vultures are circling. Eyes are on a few more influential ministers to see if they throw in the towel and render her position helpless.But who do they replace her with? As with the LNP, the problem isn't the leader, it's the policies - in this case, the looming Brexit disaster.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2018, 11:55 AM
But who do they replace her with?

Some hardliner probably. Not sure how that ends. Badly, probably.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2018, 11:11 PM
20 MPs have publicly said that they have written to the 1922 Committee requesting a no-confidence vote. Others have probably done so but not admitted to it publicly. If that total gets to 48 that will bring on the vote. If May survives the vote it seems she is immune from internal challenge for a year (but could still be brought down by a parliamentary no-confidence vote if anyone was dastardly enough to go that route.)

Looks like vote could even be today.