Strokes Posted 9 December 2017 Posted 9 December 2017 24 minutes ago, Webbo said: Hard and soft brexit are meaningless phrases as they have no official definition. They can mean anything that the person arguing says they mean to suit their argument. None of us will get exactly what we want from the deal. All negotiations are compromises, the govt has to appease as many people as possible. We won't know what this agreement is or how successful it'll be for years yet. It’s a softer version of brexit than many vocal people wanted, including myself. With the little details that are about, I think it’s not so soft that it’s worth getting upset about. The genuine fear was we would still be in reality members but under the charade of not being. I don’t think this is the case, I think we have been given enough meat to chew on for now. Hopefully we can all move forwards and start to focus on the shambles of this government and opposition and use this as a springboard to push prosperity in this country. We can’t afford to stagnate much longer and some real leadership is needed going forwards.
Webbo Posted 9 December 2017 Posted 9 December 2017 39 minutes ago, Strokes said: It’s a softer version of brexit than many vocal people wanted, including myself. With the little details that are about, I think it’s not so soft that it’s worth getting upset about. The genuine fear was we would still be in reality members but under the charade of not being. I don’t think this is the case, I think we have been given enough meat to chew on for now. Hopefully we can all move forwards and start to focus on the shambles of this government and opposition and use this as a springboard to push prosperity in this country. We can’t afford to stagnate much longer and some real leadership is needed going forwards. Its too vague for me yet to know for sure whether I'm happy or not. Alignment of standards doesn't bother me too much as long as it doesn't stop us making new deals with other countries. If our animal welfare, product standards are the same I don't mind as long as it doesn't stop us importing goods of different, but not necessarily inferior, standards.
Sharpe's Fox Posted 9 December 2017 Posted 9 December 2017 (edited) Quote Theresa May's Week according to Hugo Rifkind Monday I’ve just flown back from a disastrous meeting in Brussels into another one in Downing Street. Everybody is shouting at each other. “Nothing has changed,” I say. “Nothing has changed.” “It’s bad,” says Gavin Barwell. “The DUP are our most important allies.” “Except for the animals,” says Michael Gove, piously. “Ukip?” says Barwell, bewildered. “No,” says Gove. “Literally the animals. Who we love. Because we are Conservatives.” This keeps happening with Michael. Ever since I made him environment secretary all he wants to talk about is animals. It’s getting really annoying. “Shut up about the animals,” says Amber Rudd. “Listen. Did nobody actually check with Arlene Foster?” “I did!” says David Davis. “What did she say?” asks Rudd. “Oh OK,” says Davis. “No I didn’t.” Then Boris Johnson says he actually tried to, but had to hang up when she started shouting at him about fornication and Satan. “Also,” said Damian Green, “I tried to Skype her.” “And?” says Amber. Damian says it didn’t work. Apparently his laptop has some sort of virus. “This government is chaos,” says Boris. “You must realise. Half the people in this room simply don’t think you’re up to the job.” “Nothing has changed!” I trill. “Nothing has changed!” “I didn’t say anything had changed,” says Boris.Tuesday I’m practising how to pronounce “Leo Varadkar”, having given up on “taoiseach”, when we finally get hold of Arlene Foster. She says the simple fact is that she cannot accept anything that separates Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. “You want us,” I say, “to remove the sea?” “No,” says Foster. “Actually, maybe. Can you?” “I don’t think so,” I say. Gavin Barwell, who is listening on the other extension, puts a hand over his mouthpiece. It might actually be the simplest option, he says.Wednesday Today isn’t much better. David Davis has been hauled up in front of a parliamentary committee to talk about our assessments of the economic impacts of leaving the EU. In the past, he’d said they contained “excruciating detail”. But now he’s admitted we never actually had any impact assessments at all. “Gosh,” says Damian Green. “That really is an excruciating detail.” Then I ask David if we’ve done any impact assessments into the impact of not having done any impact assessments. “Oh yes!” he says. “Phew,” I say. “And what do they say?” “Actually, no,” says David. “This feels bad,” I say. “Is it bad?” “Honestly David,” says Damian. “What have you been doing for the last year and a half?” “Oh, I’ve had my hands full,” says David. Damian snorts. “Although obviously not as full as yours,” says David.Thursday If we don’t get to the next round of negotiations I reckon I’m toast. So today we’re deep in negotiations on speakerphone with the DUP, the Irish taoiseach and the president of the European Commission to see if we can find a compromise. Turns out the Irish aren’t up for draining the sea after all. So that’s a blow. “We don’t want any hard borders,” says Arlene Foster. “Nor do we,” says Leo Varadkar. “Nor do we,” says David Davis. For a few moments, nobody says anything. “Well, that was easy,” says Jean-Claude Juncker. “But surely,” says Arlene, “we can’t just leave it at that?” There’s another long silence. “We could try?” I say.Friday First thing this morning I went to Brussels. Now I’m back again. Everybody is really pleased with me. “Nothing has changed,” I say, modestly. “You’ll recall I predicted this victory,” says David Davis, “in the forward-planning scenarios assessment that don’t actually exist.” “The party is very relieved,” says Gavin Barwell. “So are the Irish,” says Damian Green. “The animals are delighted,” says Michael Gove. Amber Rudd says I’ve really scored a vital blow in our negotiations against the enemy. “I thought we weren’t allowed to call them the enemy,” says Boris. “I meant your lot,” says Amber. “The thing I still can’t figure out,” says Philip Hammond, “is whether you’ve even got a plan. All those robot platitudes. Is it a strategy? Or isn’t it?” “Brexit means Brexit,” I say, happily. “Nothing has changed.” https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/my-week-theresa-may-gn7fqc9wc Edited 9 December 2017 by Sharpe's Fox 1 1
Guest Posted 9 December 2017 Posted 9 December 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Strokes said: It’s a softer version of brexit than many vocal people wanted, including myself. With the little details that are about, I think it’s not so soft that it’s worth getting upset about. The genuine fear was we would still be in reality members but under the charade of not being. I don’t think this is the case, I think we have been given enough meat to chew on for now. Hopefully we can all move forwards and start to focus on the shambles of this government and opposition and use this as a springboard to push prosperity in this country. We can’t afford to stagnate much longer and some real leadership is needed going forwards. 29 minutes ago, Webbo said: Its too vague for me yet to know for sure whether I'm happy or not. Alignment of standards doesn't bother me too much as long as it doesn't stop us making new deals with other countries. If our animal welfare, product standards are the same I don't mind as long as it doesn't stop us importing goods of different, but not necessarily inferior, standards. Although I think that the deal - so far, as who knows what other concessions there'll be in the next stage - is closer to a soft than a hard Brexit I would say that, despite everything, TM has actually done a decent job. I am a little surprised you guys are not kicking off a bit more but - and you wont agree with this - I have a sense that unless there is a real non-Brexit outcome leavers will try to claim they're happy-ish with the result whatever. There's no way you'd ever admit to it but when it briefly looked like no deal was a possibility there seemed to be a slight hesitation on the part of many leavers, as if even they would slightly panic at the prospect of a true no deal step into the unknown. Maybe not. At least in this current moment what's been agreed slightly dampens down the arguments. Edited 9 December 2017 by Guest
Strokes Posted 9 December 2017 Posted 9 December 2017 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: Although I think that the deal - so far, as who knows what other concessions there'll be in the next stage - is closer to a soft than a hard Brexit I would say that, despite everything, TM has actually done a decent job. I am a little surprised you guys are not kicking off a bit more but - and you wont agree with this - I have a sense that unless there is a real non-Brexit outcome leavers will try to claim they're happy-ish with the result whatever. There's no way you'd ever admit to it but when it briefly looked like no deal was a possibility there seemed to be a slight hesitation on the part of many leavers, as if even they would slightly panic at the prospect of a true no deal step into the unknown. Maybe not. At least in this current moment what's been agreed slightly dampens down the arguments. I don’t think Webbo has ever been a fan of hard brexit, I don’t think it was matts preferred option either. I’ve always favoured leaving hard with re-establishing a relationship from ground zero. I’ve mentioned many times that there are things I would accept and others that I would find a betrayal. From what I’ve read so far and it’s very sketchy the info, it walks the tightrope of acceptability. I don’t care if remainers feel they have done better, whatever you think, it wasn’t about beating remainers it was about freedoms. I t doesn’t look like the fundemental have been conceded. As I understand it, we will be out the single market, out of the customs union, end FOM and be able to conclude our own trade deals. The ECJs powers will be restricted and eventually dissipated within the shores, the settlement includes the transition which is in effect, extended membership worth £10bil per annum. So plenty of positives, if it’s all correct.
Guest Posted 9 December 2017 Posted 9 December 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Strokes said: I don’t think Webbo has ever been a fan of hard brexit, I don’t think it was matts preferred option either. I’ve always favoured leaving hard with re-establishing a relationship from ground zero. I’ve mentioned many times that there are things I would accept and others that I would find a betrayal. From what I’ve read so far and it’s very sketchy the info, it walks the tightrope of acceptability. I don’t care if remainers feel they have done better, whatever you think, it wasn’t about beating remainers it was about freedoms. I t doesn’t look like the fundemental have been conceded. As I understand it, we will be out the single market, out of the customs union, end FOM and be able to conclude our own trade deals. The ECJs powers will be restricted and eventually dissipated within the shores, the settlement includes the transition which is in effect, extended membership worth £10bil per annum. So plenty of positives, if it’s all correct. It will be interesting what happens with TM. She cant really be got rid of mid-negotiation and, given that even I'm giving her credit atm, she may well get a bounce if she gets a good final outcome. Does that then mean the Tories stick with her? Time will tell I suppose. Edited 9 December 2017 by Guest
Innovindil Posted 9 December 2017 Posted 9 December 2017 8 minutes ago, toddybad said: It will be interesting what happens with TM. She cant really be got rid of mid-negotiation and, given that even I'm giving her credit atm, she may well get a bounce if she gets a good final outcome. Does that then mean the Tories stick with her? Time will tell I suppose. If May makes it through these negotiations with any semblance of credibility left then she has practically performed a jesus level miracle and should be worshipped by the tories tbh. I highly doubt there are many politicians, in any party, that could have done better. 1
Webbo Posted 9 December 2017 Posted 9 December 2017 11 minutes ago, Strokes said: I don’t think Webbo has ever been a fan of hard brexit, I don’t think it was matts preferred option either. I’ve always favoured leaving hard with re-establishing a relationship from ground zero. I’ve mentioned many times that there are things I would accept and others that I would find a betrayal. From what I’ve read so far and it’s very sketchy the info, it walks the tightrope of acceptability. I don’t care if remainers feel they have done better, whatever you think, it wasn’t about beating remainers it was about freedoms. I t doesn’t look like the fundemental have been conceded. As I understand it, we will be out the single market, out of the customs union, end FOM and be able to conclude our own trade deals. The ECJs powers will be restricted and eventually dissipated within the shores, the settlement includes the transition which is in effect, extended membership worth £10bil per annum. So plenty of positives, if it’s all correct. As I said earlier, hard brexit can mean whatever you want it to mean. I've always preferred a deal but I still believe that no deal is better than a bad deal. If it came to the crunch I'd be happy to walk away. 1
Webbo Posted 9 December 2017 Posted 9 December 2017 Just now, Innovindil said: If May makes it through these negotiations with any semblance of credibility left then she has practically performed a jesus level miracle and should be worshipped by the tories tbh. I highly doubt there are many politicians, in any party, that could have done better. I can't see her running in the next election.
Innovindil Posted 9 December 2017 Posted 9 December 2017 21 minutes ago, Webbo said: I can't see her running in the next election. Why? You don't think she's done okay under the circumstances?
Webbo Posted 9 December 2017 Posted 9 December 2017 Just now, Innovindil said: Why? You don't think she's done okay under the circumstances? She's not a natural campaigner. I don't think she'd want to go through that again and I don't think the party would let her.
Strokes Posted 9 December 2017 Posted 9 December 2017 1 hour ago, Webbo said: She's not a natural campaigner. I don't think she'd want to go through that again and I don't think the party would let her. No I agree, as much as I hate it, politics needs to be led by engaging and charismatic people. It’s almost xfactor like and if you don’t, you will fail. If she pulls off a deal that pleases more than 50% of the electorate, she has done remarkably well and can bow out head held high.
The Guvnor Posted 9 December 2017 Posted 9 December 2017 I personally don't see how T M has improved her credibility at all during these negotiations, it seems to me that the EU are totally in control of the talks and would not need to concede to anything. The fact that the pro remainers are presently reacting like the cat that's just had a large helping of cream speaks volumes.
Guest Posted 10 December 2017 Posted 10 December 2017 Attacks on McDonnell a sign Tories know stance on borrowing is defunct Larry Elliott Published:13:01 GMT+00:00 Sun 10 December 2017 Follow Larry Elliott Philip Hammond with John McDonnell. Both know that governments do not go bust, which means that they can borrow more cheaply than companies. Photograph: Jeff Overs/BBC/PA Obsession with debt reduction has been disastrous and arguments against a borrow-to-invest approach no longer pass muster Rarely has a chancellor had to publish economic forecasts as downbeat as those in last month’s budget, but so far the political fallout has been minimal. Philip Hammond has had a good couple of weeks. That is partly explained by the focus on other matters, such as the investigation into Damian Green and, of course, Brexit. An added bonus for Hammond is that the post-budget attention has not been on him but on John McDonnell, his Labour shadow. McDonnell’s problems began on budget day when Andrew Neil asked him how much Britain was paying each year in debt interest. The shadow chancellor clearly did not know the answer - £48bn - and tried to wing it. In a subsequent interview, he bridled when questioned about how much Labour’s spending plans would add to the national debt - impossible to say - replying that was why his advisers had iPads.That was the cue for a concerted attack on McDonnell and his plan to borrow an additional £250bn over the next decade for investment in Britain’s infrastructure. There was much talk about leaving future generations with an intolerable debt burden, with the political subtext being that a man who could not give a straightforward answer to simple questions could not be trusted with the nation’s money. This was not the shadow chancellor’s finest hour. He came across as overconfident and underprepared. It is hard to imagine Gordon Brown not knowing how much the Major government was paying in debt interest back in the mid-1990s. That said though, McDonnell was right. Extra borrowing certainly means an increase in the national debt and higher debt interest payments in the short term, but that is not the real issue. Imagine the chief executive of a FTSE 100 company going on TV to announce that the company was planning to go to the City to finance a new plant. The interview would not centre on what the investment meant for the company’s debt interest payments. The chief executive would be asked about what it meant for jobs, earnings and profits. In the event that the chief executive was asked about the cost of the investment, they would give the same answer as McDonnell did, that at current rates of interest the investment would more than pay for itself, because otherwise we would not be doing it. Our debt interest payments will depend on what happens to interest rates and inflation, but our best judgment is that the investment will wash itself. Instead of obsessing about the red herring of debt interest payments, more attention should be paid to the things that do matter. Labour is planning to borrow to invest, not to cover day-to-day government spending, and that makes sense if the return on the investment is higher than the cost of financing the extra debt. Governments do not go bust, which means that they can borrow more cheaply than companies. Since the financial crisis of a decade ago, interest rates have been historically low and if he chose to do so, Hammond could borrow money at a cost of little more than 2%, below the current rate of inflation. All very well, McDonnell’s critics may say, but what happens if a chancellor’s public investment plans spook the markets and force up interest rates? In those circumstances, higher public investment will make private investment more expensive and so less attractive. This would certainly be a plausible argument were Britain at the height of a raging boom, but the chances of that any time soon look pretty remote. The financial markets currently think that 10-year bond yields - how much it costs the government to borrow for 10 year- will still only be just over 2% in 2027. As Michael Burke noted in Socialist Economic Bulletin, the returns on commercial investment are on average around 12%. “Any government, or business, which can borrow at such low interest rates for such high investment returns would be foolish to pass up this opportunity. It is reckless and extreme that the Tories have passed up this opportunity,” the Irish economist wrote. This raises a second issue, namely whether a future Labour government would get a commercial rate of return on its investment. That means choosing the right projects, which Labour says it would do after consultation with industry and expert bodies. The £10bn cost of a Crossrail for the north would unlock £85bn of additional economic growth, the party says, while electrification of the Great Western Railway would cost £750m but generate economic benefits two and a half times as big. Debt levels were high – albeit declining as a share of GDP – in the 1950s and 60s when governments borrowed money to build houses and the motorway network. They were right to do so. There were equally some real turkeys, most notably Concorde and nuclear power stations, and Whitehall is still a sucker for a vanity project. Witness HS2. The highest rates of return are often on unglamorous local projects, but they are available. The criticism aimed at McDonnell in the past couple of weeks is a sign that the government and its media allies are worried, as they should be because the last seven years are littered with mistakes, spurned opportunities and missed targets, all of which have resulted in austerity lasting for 15 years rather than five. It was reckless of George Osborne as chancellor to cut capital investment so deeply in 2010 in the belief that there would be a fillip to private-sector confidence from his tough approach to deficit reduction. The private sector investment boom never happened, growth slowed and the government missed all its deficit and debt targets. When the newly formed Office for Budget Responsibility made its first forecasts in the summer of 2010, it predicted that debt as a share of national income would peak in 2013-14 at just over 70% of GDP. With a bit of creative accounting, Hammond says the peak will now be in the current financial year, 2017-18, but at 86.5% of GDP. Interest payments on the debt are expected to run at just over £50bn a year for the next five years. As Lord Robert Skidelsky said in a recent House of Lords debate, since 2010 the government had made “liquidating the deficit and reducing the share of the national debt in GDP their top priority. No matter that they keep missing their targets, they return to them every year, but each time with a longer timeline.” Skidelsky added that it was the government’s obsession with deficit reduction that left them with no money to finance its new industrial strategy. “We could put it technically. What they have done is concentrated on reducing the numerator – the deficit – without considering its harmful effects on the denominator, which is the economy.” McDonnell is suggesting the opposite approach. Not before time.
Webbo Posted 10 December 2017 Posted 10 December 2017 That's a novel interpretation. If you disagree with a policy it means you know we're right.
Claridge Posted 10 December 2017 Posted 10 December 2017 What a load of tosh. We owe a trillion now and i'm not sure what we have got for our money. Government spending rarely works as it is so badly spent and abused. Trust me i have had my nose in the trough for years 1
Strokes Posted 10 December 2017 Posted 10 December 2017 9 minutes ago, Webbo said: That's a novel interpretation. If you disagree with a policy it means you know we're right. If government spending paid for itself in kind, why the hell are we in debt now? 1
Buce Posted 10 December 2017 Posted 10 December 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Strokes said: If government spending paid for itself in kind, why the hell are we in debt now? I think the point made is that borrowing for infastructure pays for itself, as opposed to borrowing to pay the bills. Edited 10 December 2017 by Buce
Strokes Posted 10 December 2017 Posted 10 December 2017 1 minute ago, Buce said: I think the point made is that borrowing for infastructure pays for itself, as opposed borrowing to pay the bills. I’m not sure it stacks up though, I wouldn’t rubbish all of Labours plans because clearly some do have merit from either a social perspective, an economic one or both. Too say that this will return pound for pound though, feels a bit of a cop out and disingenuous to me.
Webbo Posted 10 December 2017 Posted 10 December 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/09/what-would-it-take-for-labour-moderates-to-revolt
Buce Posted 10 December 2017 Posted 10 December 2017 16 minutes ago, Webbo said: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/09/what-would-it-take-for-labour-moderates-to-revolt Quoting the grauniad, Webbo? You’ll be reading Das Kapital before you know it.
Webbo Posted 10 December 2017 Posted 10 December 2017 6 minutes ago, Buce said: Quoting the grauniad, Webbo? You’ll be reading Das Kapital before you know it. I feel dirty.
Buce Posted 10 December 2017 Posted 10 December 2017 3 minutes ago, Webbo said: I feel dirty. Sounds like Mrs Webbo’s in for a treat tonight.
Sharpe's Fox Posted 10 December 2017 Posted 10 December 2017 Nick Cohen is a particularly greedy little scrote whose record of hatred for the left is only matched by his record of being consistently wrong despite being a paid political commentator. Awful man.
Strokes Posted 10 December 2017 Posted 10 December 2017 3 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said: Nick Cohen is a particularly greedy little scrote whose record of hatred for the left is only matched by his record of being consistently wrong despite being a paid political commentator. Awful man. Is it the same guy that used to have a column on the spectator?
Recommended Posts