Tuesday 28th February 2017

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:38 pm

Temulkar wrote:
Ah now you're being a worm wriggling on a hook, you made your statements so stick by them dont try and move the conversation to a completely different point, as if it justified your earlier statement. It does not, and is a well established trolling technique, so if you're not trolling don't do it SH.

Sorry, I am not sure you've grasped how arguments work. What you're allowed to do is make a new point. That isn't "cheating".

Calls to be loyal to Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne deserve nothing but mockery.

Calls for people to be loyal to Labour from self-professed Greens deserve mockery, but probably only get laughter.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 12:42 pm

Rob I take it back you were right.

Sigh, it was going really well in here this morning, interesting posts friendly conversation and now here we are again. Im off till later when the trolls have fucked off again. Amazing how when peace almost breaks out they arrive with their bile.

edited to add.

And actually I hope that some of those posters who were enjoying the posts on the forum, note when the tone of the forum changed.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:04 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:"Internationalist" Corbyn wants no part of NATO or, as far as I can tell. He'll chuck the Single Market away so he can compete with Trump on steel tariffs. And a dollop of the anti-imperialism of fools.
Not sure what a military power bloc has to do with internationalism. The only time Article 5 of the treaty has ever been invoked was to enable the US to enlist allies for its invasion of Afghanistan. France has withdrawn before without being accused of isolationism.

Putin?

A big chunk of our European partners are rather worried about him. We're going to be negotiating with them. It peacefully absorbed the ex-Warsaw Pact countries too. It's an important part of the peace. You don't pick bits of that apart lightly.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:04 pm

http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2017/02/st ... um=twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Four reasons why we have more than two choices on the State Pension

Touchstone

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:07 pm

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

French Poll

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:08 pm

Temulkar wrote:Rob I take it back you were right.

Sigh, it was going really well in here this morning, interesting posts friendly conversation and now here we are again. Im off till later when the trolls have fucked off again. Amazing how when peace almost breaks out they arrive with their bile.

edited to add.

And actually I hope that some of those posters who were enjoying the posts on the forum, note when the tone of the forum changed.

Of all the ridiculous things I've seen, you as the arbiter of tone and fearless opponent of bile, that takes the biscuit.

NonOxCol · Post by **NonOxCol** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:10 pm

More of that "real fight" business here:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/02 ... ard-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just to speak up for those of us who clearly aren't as left wing and pure as we thought we were before 23rd June. I used to be exasperated by Technical Ephemera's relentless Corbyn-bashing in late 2015/early 2016. I'm relieved he's back and now thank nearly every one of his posts.

Corbyn makes me embarrassed to support Labour, and that's in spite of his commitment to social justice. Blair made me angry - though not nearly angry enough to forget everything and just shout "Iraq! PFI!" at everybody in the vicinity. He never made me feel embarrassed.

Before the inevitable flaming I'd just add that if this is coming from someone who has never in 25 years been a "floating voter", imagine how he's going down with those who are.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:12 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Relaunch imminent, as Seumas gets a grip on things

http://www.politico.eu/article/court-of ... left-wing/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In fairness, if administrators are leaking stuff like they say, you're going to want to tighten it up. I don't blame them for that.

What input is there to these policies they're about to announce? That's what worries me a huge amount. If they're going down, and at least some of them must feel they are, they might as go down with a swing. A few gifts to May?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:18 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
Ah now you're being a worm wriggling on a hook, you made your statements so stick by them dont try and move the conversation to a completely different point, as if it justified your earlier statement. It does not, and is a well established trolling technique, so if you're not trolling don't do it SH.
Sorry, I am not sure you've grasped how arguments work. What you're allowed to do is make a new point. That isn't "cheating".

Calls to be loyal to Corbyn, McDonnell and Milne deserve nothing but mockery.

Calls for people to be loyal to Labour from self-professed Greens deserve mockery, but probably only get laughter.
What about calls for people to vote Green in the hope of undermining Labour?

If that were your motivation? A thoroughly bad thing to do.

if however you consider Brexit to be the political question that dwarfs all others, upon which the ability to do things, like, spend more on the NHS or benefits turns, then you have to vote for a party that opposes it.

In England that leaves you with few choices. But the Greens have consistently opposed Brexit. So they have my vote.

(As I've said before, I think it is immoral to vote for a party led by Corbyn, but that is a separate issue.)

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:18 pm

NonOxCol wrote:More of that "real fight" business here:

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2017/02 ... ard-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just to speak up for those of us who clearly aren't as left wing and pure as we thought we were before 23rd June. I used to be exasperated by Technical Ephemera's relentless Corbyn-bashing in late 2015/early 2016. I'm relieved he's back and now thank nearly every one of his posts.

Corbyn makes me embarrassed to support Labour, and that's in spite of his commitment to social justice. Blair made me angry - though not nearly angry enough to forget everything and just shout "Iraq! PFI!" at everybody in the vicinity. He never made me feel embarrassed.

Before the inevitable flaming I'd just add that if this is coming from someone who has never in 25 years been a "floating voter", imagine how he's going down with those who are.

Indeed.

I mean, just on PFI- has any work been done unravelling the worst ones. As I understand it, you just need a large central fund to loan out a lump sum to eg a trust, and they pay back over time, saving money on the PFI payments. Northumbria and Hereford have done it, to the great satisfaction of all parties.

I doubt they're all that easy (or indeed that the PFIs were all bad enough to be a priority) but where are we on this? Are we interested in policies, saving money, or j "PFI" as an internal Labour power struggle thing?

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:23 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Relaunch imminent, as Seumas gets a grip on things

http://www.politico.eu/article/court-of ... left-wing/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In fairness, if administrators are leaking stuff like they say, you're going to want to tighten it up. I don't blame them for that.

What input is there to these policies they're about to announce? That's what worries me a huge amount. If they're going down, and at least some of them must feel they are, they might as go down with a swing. A few gifts to May?

Who knows? One argument against the coup is that it brought to an end the economic advisory panel. Now in some ways that was always a sham. Piketty and Stiglitz never showed. Pettifor is an oddball. Nesvetailova a non-entity. But while McD was doing what Blanchflower and more especially Wren-Lewis told him to do, there was hope of something both interesting and in accordance with academic orthodoxy.

Now who knows? Who is McD listening to? Paul Mason??!??

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:23 pm

Disingenuous shite from Green re "nobody is losing out" by PIP cuts via bypassing normal.scrutiny.All transfers from DLA and current reassessed will be subject,in two weeks.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:25 pm

@RobertSnozers

I'm trying to understand, but I really can't get my head around what you're saying.

But membership of the single market does not meet your 'possible' test. Even if we wanted it, the EU will not offer it,

Because my understanding is that the single market is very much on offer, but only on the EU's terms. What isn't on offer is anything which doesn't involve accepting the four freedoms. Which is why it's the single market (clearly inferior to full membership of the EU) or we're completely out, hard Brexit, WTO terms, off a cliff edge.

Which is surely why most Labour supporters voted remain in the first place.

It's a choice between two things that are worse than what we have now. May has to take the second choice because her Eurosceptics were responsible for leading us out and she has to have something to show for it, even if that something is extremely superficial and makes life for everyone in the UK much worse. Labour can choose the first one if it wants. The two reasons not to choose it are because Labour think it's the worst option (I don't agree) or because they think it will be unpopular (probably true). I'm not trying to find fault with Labour, I just see things differently and I'm not willing to support a road which is leading Labour MPs to go along with the scapegoating of immigration for things immigration didn't cause. As soon as you stop defending free movement of people, those who wish to blame immigrants for all our ills will win, as far as I can see, and this will only lead to demands from the public for more populist nationalist measures, not less.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:26 pm

HindleA wrote:Disingenuous shite from Green re "nobody is losing out" by PIP cuts via bypassing normal.scrutiny.All transfers from DLA and current reassessed will be subject,in two weeks.

Appreciate you keeping an eye on this.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:29 pm

UQ by Stephen Timms

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:30 pm

Wren-Lewis is interesting. I have plenty of disagreements with him (most especially I think the economists dropped the ball in failing to spot the 2012- upturn so that Osborne could claim vindication. the impression had been created that no recovery was possible under austerity) but he saw Corbyn and McDonnell closer than most here will. I also completely agree with him about Brexit.

He is now tweeting support for the Lib Dems

https://twitter.com/sjwrenlewis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:34 pm

Willow904 wrote:@RobertSnozers

I'm trying to understand, but I really can't get my head around what you're saying.

But membership of the single market does not meet your 'possible' test. Even if we wanted it, the EU will not offer it,
Because my understanding is that the single market is very much on offer, but only on the EU's terms. What isn't on offer is anything which doesn't involve accepting the four freedoms. Which is why it's the single market (clearly inferior to full membership of the EU) or we're completely out, hard Brexit, WTO terms, off a cliff edge.

Which is surely why most Labour supporters voted remain in the first place.

It's a choice between two things that are worse than what we have now. May has to take the second choice because her Eurosceptics were responsible for leading us out and she has to have something to show for it, even if that something is extremely superficial and makes life for everyone in the UK much worse. Labour can choose the first one if it wants. The two reasons not to choose it are because Labour think it's the worst option (I don't agree) or because they think it will be unpopular (probably true). I'm not trying to find fault with Labour, I just see things differently and I'm not willing to support a road which is leading Labour MPs to go along with the scapegoating of immigration for things immigration didn't cause. As soon as you stop defending free movement of people, those who wish to blame immigrants for all our ills will win, as far as I can see, and this will only lead to demands from the public for more populist nationalist measures, not less.

Nick Clegg (who will have excellent contacts) said that a soft Brexit is very much on the cards with an immigration "brake". I don't think he was contradicted, was he?

Why not make an undertaking you'll go for it? More to the point, maybe, why not as the Opposition make the government tell everyone they don't really care about the Single Market?

The "four freedoms" were separable to the extent Cameron was granted an emergency immigration brake in his useless negotiations, where he tried to change the whole EU for the sake of his internal political timetable. Something is possible with decent diplomacy, over 2 years.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:35 pm

HindleA wrote:UQ by Stephen Timms

Timms has some pretty fire and brimstone religious views but he seems to get his head down.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:36 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:Wren-Lewis is interesting. I have plenty of disagreements with him (most especially I think the economists dropped the ball in failing to spot the 2012- upturn so that Osborne could claim vindication. the impression had been created that no recovery was possible under austerity) but he saw Corbyn and McDonnell closer than most here will. I also completely agree with him about Brexit.

He is now tweeting support for the Lib Dems

https://twitter.com/sjwrenlewis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There was a covert Plan B in 2012 though, wasn't there?

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:37 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Temulkar wrote:Rob I take it back you were right.

Sigh, it was going really well in here this morning, interesting posts friendly conversation and now here we are again. Im off till later when the trolls have fucked off again. Amazing how when peace almost breaks out they arrive with their bile.

edited to add.

And actually I hope that some of those posters who were enjoying the posts on the forum, note when the tone of the forum changed.
Of all the ridiculous things I've seen, you as the arbiter of tone and fearless opponent of bile, that takes the biscuit.

Everyone was being polite, everyone was posting good interesting stuff, now the tone has completely changed. Its pretty clerly evidenced in the thread, and to anyone looking on its not hard to discern at what point the conflict started and who initiated it. For a couple of hours this place was as of old, witth people with diametrically opposed views posting and discussing happily. Now look at it.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:44 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:Wren-Lewis is interesting. I have plenty of disagreements with him (most especially I think the economists dropped the ball in failing to spot the 2012- upturn so that Osborne could claim vindication. the impression had been created that no recovery was possible under austerity) but he saw Corbyn and McDonnell closer than most here will. I also completely agree with him about Brexit.

He is now tweeting support for the Lib Dems

https://twitter.com/sjwrenlewis" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
There was a covert Plan B in 2012 though, wasn't there?

There was, and the economists should have been shouting "he stopped austerity" but they didn't. Only when the recovery became apparent did they go back and review what Osborne had done, which looked ex post. Osborne won, when he shouldn't have done, and the economists looked like fools. Blanchflower in particular discredited himself by making extravagant claims about how no recovery could happen, when all the data said it already was. he got it wrong (as he himself has been big enough to say).

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:47 pm

I agree with most of that.

In defence of Blanchflower, I think he did spot austerity being scaled back quicker than most. I recall him tweeting a link about where growth had come from and saying "look, it's government spending!"

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:54 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why have all attempts to fix Britain’s housing crisis failed? Look to the land
Toby Lloyd

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:57 pm

Jo Maugham QC
‏Verified account @JolyonMaugham
Jo Maugham QC Retweeted Faisal Islam
If you're wealthy and don't give a monkey's arse about the effects of Brexit on the poor Boris' jokes are just hilarious.

Faisal Islam
‏Verified account @faisalislam
Foreign Sec: GErman carmakers/ french champagne exporters want a free trade deal. Repeats joke that we are "pro-secco" and not "anti-pasto"

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 1:58 pm

BMW considers making electric Mini outside UK due to Brexit worries
Suggestion that carmaker could produce vehicle in Germany instead of Oxford comes amid fears over Vauxhall’s future

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... any-oxford" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 2:03 pm

HindleA wrote:http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/po ... cial_icons

Government to repay Hackney man with no legs whose benefits were cut because he ‘could climb stairs with his arms

"clerical error"

David Clapson's sister was on Moneybox on Saturday, heartbreaking.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08g2mgk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I didn't bother listening to Frank Field.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 2:07 pm

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... are_btn_tw

Why have all attempts to fix Britain’s housing crisis failed? Look to the land
Toby Lloyd

Good article.

The Victoria Derbyshire programme on BBC News 24 exposed a new scam recently where buyers of new-builds were being sold houses as leasehold properties. Some were facing ever growing ground rents that made their properties unsaleable, stranding them with costs they couldn't afford and no way out. I couldn't believe any solicitor would allow anyone to sign such a contract only to learn people were using solicitors recommended by the property developer. We truly live in a rentier society.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 2:12 pm

AngryAsWell wrote:Jo Maugham QC
‏Verified account @JolyonMaugham
Jo Maugham QC Retweeted Faisal Islam
If you're wealthy and don't give a monkey's arse about the effects of Brexit on the poor Boris' jokes are just hilarious.

Faisal Islam
‏Verified account @faisalislam
Foreign Sec: GErman carmakers/ french champagne exporters want a free trade deal. Repeats joke that we are "pro-secco" and not "anti-pasto"

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He was wearing thin in London.

He'll wear very thin at the Foreign Office.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 2:23 pm

Faisal Islam
‏Verified account @faisalislam

hour before Johnson speech, Nissan VP told Commons Trade committee that company would re-examine its investment strategy post brexit terms..

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 2:27 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: Indeed.

I mean, just on PFI- has any work been done unravelling the worst ones. As I understand it, you just need a large central fund to loan out a lump sum to eg a trust, and they pay back over time, saving money on the PFI payments. Northumbria and Hereford have done it, to the great satisfaction of all parties.

I doubt they're all that easy (or indeed that the PFIs were all bad enough to be a priority) but where are we on this? Are we interested in policies, saving money, or j "PFI" as an internal Labour power struggle thing?

Suppose you wanted to buy out a PFI deal, you'd need to put up a lump sum as you say, and the amount of that lump sum would be related to 1) the rate of return built into the PFI deal and 2) interest rates generally at the time. If interest rates are very low, isn't the lump sum much bigger? Might be why it's not happening now.
PFI payments are fixed and will be the first line entered in a hospital budget so irrelevant to 'unforeseen' pressures on funding arising during the year. Should be taken out of hospital budgets and paid centrally.

That large central fund would add to the national debt.

Labour are still frightened of that.

Recently on Newsnight I heard a minister, not sure who, declare in so many words why councils couldn't be allowed to build houses for social rent - because it would add to the debt. Quite unusual to hear it put so bluntly.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 2:29 pm

Admittedly, I wouldn't claim to have read much literature
(probably too much Erik Von Danekin, Terry Pratchett & Readers Digest's various doorstops), but even I've read 1984, if only because it was one of our O'level books... with lots of essays on it, and the exam.
So having just had to Google "Emmanuel Goldstein",
am now slightly worried about my memory, although it was 35 years ago.
Obviously, I blame Hugo.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 2:35 pm

Peanuts/Charlie Brown books-it's all there.A few squiggles-genius.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 2:36 pm

Yeah, I can see that problem with the fund being scary sounding debt. I think the Northumbria one happened because the LA had a big cash balance (£150m) for some reason. I've never got why local government finance really. So I don't think there was a shortfall increase in the national debt.

But I think generally people get the idea well enough of saving long term money. It needn't be all of them anyway. Just if there are particular pressures with a PFI or a particularly bad one, or an LA with a cash pile, you could get some done, and it would be felt to be very positive.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 2:36 pm

tinybgoat wrote: Obviously, I blame Hugo.

Quite right.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 2:39 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: an LA with a cash pile

The few LA's left with cash piles will be hanging on to them.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 2:41 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

‘Housing should be seen as a human right. Not a commodity

Post by **adam** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 2:45 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
tinybgoat wrote:Admittedly, I wouldn't claim to have read much literature
(probably too much Erik Von Danekin, Terry Pratchett & Readers Digest's various doorstops), but even I've read 1984, if only because it was one of our O'level books... with lots of essays on it, and the exam.
So having just had to Google "Emmanuel Goldstein",
am now slightly worried about my memory, although it was 35 years ago.
Obviously, I blame Hugo.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is...is...sorry, it's gone.

All animals are running into the valley of the shadow of death. 600 = amps over ohms.

Post by **adam** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 2:52 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
adam wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote: War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is...is...sorry, it's gone.
All animals are running into the valley of the shadow of death. 600 = amps over ohms.
OK, there are more references in there than I'm capable of figuring out. I see Animal Farm, then Psalm 23 and The Charge of the Light Br... oh, I get it! Charge! Very good. Sorry.

I'm going to claim that was deliberate and not just an accident of trying to make a point of vaguely remembering stuff from school.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 2:55 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... nsion-fund" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Philip Green agrees to pay £363m into BHS pension fund

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 2:56 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017 ... rump-slump" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

US tourism experiences a 'Trump slump'
Analysts estimate that President Trump has cost the US travel industry $185m in lost revenue, with significant drop in flight searches and bookings

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 2:56 pm

I don't see Norway plus an immigration brake a la Clegg as impossible. Or as that difficult a position for an Opposition, really. We've already got government ministers speaking up for the need for immigration in the workforces covered by their briefs.

Norway is a bad deal in that it removes our influence on the rules and we pay for the Single Market anyway.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 3:01 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
Tubby Isaacs wrote:
Willow904 wrote:@RobertSnozers

I'm trying to understand, but I really can't get my head around what you're saying.
Because my understanding is that the single market is very much on offer, but only on the EU's terms. What isn't on offer is anything which doesn't involve accepting the four freedoms. Which is why it's the single market (clearly inferior to full membership of the EU) or we're completely out, hard Brexit, WTO terms, off a cliff edge.

Which is surely why most Labour supporters voted remain in the first place.

It's a choice between two things that are worse than what we have now. May has to take the second choice because her Eurosceptics were responsible for leading us out and she has to have something to show for it, even if that something is extremely superficial and makes life for everyone in the UK much worse. Labour can choose the first one if it wants. The two reasons not to choose it are because Labour think it's the worst option (I don't agree) or because they think it will be unpopular (probably true). I'm not trying to find fault with Labour, I just see things differently and I'm not willing to support a road which is leading Labour MPs to go along with the scapegoating of immigration for things immigration didn't cause. As soon as you stop defending free movement of people, those who wish to blame immigrants for all our ills will win, as far as I can see, and this will only lead to demands from the public for more populist nationalist measures, not less.
Nick Clegg (who will have excellent contacts) said that a soft Brexit is very much on the cards with an immigration "brake". I don't think he was contradicted, was he?

Why not make an undertaking you'll go for it? More to the point, maybe, why not as the Opposition make the government tell everyone they don't really care about the Single Market?

The "four freedoms" were separable to the extent Cameron was granted an emergency immigration brake in his useless negotiations, where he tried to change the whole EU for the sake of his internal political timetable. Something is possible with decent diplomacy, over 2 years.
My view on that is that Cameron's 'brake' was the absolute limit of what the EU was prepared to concede and it still wasn't enough for most sceptics. The EU will not want to give the impression that you can negotiate a deal as a member, reject it and get a better one outside.

It was absolutely the most they'd concede with someone saying "give it now". Over a longer period, I don't know.

There's the UK being seen to get a worse deal, and avoiding too much hassle. Would it look like a better deal? I don't know. Is there anywhere else that fussed about "Poles" as the UK? Le Pen, Wilders and the other scumbags don't spend all that much rhetorical time on EU immigration, as far as I know.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 3:02 pm

Switzerland basically caved in on EU immigration. I don't know if there's been any uplift in their scumbag support. I haven't heard about it.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 3:19 pm

Good morfternoon.

Nissan may 'adjust' its investment in UK depending on outcome of Brexit, MPs told (Politics Live, Guardian)

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 3:22 pm

PFI deals were apparently largely agreed for a period of 20-30 years so surely the earlier ones would have been paid off or as near as dammit now, shouldn't they ?

Are the PFI deals the 21st century Iraq ?

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 3:23 pm

adam wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
adam wrote: All animals are running into the valley of the shadow of death. 600 = amps over ohms.
OK, there are more references in there than I'm capable of figuring out. I see Animal Farm, then Psalm 23 and The Charge of the Light Br... oh, I get it! Charge! Very good. Sorry.
I'm going to claim that was deliberate and not just an accident of trying to make a point of vaguely remembering stuff from school.

Having initially thought that current over ohms must signify "V", had a crisis of confidence with Ohm's Law
remembering (hooray) V=IR, not I/R.
So now working on the hidden meanings.
600 = Charge over the Resistance
hmm, I will crack it eventually.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 3:29 pm

Exclusive: All schools to teach sex and relationship education from age four

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-02-28/excl ... rom-age-4/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Now the Government is pledging to bring in new "Relationship and Sex Education" to every primary and secondary school in England, including academies, independents and (most controversially) even religious free schools."

How? Academies, independents, religious & free all set their own curriculum. Will government have to pass an act of parliament forcing these schools to use the national curriculum for Relationship and Sex Education, and if so will they be able to restrict it to just Relationship and Sex Education?
Interested because if/when we ever get a party in power interested in sorting out education (again) will a limited act on S&E enable them to use it as a backdoor to re-introduce the full national curriculum back into all schools? and is that important?

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 3:29 pm

PorFavor wrote:Good morfternoon.

Nissan may 'adjust' its investment in UK depending on outcome of Brexit, MPs told (Politics Live, Guardian)

Jez loves this stuff. It's "I love 1973".

What the Labour Right that's gone Kipper thinks about it, God only knows.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 3:42 pm

Delay Brexit if no trade deal reached, say business leaders

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39111813" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 28 Feb, 2017 3:47 pm

Poor people urged to give up benefits for Lent

http://newsthump.com/2016/02/10/poor-pe ... ialnetwork" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

(*satire - I think.....)