Tuesday 15 July 2017

[SpinningHugo]

Morning all

Polly Toynbee bright and breezy about the shadow trade secretary

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

One of the more extraordinary things about Gardiner contradicting Starmer is that he has done so without being called out on it by the leadership.

I think it is because it has been approved. He wouldn't otherwise have dared.

Toynbee has been speaking with Starmer (who is otherwise silent on this policy shift by Corbyn). But, whatever else is wrong about the Gardiner's position it is comprehensible. Starmer's (and the 6 tests) make no internal sense, and so couldn't be anything other than a holding position.

The pivot seems to have come, and Labour has gone for a Harder Brexit than the Tories.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Morning all

Polly Toynbee bright and breezy about the shadow trade secretary

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

One of the more extraordinary things about Gardiner contradicting Starmer is that he has done so without being called out on it by the leadership.

I think it is because it has been approved. He wouldn't otherwise have dared.

Toynbee has been speaking with Starmer (who is otherwise silent on this policy shift by Corbyn). But, whatever else is wrong about the Gardiner's position it is comprehensible. Starmer's (and the 6 tests) make no internal sense, and so couldn't be anything other than a holding position.

The pivot seems to have come, and Labour has gone for a Harder Brexit than the Tories.

This boils down to this

Giving a mistaken legal reason that leaving the EU means exiting the market, he ignored those such as Norway in the European Economic Area (EEA), in the single market not the EU – a harbour for the UK in transition (or permanently).

Well perhaps if some people hadn't droned on for the last year that you couldn't stay in the Single Market without staying in the EU he wouldn't have had to say that.

Frankly I despair. May goes off to Switzerland for three weeks and what do people do? Take the chance to bash Jeremy Corbyn.

[SpinningHugo]

Well perhaps if some people hadn't droned on for the last year that you couldn't stay in the Single Market without staying in the EU he wouldn't have had to say that.

The only person I've ever heard saying that, until last week, is howsillyofme on this messageboard, and so I rather doubt it influenced Corbyn much. I don't think it was a slip by Corbyn as he said the same thing the week before interviewed on bllomberg (I linked to it on here at the time).

Quite a few Brexiters endorsed the 'Norway' option at one point (eg Dan Hanan).

[howsillyofme1]

Interesting post from Adam last night which I disagree with significantly in parts but it made some valuable points that are fair

One thing I do disagree with fundamentally though is the statement that the discussion on the SM is pedantary

This is central to the whole point as the EU appears to see their internal market indivisible from Schengen, the CU and CAP

I suggest that if Schengen is invluded then it will be a challenge to sell to the electorate to say the least - and why would they allow us to maintain an opt out? Especially as it reinforces the Common Travel Area which is not sustainable

My other argument is that the propsals I see of SM and CU (and more perhaps) take us much further than Norway and how will that play with sn electorate who, like it or not, voted to Leave

Do you think that us leaving the EU on paper only but being subject to all current rules, paying more and no longer having a say is going to be sustainable in the medium term?

If you think the rhetoric is bad now...imagine what it will be in this scenario

Labour are the only hope to try and do something...the alternative is the Tories.....Hugo has made his call...he wants the Tories based on his last paragraph

As Paul said Labour has the six tests...let us see how they apply tgem when it really matters not in a debate in the media

[SpinningHugo]

"the EU appears to see their internal market indivisible from Schengen, the CU and CAP"

What a peculiar thing to say as there are examples of countries that don't have Schengen but do have the others (the UK), are members of the single market by don't have a CU or CAP (Norway) and members of a CU who have none of the rest (Turkey).

I am afraid I think you're just guilty of sophistry again. By raising Schengen, the likelihood of our joining or of EU negotiators insisting upon is minimal, you're adopting the same argument tactic as the Brexiters did of raising the spectre of Turkey becoming an EU member. Yes, there is a remote chance of that, but not enough that it is worth worrying about.

As for

"Hugo has made his call...he wants the Tories based on his last paragraph"

that is as ridiculous as the rest. I *loathe* the Tory position, as I've made clear. What is astonishing is that Labour appears to be going for a position even more extreme. I am glad I voted Green. Wrong as they are on may things, they're right on the biggest issue by far, dwarfing all the others (on which this depends).

Labour's six tests make no sense.

https://labourlist.org/2017/03/keir-sta ... arliament/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


The second, "the exact same benefits of the single market and customs union" is unachievable without remaining in the single market and customs union. So, we put Corbyn's (repeated) statements that we must leave the single market alongside the six tests, and we get to the conclusion that Labour wants us to leave the single market and join it.

For the avoidance of doubt, the government is just as clueless as the opposition on all this, which is very sad.

[howsillyofme1]

i am fed up of my position being misrepresented by Hugo

The EU internal market is large and covers a lot of things, four freedoms, CU, Schengen etc

The EU doesnt divide it in most cases as it is a requisite to be a member now. There are some old derogations such as UK on Schengen which were invluded in the treaties

Non EU members are able to participate in or access aspects of the internal market based on their own treaties

The 4 freedoms are non negotiable it seems but CU isnt and who knows for Schengen

Willow says membership means EEA but that contains certain derogations as well from the internal market too

I belabour this point as I think there is a simplistic approach that hides the complexities . A criticism we are only too happy to throw at the Leavers

Let us wait until the details of the negotiations arrive and we can see what they contain...I can imagine they will be more complex than we think

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Truth of the matter is here that it's chicken coup time again.

The establishment are having a right go at Corbyn on the flimsiest of pretences, that he lied on student debt and that he's divided from Starmer on Brexit.

I half expect an Eaglesque figure to come lurching out of the Progess shadows to save Labour.

Why else would Hugo be up so early?

[PaulfromYorkshire]

HOSM, Hugo, me how about we let others get a word in edgeways today and discuss something else?

[SpinningHugo]

HOSM, Hugo, me how about we let others get a word in edgeways today and discuss something else?

It is the issue of the day, dwarfing everything else.

There is another board I know of where more comfortable things are discussed, and where this, the biggest one, is ignored, because uncomfortable.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

HOSM, Hugo, me how about we let others get a word in edgeways today and discuss something else?

It is the issue of the day, dwarfing everything else.

There is another board I know of where more comfortable things are discussed, and where this, the biggest one, is ignored, because uncomfortable.

"Comfortable"?

You mean they discuss human beings? We used to do that here too you know? HindleA (others too) tries every day, but you never respond to him. Well you wouldn't want us to discuss anything where the Tories are clearly more vulnerable than Labour would you? Oh no. Let's stay on the topics where we can attack Corbyn.

"Comfortable"?

[PaulfromYorkshire]

I'm pretty pissed off that the Tories have trashed all their plans to electrify rail lines in the North. The one I travel on most regularly is the Leeds Manchester line, one of the busiest in the country, linking arguably too of the most important industrial centres outside London.

Someone's done quite a good job in the media of linking that to £30 billion new money for CrossRail 2.

Are the Tories giving up on the North?

[SpinningHugo]

HOSM, Hugo, me how about we let others get a word in edgeways today and discuss something else?

It is the issue of the day, dwarfing everything else.

There is another board I know of where more comfortable things are discussed, and where this, the biggest one, is ignored, because uncomfortable.

"Comfortable"?

You mean they discuss human beings? We used to do that here too you know? HindleA (others too) tries every day, but you never respond to him. Well you wouldn't want us to discuss anything where the Tories are clearly more vulnerable than Labour would you? Oh no. Let's stay on the topics where we can attack Corbyn.

"Comfortable"?

I admit I just ignore HindleA. It is just a stream of the Guardian frontpage usually, which I've already read.

I don't know much about rail electrification, but it sounds like a disaster

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

TfL and Network Rail seem to have cocked up repeatedly.

But I defer to Tubby and others who know much more about it than me.

Oh, and my view that spending huge amounts of money on rail infrastructure is probably not a good long term bet because of driverless cars coming within the next couple of decades is usually just laughed at. I think it will transform transport, and personal car ownership should decline quite quickly. It is a good thing just within reach.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Also in the news, something about leasehold that I don't understand.

I'd love somebody with a fine legal mind to explain it to me

[SpinningHugo]

Also in the news, something about leasehold that I don't understand.

I'd love somebody with a fine legal mind to explain it to me

It is daft really. They should just regulate leasehold terms, rather than banning it.

[adam]

Do you think that us leaving the EU on paper only but being subject to all current rules, paying more and no longer having a say is going to be sustainable in the medium term?

Apologies for the cut, you said a lot more, but, well, no, but I get the impression that this is what Labour's position appears to be which is why I described it as dishonest. This is the problem. I don't see the difference between, on the one hand, having or supporting a set of policies that involve leaving the EU in name but functionally remaining somewhat as we are, and on the other saying 'the vote to leave is a disaster and we need to keep a mind to changing public opinion because the best thing to do still would be to not leave.' Note that I don't and have never advocated just ignoring the result, it has happened and we're stuck with it, but there is nothing uniquely immutable about a referendum result. We should be slow to go again but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

It's worth adding in, to co-opt a much used and rightly derided policy position, that there is a situation in which we eat our cake and have it with the EU - it's the position we've negotiated over the last 40 odd years, rich with opt-outs and derogations. It is more than likely that any attempt to rejoin will be utterly frustrated by an electorate who will never vote for us to get a significantly worse deal than we had when we were in before - even if that deal is better than whatever we're left with outside (and there is a quiet expectation there that any attempt would have to go to a referendum, and really this is a hypothetical because it's very difficult to see how anyone could carry it).

And we are leaving and we are going to be outside and this will all be done on the conservative's terms, and Labour's job in opposition should be to hammer home the detail to show how dangerous this is, how worthless the government position is and what all of these things will mean on a day to day basis. I don't see this happening at all.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Also in the news, something about leasehold that I don't understand.

I'd love somebody with a fine legal mind to explain it to me

It is daft really. They should just regulate leasehold terms, rather than banning it.

Sounds sensible.

Are there reputable new build leasehold companies who are going to be hit by the ban?

I'm interested because there is such a development just down the road from us and I know a few people who have lived there. I haven't heard complaints and the houses seem OK. It appeared like a plausible addition in an area where there isn't a big rental market, certainly not of "family" type properties.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Do you think that us leaving the EU on paper only but being subject to all current rules, paying more and no longer having a say is going to be sustainable in the medium term?

Apologies for the cut, you said a lot more, but, well, no, but I get the impression that this is what Labour's position appears to be which is why I described it as dishonest. This is the problem. I don't see the difference between, on the one hand, having or supporting a set of policies that involve leaving the EU in name but functionally remaining somewhat as we are, and on the other saying 'the vote to leave is a disaster and we need to keep a mind to changing public opinion because the best thing to do still would be to not leave.' Note that I don't and have never advocated just ignoring the result, it has happened and we're stuck with it, but there is nothing uniquely immutable about a referendum result. We should be slow to go again but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

It's worth adding in, to co-opt a much used and rightly derided policy position, that there is a situation in which we eat our cake and have it with the EU - it's the position we've negotiated over the last 40 odd years, rich with opt-outs and derogations. It is more than likely that any attempt to rejoin will be utterly frustrated by an electorate who will never vote for us to get a significantly worse deal than we had when we were in before - even if that deal is better than whatever we're left with outside (and there is a quiet expectation there that any attempt would have to go to a referendum, and really this is a hypothetical because it's very difficult to see how anyone could carry it).

And we are leaving and we are going to be outside and this will all be done on the conservative's terms, and Labour's job in opposition should be to hammer home the detail to show how dangerous this is, how worthless the government position is and what all of these things will mean on a day to day basis. I don't see this happening at all.

IMHO, you don't see it happening because Theresa May is half way up the Matterhorn, Parliament has risen for the summer and there is nothing to vote on.

We need to be patient. It's hard, because we care so much about it, but it really, really isn't Corbyn's fault that Parliament isn't sitting.

[gilsey]

I'm pretty pissed off that the Tories have trashed all their plans to electrify rail lines in the North. The one I travel on most regularly is the Leeds Manchester line, one of the busiest in the country, linking arguably too of the most important industrial centres outside London.

Someone's done quite a good job in the media of linking that to £30 billion new money for CrossRail 2.

Are the Tories giving up on the North?

Andy Burnham thinks so, he was on Newsnight last night.

[adam]

IMHO, you don't see it happening because Theresa May is half way up the Matterhorn, Parliament has risen for the summer and there is nothing to vote on.

We need to be patient. It's hard, because we care so much about it, but it really, really isn't Corbyn's fault that Parliament isn't sitting.

I take the point, but the government published three policy position papers the other week that were full of nonsense and absent of all sorts of relevant detail and I cannot find a detailed labour response to them. The government will not stop for the summer, they will keep dripping more of their version of 'detail' into what's happening with the negotiations.

[RogerOThornhill]

Also in the news, something about leasehold that I don't understand.

I'd love somebody with a fine legal mind to explain it to me

It is daft really. They should just regulate leasehold terms, rather than banning it.

But why did they go back to leasehold in the first place?

Answer - because they could.

There's no reason for it whatsoever. I thought we'd left leasehold housing a long time ago - my own house built in 1905-6 was sold leasehold and the freehold wasn't bought out until many years later.

[adam]

Also in the news, something about leasehold that I don't understand.

I'd love somebody with a fine legal mind to explain it to me

It is daft really. They should just regulate leasehold terms, rather than banning it.

But why did they go back to leasehold in the first place?

Answer - because they could.

There's no reason for it whatsoever. I thought we'd left leasehold housing a long time ago - my own house built in 1905-6 was sold leasehold and the freehold wasn't bought out until many years later.

This is an exaggeration, of course, but leasehold is just a more obvious vestige of the serfdom and feudalism which still technically thoroughly underpins UK property law. Get involved in a dispute over your land and you'll probably find that at best you are 'A tenant of the freehold interest'.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

I'm pretty pissed off that the Tories have trashed all their plans to electrify rail lines in the North. The one I travel on most regularly is the Leeds Manchester line, one of the busiest in the country, linking arguably too of the most important industrial centres outside London.

Someone's done quite a good job in the media of linking that to £30 billion new money for CrossRail 2.

Are the Tories giving up on the North?

Andy Burnham thinks so, he was on Newsnight last night.

Thanks I missed that. I'll have a look on Twitter

[SpinningHugo]

Couple oof interesting things on Brexit.

This just RT'd by the commission's deputy negotiator, rebuts Blair's position

http://www.epc.eu/pub_details.php?cat_id=4&pub_id=7865" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This by Cable
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... he-talking" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is Starmer on holiday?

[SpinningHugo]

Here is the TUC showing the naivety the commission's negotiator is deprecating

https://labourlist.org/2017/07/staying- ... -movement/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[HindleA]

Apart from the stream of Governmental links,studies etc posted for others in the main.
It's not all about Hugo,shock.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

IMHO, you don't see it happening because Theresa May is half way up the Matterhorn, Parliament has risen for the summer and there is nothing to vote on.

We need to be patient. It's hard, because we care so much about it, but it really, really isn't Corbyn's fault that Parliament isn't sitting.

I take the point, but the government published three policy position papers the other week that were full of nonsense and absent of all sorts of relevant detail and I cannot find a detailed labour response to them. The government will not stop for the summer, they will keep dripping more of their version of 'detail' into what's happening with the negotiations.

Hi Adam

Fair point too.

Hopefully they are working on it and consulting.

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... in-england" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Transparency data
Schools in England

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... rgy-system" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Consultation outcome
A smart, flexible energy system: call for evidence

[PaulfromYorkshire]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... in-england


Transparency data
Schools in England

Did that just come off the front page of the Groan? I was wondering whether to ignore it

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dire ... -offenders" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Press release
Director of Labour Market Enforcement warns rogue bosses of plans to use powers to jail worst offenders

[SpinningHugo]

This is great news for everyone (unless you're a Stagecoach shareholder) and shows how well the rail franchise system is working

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

[HindleA]

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/investiga ... ent-rules/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Investigation into governments management of the Business Appointment Rules
The Cabinet Office are responsible for the Business Appointment Rules, but have not published any guidelines, and have no oversight of departmental compliance.

[adam]

Couple oof interesting things on Brexit.

This just RT'd by the commission's deputy negotiator, rebuts Blair's position

http://www.epc.eu/pub_details.php?cat_id=4&pub_id=7865" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's excellent and should be read by all, especially the Labour front bench who should be looking back to it to call the government out on their completely unworkable positions.

Edited to add - I didn't quote from it because I almost wanted to quote it all but this bit is almost funny.

The notion that the EU could somehow concede on fundamental aspects of the treaties, such as freedom of movement or the oversight of the ECJ, is not only unlikely but would be struck down by the Court when challenged.

[Willow904]

I'm pretty pissed off that the Tories have trashed all their plans to electrify rail lines in the North. The one I travel on most regularly is the Leeds Manchester line, one of the busiest in the country, linking arguably too of the most important industrial centres outside London.

Someone's done quite a good job in the media of linking that to £30 billion new money for CrossRail 2.

Are the Tories giving up on the North?

They're giving up on electrified rail elsewhere as well:

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/brist ... firm-82492" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chancellor Philip Hammond refuses to confirm electrification of rail line to Bristol will ever happen

Possibly because this country now lacks competence at so many levels we can't deliver even the simplest of infrastructure projects - I pity anyone whose lives will be impacted by HS2. It will undoubtedly not go well:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39143416" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Network Rail and Department for Transport (DfT) have learnt the lessons from the poor early planning of this project," a spokesman said.
"Today we do not take forward major projects until they are properly scoped, properly planned and we have a robust estimate of what the cost will be."

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Couple oof interesting things on Brexit.

This just RT'd by the commission's deputy negotiator, rebuts Blair's position

http://www.epc.eu/pub_details.php?cat_id=4&pub_id=7865" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's excellent and should be read by all, especially the Labour front bench who should be looking back to it to call the government out on their completely unworkable positions.

Edited to add - I didn't quote from it because I almost wanted to quote it all but this bit is almost funny.

The notion that the EU could somehow concede on fundamental aspects of the treaties, such as freedom of movement or the oversight of the ECJ, is not only unlikely but would be struck down by the Court when challenged.

Yes a good piece, but we should remember it's one (influential) author's point of view not an agreed EU position.

[Eric_WLothian]

This is an exaggeration, of course, but leasehold is just a more obvious vestige of the serfdom and feudalism which still technically thoroughly underpins UK property law. Get involved in a dispute over your land and you'll probably find that at best you are 'A tenant of the freehold interest'.

The Scottish version of feudalism with respect to home ownership was abolished over a decade ago:

The legislation which comes into force on Sunday is contained in the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Act 2000, the Title Conditions (Scotland) Act 2001 and the Tenements (Scotland) Act 2004.

It effectively brings to an end a system where feudal superiors had control over what could be done with land and property - even when it was owned by someone else.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4048529.stm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So it can be done. Of course, it was a Labour/Lib Dem coalition in charge at the time.

[Temulkar]

Truth of the matter is here that it's chicken coup time again.

The establishment are having a right go at Corbyn on the flimsiest of pretences, that he lied on student debt and that he's divided from Starmer on Brexit.

I half expect an Eaglesque figure to come lurching out of the Progess shadows to save Labour.

Why else would Hugo be up so early?

Yep that's pretty much exactly what it is.

[PorFavor]

Good morfternoon.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Good morfternoon.

Hi - I reckon Eric needs some technical assistance

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Would anyone like me to get rid of the three quote anti-quotathon thing?

[Eric_WLothian]

Good morfternoon.

Hi - I reckon Eric needs some technical assistance

Fixed it - eventually - at the expense of a few levels of nesting.

[StephenDolan]

Truth of the matter is here that it's chicken coup time again.

The establishment are having a right go at Corbyn on the flimsiest of pretences, that he lied on student debt and that he's divided from Starmer on Brexit.

I half expect an Eaglesque figure to come lurching out of the Progess shadows to save Labour.

Why else would Hugo be up so early?

Yep that's pretty much exactly what it is.

Yep.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Good morfternoon.

Hi - I reckon Eric needs some technical assistance

Fixed it - eventually - at the expense of a few levels of nesting.

Well done! And good morning Eric

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... p-thinking" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


UK’s rail network suffering from lack of joined-up thinking

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017 ... blic-space" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Cities
These squares are our squares: be angry about the privatisation of public space
Bradley L Garrett

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... hael-rosen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Dear Justine Greening: your primary school reading reforms aren’t making the grade
Michael Rosen

[HindleA]

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


The social housing system is being demolished without a whimper

[PorFavor]

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017 ... blic-space


Cities
These squares are our squares: be angry about the privatisation of public space
Bradley L Garrett

Good article. Which I would have read had it not been a link to the Guardian . . .

[PaulfromYorkshire]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07 ... b-concerns" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

labours-shadow-brexit-secretary-turns-lucrative-legal-job-concerns

[Willow904]

Couple oof interesting things on Brexit.

This just RT'd by the commission's deputy negotiator, rebuts Blair's position

http://www.epc.eu/pub_details.php?cat_id=4&pub_id=7865" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Have we actually established yet whether article 50 is unilaterally revocable or not? Would surely colour all of this very differently if it is. I'd really love to know what the lawyers are advising Theresa May on this. Without knowing people's beliefs on revocability, there's a missing element to understanding everyone's stance.
If we can just change our mind, it gives Theresa May rather more cards than would currently appear.