FlyTheNest

Morning all.

Even by his standards, this is 'interesting'. A contender for the worst piece of the year.

With every sneer, liberals just make Trump stronger

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

Morning

George Eaton has discovered a "new" Remain strategy

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/br ... an-stay-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Remainers must secure a soft transition. If the UK rips itself from the EU’s institutions in 2019, there will be no life raft back to safe territory. The initial aim is one of damage limitation. But like the Leavers before them, the wise Remainers are playing a long game.

Yes George that's what some of have been saying for quite a while.....

* sorry if we've already had this but I hadn't noticed it previously

OJ denounces moderates

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -moderates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But omits to mention Brexit, which is what is creating this discontent. If there were any difference between Labour and Tory the grumbling wouldn't be there.

Not that it matters. We're stuck with Labour and Tory.

The EU as centrist project

https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2016 ... ean-union/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo wrote:OJ denounces moderates

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -moderates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But omits to mention Brexit, which is what is creating this discontent. If there were any difference between Labour and Tory the grumbling wouldn't be there.

Not that it matters. We're stuck with Labour and Tory.

The EU as centrist project

https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2016 ... ean-union/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's becoming a bit like "Thought for the Day" Hugo!

With your semi-pious commentary, you're just missing "the Bible says" bit at the end.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Morning

George Eaton has discovered a "new" Remain strategy

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/br ... an-stay-eu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Remainers must secure a soft transition. If the UK rips itself from the EU’s institutions in 2019, there will be no life raft back to safe territory. The initial aim is one of damage limitation. But like the Leavers before them, the wise Remainers are playing a long game.

Yes George that's what some of have been saying for quite a while.....

* sorry if we've already had this but I hadn't noticed it previously

Remainers usually retort – as the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, put it – “No one voted to become poorer.”

I disagree, that's exactly what they voted for when they voted to leave, it was an absolutely inevitable consequence of leaving. The alternative is to accept that they voted for fairies and elves.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone could win a referendum to rejoin, and even more difficult to believe that the EU would ease the way for us in any way at all.

Owen Jones is struggling to find a name for "centrists".

I've got one. It's "London-centric".

It's all about keeping Her Maj, the Press and the Bankers happy and sod the rest of us.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ng-for-ban" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Owen Jones is struggling to find a name for "centrists".

I've got one. It's "London-centric".

It's all about keeping Her Maj, the Press and the Bankers happy and sod the rest of us.

I think we'll see plenty more of the same from OJ.

His credibility with his core constituency (Corbynites) is destroyed. By coming as close as possible to saying "ditch Corbyn" without doing so, and then being proven wrong, he's now got to regain trust by posing as the clarion of the left. See also his new found ultra loyalty on the need for hard Brexit.

I admit, I was wrong on Corbyn's vote gathering potential, but as I;ve said over and over, that isn't my primary objection to him, but rather his appalling views and those of the rest of the Campaign group.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-40952608" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Colchester Hospital and Ipswich Hospital consider merger

Good to see the birds not put off by the weather and having their daily tai chi session in the garden.

https://www.ft.com/content/e88d7192-790 ... 495fe6ca71" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Employers need to pay more into our pensions

Miserly contributions into defined contribution schemes are storing up trouble


Paul Lewis

Morning all,

This is worth a read. Not the O'Neill article though - that's the usual "Yeah but the left started it" gibberish.

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

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

Morning

So is Ireland going to be the thing that decides what Brexit we have or if we have one at all?

The position taken by the UK Government seems to be an absolute no starter as it would mean significant compromises on how the EU polices its external borders. It seems to be based on 'you can trust us guv' principle which I do not think will meet the standards required for this type of issue

What we seem to want is the status quo being retained - in reality no border between NI and Eire

Assuming the EU will stick by its principles as it has laid out previously then I can see only two options being possible to maintain the border as is

Status Quo

UK and Ireland join Schengen to allow them to cross the border but it has to be Schengen so not to discriminate against other EU citizens. UK participates in the internal market as now (CU/SM)

'United' Ireland

NI has some sort of special status that means the EU external border moves to Great Britain

Neither of these look particularly attractive but to imagine otherwise may lead to too may compromises from the EU side - it assumes that they hold the power here and will be pushing that the compromises come from the UK side

There may be a compromise on Schengen and the EU allow the CTA to continue (but I have my doubts they will be happy for that although it may be that they allow it under a transitional period that could last for a while) but further from that will be difficult to see - and do Ireland want to be vulnerable to being seen as a weak point on the EU border?

On the second point it is easy to see why this would not be popular, especially with the DUP as it would in effect be a united Ireland,. I think it could just move the problem to the GB border as well (I am not sure how many goods would pass over these borders) and there will need to be customs infrastructure to police it where there is not much now

So, Ireland highlights the nightmare of the detail and it will also provide some insight to how the other parts of the negotiation will go

How hardball will the EU be on things? - from the UK side clearly the ECJ 'red line' has to fall, and I cannot see the Free Movement holding easily if there is a soft border in Ireland

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

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ ... y/CBP-8047" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



House of Commons Library

Leasehold and commonhold reform

In some respects you have to admire Dan Hannan for the sheer brass neck...

Daniel Hannan‏Verified account @DanielJHannan Aug 16
More
Britain has, as requested, come up with a way to avoid a land border in Ireland. I'm optimistic that the EU won't insist on erecting one.

So not because of the inevitability that followed the referendum result then? I see...

The David Brent of politics...always someone else's fault.

howsillyofme1 wrote: So is Ireland going to be the thing that decides what Brexit we have or if we have one at all?

IMO it should be, and I've thought so since the EUref result was known.
It should have stopped them calling the referendum in the first place.

Nick Cohen is a deeply dishonest charlatan who should have been called out on his mendacity long ago. Well done to Owen Jones for actually doing it.

The End

Good morfternoon.

UK fracking may produce less fuel than claimed, says geologist

Prof John Underhill argues that geology is fundamental but has been forgotten in assessments of UK’s shale gas capability

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -geologist

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Nick Cohen is a deeply dishonest charlatan who should have been called out on his mendacity long ago. Well done to Owen Jones for actually doing it.

The End

That is basically bollocks,

On this occasion Jones took a tweet completely out of context, and retweeted it. Cohen then got the usual Corbynite abuse.

The relevant posts, with explanation, are here

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

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Owen Jones is struggling to find a name for "centrists".

I've got one. It's "London-centric".

It's all about keeping Her Maj, the Press and the Bankers happy and sod the rest of us.

It's a good article, I pointed out the same to James Chappers yesterday. A rebrand isn't going to help the neoliberal cultists regain popularity, particularly when the 'Democrats' project is supported by some of the most despised and discredited politicians/hacks/commentators in the UK. I mean, Osborne, Blair, people like Soubry and Spellar? Yeah, that's a real recipe for electoral success.

People who have absolutely nothing, have nothing to lose from Brexit. Telling them brexit is going to make it worse won't cut, all they see is the rich who have punished, persecuted, sneered, and insulted them losing money, and losing their shit. That's why they voted for it.

Address inequality, address housing, fix the NHS and schools, fix our employment market, those are the issues that people are seriously angry about, that's why Corbyn's message cut through the bullshit.

The 'democrats' promise the same old bullshit with a shiny new rebrand.

Ah yes, "out of context". Hahahaha

Cohen knew exactly what he was doing, and not before time he is being held to account for it.

Interesting thread on uni funding and tuition fees from ex-No 10 advisor.

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

The one about future write-offs of tuition fees adding to debt is something I've said on here a few times.

What the UK suffers from is a lack of joined-up strategic and philosophical thinking. Uni funding is a classic example since all it is doing is pushing a major problem decades down the line when the policy proponents have been long gone.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Ah yes, "out of context". Hahahaha

Cohen knew exactly what he was doing, and not before time he is being held to account for it.

I think a read of that thread makes it pretty clear who it is who "knew what he was doing" digging out that old reply to a Putin apologist and retweeting it as if it were about Trump.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Interesting thread on uni funding and tuition fees from ex-No 10 advisor.

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

The one about future write-offs of tuition fees adding to debt is something I've said on here a few times.

What the UK suffers from is a lack of joined-up strategic and philosophical thinking. Uni funding is a classic example since all it is doing is pushing a major problem decades down the line when the policy proponents have been long gone.

The bad point in that is the one about the proportion of debts never being repaid. That is how the system is supposed to work.

His proposed solution is to shrink the University sector, and put more of the young through techincal training. A return to the 70s.

It is not a bad point about the proportion of debts being paid - it is a very relevant one and means that all these ridiculous numbers being bandied about on how much it will cost to do a write-off are nonsense. Everything is currently based on projections for what % will be paid off but no-one really knows and if there is a case of 'leaving debt for the next generation' this is it in spades - oh, and this is before we get on to the appalling way the Government has behaved with respect to uprating the threshold and the interest rates charged

As to your second point, I think this just reinforces the point that Roger made - there has been no strategic view about how education can be approached and paid for ith the challenges that are going to arrive from increased automation that will impact what were perceived as being safe, university jobs

Other countries have a completely different approach to tertiary education than the UK does - Switzerland has a very strong technical education - in fact that is what most people do with only a relatively small percentage going on to Universities as we would describe them. Not saying is is the right thing to do to model their approach but there is more than one approach

Oh, and the fees are around 1000-2000CHF pa as well

SpinningHugo wrote:
The bad point in that is the one about the proportion of debts never being repaid. That is how the system is supposed to work.

His proposed solution is to shrink the University sector, and put more of the young through techincal training. A return to the 70s.

1. It may be how the system is supposed to work but it's bad policy. Reduces national debt now because funding is all through student debt but increases it later.

2. I know but the hard question of whether the uni sector has been expanded too much should be raised. Even if the answer is "no it hasn't". What proportion of the working population actually need to have a degree?

RogerOThornhill wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:
The bad point in that is the one about the proportion of debts never being repaid. That is how the system is supposed to work.

His proposed solution is to shrink the University sector, and put more of the young through techincal training. A return to the 70s.

1. It may be how the system is supposed to work but it's bad policy. Reduces national debt now because funding is all through student debt but increases it later.

2. I know but the hard question of whether the uni sector has been expanded too much should be raised. Even if the answer is "no it hasn't". What proportion of the working population actually need to have a degree?

As I am fond of pointing out, if they really want to reduce the % going to Uni while increasing participation from disadvantaged groups this will mean that significant numbers of kids from better off families and that go to "good" schools will have to miss out on Uni.

I don't see it happening.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

RogerOThornhill wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:
The bad point in that is the one about the proportion of debts never being repaid. That is how the system is supposed to work.

His proposed solution is to shrink the University sector, and put more of the young through techincal training. A return to the 70s.

1. It may be how the system is supposed to work but it's bad policy. Reduces national debt now because funding is all through student debt but increases it later.

2. I know but the hard question of whether the uni sector has been expanded too much should be raised. Even if the answer is "no it hasn't". What proportion of the working population actually need to have a degree?

As I am fond of pointing out, if they really want to reduce the % going to Uni while increasing participation from disadvantaged groups this will mean that significant numbers of kids from better off families and that go to "good" schools will have to miss out on Uni.

I don't see it happening.

It used to happen, that's what universities like De Montfort were designed for, the tim-nice-but-dims who couldnt get in anywhere else. I was in school with quite a few of them. A lot went off to agricultural college (to understand estate management dont ya know) the others who couldn't manage that, to De Montfort.

Mildly amusing, and predictable

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... nce-lineup" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SpinningHugo wrote:Mildly amusing, and predictable

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... nce-lineup" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, I've tweeted the same: Guardian hack drags out Sweeting and Coyle to attack the Labour leadership, as if its still 2016 - entirely predictable and terribly amusing how out of touch they are...

Temulkar wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Mildly amusing, and predictable

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... nce-lineup" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, I've tweeted the same: Guardian hack drags out Sweeting and Coyle to attack the Labour leadership, as if its still 2016 - entirely predictable and terribly amusing how out of touch they are...

They're in the wrong party poor devils. Should quit. A waste of a life.

https://speyejoe2.wordpress.com/2017/08 ... ommission/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


LHA Maxima Cap – Errors of Commission

SpinningHugo wrote:

Temulkar wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:Mildly amusing, and predictable

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... nce-lineup" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, I've tweeted the same: Guardian hack drags out Sweeting and Coyle to attack the Labour leadership, as if its still 2016 - entirely predictable and terribly amusing how out of touch they are...

They're in the wrong party poor devils. Should quit. A waste of a life.

Not poor at all - pretty rich and based on them being representatives of the Labour Party

No need for everyone to believe the same thing or to be Corbyn supporters at all but there is a way and means to do it - and being the lapdogs of the media isn't the way.

Oh, and that story has about as much content as Donald Trump's list of ethics

If increasing the number of students into good schools means other students won't get into good schools, doesn't that indicate there aren't enough places in good schools? Are good school places rationed? There's a difference between good schools, or universities, awarding students degrees after successful study and different good schools teaching other interesting and rewarding subject matter.

The students will be expected to work for a living or otherwise have resources enough to pay for their needs. A society expecting everyone use skills taught in exchange for a livelihood while simultaneously restricting learning places is - what? What the hell is wrong with governmental leadership tolerating and encouraging a system where some people are unable to obtain a living through their industry because they're denied access to getting it?

Coyle is a waste of space and I would be happy if he quit politics ASAP.

Streeting has some redeeming features, and I think he sees himself as Labour despite his disagreements with the leadership.

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com ... ution.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA wrote:http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com ... ution.html

Paradigm shifts are fatiguing

waltz in and say
lookie here, peoples
ah, the economy we use is broken
got to fix it

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



Decision
John Cabot Academy objection to admission arrangements - partially upheld

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/m ... sessments/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -10-months" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Brexit trade talks may be reduced to as little as 10 months
UK ministers admit slow progress on negotiations over withdrawal may hinder move on to crucial second phase of talks

SpinningHugo wrote:OJ denounces moderates

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -moderates" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But omits to mention Brexit, which is what is creating this discontent. If there were any difference between Labour and Tory the grumbling wouldn't be there.

Not that it matters. We're stuck with Labour and Tory.

The EU as centrist project

https://spinninghugo.wordpress.com/2016 ... ean-union/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I noticed this bit.

Four years before the crash, wages began to stagnate for the bottom half; for the bottom third, they began to decline, while it remained boomtime for Britain’s triumphalist elite.

I'm suspicious there that he says "wages" instead of "incomes". Nice eliding of the top half and "triumphalist elite" too.

He's not totally wrong about the "triumphalist elite" bit, though. There was a fair bit of "end of history" blather around before the 2007-08 crash.

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/d ... -to-trial/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"What is this "centrism" of which you speak? What are its characteristics? Who are its proponents? How does it differ from (for example) "neoliberal", or "blairite"? Genuine questions: it feels like an uncharacteristically unrigorous thing for you to do to attach such a vague and protean expession?"

below the line post in response to Stumbling and Mumbling, "Centrism: the problem, not the solution"

I don't get it either.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:He's not totally wrong about the "triumphalist elite" bit, though. There was a fair bit of "end of history" blather around before the 2007-08 crash.

No, there was certainly a triumphalist elite. Maybe I'm being hard in seeing an elision there.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Interesting thread on uni funding and tuition fees from ex-No 10 advisor.

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

The one about future write-offs of tuition fees adding to debt is something I've said on here a few times.

What the UK suffers from is a lack of joined-up strategic and philosophical thinking. Uni funding is a classic example since all it is doing is pushing a major problem decades down the line when the policy proponents have been long gone.

He looks all over the place to me. Football Studies sounds like the sort of vocational course he should want more of.

I've also got a strong reaction to anyone chucking about "Ponzi scheme".