FlyTheNest

I know most won't have a sub to The Times, so here is an extract from Matthew Parris. He is so right

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


UK politics is stuffed. Divided between Rees-Mogg and the morons who wish him a black eye.

Morning Hugo. Just added a Sunday to your post, hope you don't mind.

The full Parris article.

"Sometimes, the mask slips. In the Commons this week, Jacob Rees-Mogg, famously the gentleman, slandered a studious and respected think-tanker and some identifiable Treasury officials. He did this by repeating a piece of hearsay, echoing it back to the colleague he’d heard it from, so that parliament and the public could hear it too. Mr Rees-Mogg’s question showed signs of careful preparation and there will be speculation that the pair (the colleague was a minister) had colluded in this exchange. Perhaps. The involuntary wince on the face of the Brexit secretary David Davis spoke volumes.

The story was entirely false. The House has now heard an apology from Rees-Mogg’s ministerial colleague. But from Gentleman Jake? From the man who published the story? Only slippery evasion.

In parliament on Thursday Rees-Mogg asked Steve Baker, a junior Brexit minister, a question. Would Baker confirm that Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform, had told Baker over lunch that Treasury officials “had deliberately developed an impact assessment model to show that all options other than staying in the customs union were bad, and that officials intended to use this to influence policy”.

From the dispatch box Baker replied. This was “essentially correct”. He fumbled as Labour opponents challenged him, and said he was only confirming that he had heard the allegation. He added that it would be “extraordinary” if true.

Hours later, Prospect magazine, which had hosted the lunch, posted the audio recording. Mr Grant had said no such thing. Yesterday morning Baker apologised. Rees-Mogg has not.

He should. Instead he issued a volley of irritable tweets last night suggesting (incorrectly) that Treasury officials would have been breaking the rules if they talked to research institutes, unless bidden by ministers. Senior civil servants talk routinely to research institutes; it’s their job. He then suggested the chancellor may have been freelancing. One more person to whom he now owes an apology.

And the incident is revealing. Wrong-footed, his good manners depart and snarls break through the politesse. His cloak of courtesy slipping so easily on and off his shoulders, Rees-Mogg deserves the writer Robert Harris’s appraisal, “a barmaid’s idea of a gentleman”. Barmaids deserve better, though. They see through men more easily than the eager young Tory boys of the ConservativeHome website.

It’s revealing, too, about the Brexit ultras: so blinded by zealotry as to think it even remotely likely that senior civil servants would cook the figures; so blinded by zealotry as not even to check with the alleged source of the story — but instead to take a flyer with the facts and the proprieties in the cause of some supposed greater good: Brexit.

With a complicit prime minister and a supine cabinet trailing in its wake, Europhobia — this mutant gene in the Conservative body politic now spreading its cancer through the whole government — is moving from idiocy to dishonesty.

There were scrupulous assessments, said ministers, of the impact of Brexit on the British economy. Then they didn’t exist. Then they did, and would be published. This proved a bag of wind, scrabbled together, vacuous. Then it emerged via the Buzzfeed website that the Treasury had indeed done some careful work; and some was leaked. Then ministers said the work was incomplete and hadn’t been signed off by ministers and didn’t represent government thinking and wouldn’t be given to MPs — and anyway they could see it once negotiations were complete (bejesus). Then MPs insisted on seeing it, so ministers said it would be handed over — but only to Hilary Benn, Labour chairman of the Brexit committee.

Oh for pity’s sake. If you’re going to set a nation on a daring but risky course, you examine the options — of course you do. You do the cost-benefit analyses — that’s what civil servants are for. Some of the reports will describe costs. How could it be otherwise? There is every reason why ministers should have wanted these studies, no reason to be ashamed they exist, and every reason to be open about both the process and the results. If you believe in Brexit, where’s the shame in acknowledging that there are costs and uncertainties and you wanted to know and face up to them? You then add that civil servants are naturally precise about costs but cautious about benefits, but that you can see the bigger, brighter picture.

So why all the furtiveness? “Disingenuous” doesn’t do it justice. This is fraud.

Isn’t it now clear that the government doesn’t believe in what it’s doing, can’t even decide how to do it, hasn’t the guts to say so, and is trying to creep forward under cover of fog, wretchedly hoping something will turn up? If Theresa May and her cabinet were a prisoner in the dock, mumbling and stumbling, avoiding our eyes, and under pressure dribbling out banalities, repetitions and evasions, the jury would need about thirty seconds to decide. Guilt is all over the pages of this contemptible Tory story. They know (most of them) that the referendum placed voters in an impossible position. They know that, narrowly, the voters made a mistake. They can see this is becoming plain. They know — the majority that are not zealots — that our party is now acting against the interests of our country. And nobody has the spine to say so. They speak to us, this sane majority of Tory backbenchers and ministers, like hostages with a gun to their head telling the world that everything’s OK. And the gun is being held by perhaps fewer than fifty zealots: about a sixth of them.

Eden lied about Suez and his government concealed its purpose; but he believed in that purpose and believed it to be in the national interest. Blair dissimulated about Iraq and his government used dark arts to clear its path. But he believed in the adventure and believed it to be in the national interest.

Brexit is worse. The means are the same as with Suez and Iraq but half the cabinet and most of the parliamentary party don’t even believe in the ends. I seriously doubt whether Boris Johnson does. A terrified, paralysed prime minister leads a seasick party and doubting government towards she knows not what.

Wickedness may not always lie in the carrying forward of bad projects. It may also lie in allowing oneself to be carried forward by them, knowing their wrongfulness. Perhaps that is the more culpable, for zealots at least believe their madness. A special kind of guilt attaches to the sane majority of the Conservative Party today. It is written across their faces."

Thanks.

Agreed. A powerful piece.

SpinningHugo wrote:I know most won't have a sub to The Times, so here is an extract from Matthew Parris. He is so right

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


UK politics is stuffed. Divided between Rees-Mogg and the morons who wish him a black eye.

Good morning

That final line is a load of bollocks (quelle surprise)

There is a huge swathe of political opinion between the two.......

What do others think about the forthcoming local elections? The campaign will be here before we know it.

I believe all seats in London councils are up for grabs - is that correct? If so, how many Tory councillors will be left in London?

All seats in the 32 London borough councils will be up for election.

4 metropolitan boroughs have all of their seats up for election following boundary changes (Leeds, Brum, Menchester, Newcastle)

One third of the seats in 30 metropolitan boroughs are up for election:

One unitary authority has all of its seats up for election following boundary changes (Hull).

One third of the council seats are up for election in 16 unitary authorities.

Seven non-metropolitan districts have all of their seats up for election.

Six non-metropolitan districts have half of their seats up for election.

55 district councils have one third of their seats up for election.

The thing that maybe should be borne in mind about the local elections is that Labour have outperformed their poll ratings in them recently.

(significantly so in 2016, and to a more limited extent last year - even though those results were, of course, objectively pretty poor)

If this remains the case, even the Tories remaining close to Labour in national surveys until May might not save them from embarrassment.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The thing that maybe should be borne in mind about the local elections is that Labour have outperformed their poll ratings in them recently.

(significantly so in 2016, and to a more limited extent last year - even though those results were, of course, objectively pretty poor)

If this remains the case, even the Tories remaining close to Labour in national surveys until May might not save them from embarrassment.

Hmm

Presumably the Libs will outperform national levels in some areas too?

I'm expecting some big regional variations, though I don't really know why.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The thing that maybe should be borne in mind about the local elections is that Labour have outperformed their poll ratings in them recently.

(significantly so in 2016, and to a more limited extent last year - even though those results were, of course, objectively pretty poor)

If this remains the case, even the Tories remaining close to Labour in national surveys until May might not save them from embarrassment.

Hmm

Presumably the Libs will outperform national levels in some areas too?

I'm expecting some big regional variations, though I don't really know why.

Almost certainly, indeed that will very likely be the case on a "national" level too.

AnatolyKasparov wrote:The thing that maybe should be borne in mind about the local elections is that Labour have outperformed their poll ratings in them recently.

(significantly so in 2016, and to a more limited extent last year - even though those results were, of course, objectively pretty poor)

If this remains the case, even the Tories remaining close to Labour in national surveys until May might not save them from embarrassment.

I'm hoping for rather more than "embarrassment".

Good morfternoon.

Laura Pidcock on her feet right now at a Stop The War meeting, behind a sign referencing Trump.

No mention of Putin or Assad.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Laura Pidcock on her feet right now at a Stop The War meeting, behind a sign referencing Trump.

No mention of Putin or Assad.

and you don't mention the Saudis - or the Israelis either.......where do we draw the line?

The US has been involved in wars (or conflicts) whether directly or covertly most of it existence....and I think there are only 5 or so years since WWII they haven't been up to something (although who knows covertly)

Also by far the biggest spending on military hardware and a current President who has threatened expansion of the nuclear arsenal into tactical weapons

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Laura Pidcock on her feet right now at a Stop The War meeting, behind a sign referencing Trump.

No mention of Putin or Assad.

Grim, but what can you expect? Corbyn is central to the Stop the War fools.

That Parris piece is one of the best pieces of short form writing I've ever read. Astonishingly good.

Interesting both with respect to housing policy and with respect to whether Khan and Corbyn are mates or not

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

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Interesting both with respect to housing policy and with respect to whether Khan and Corbyn are mates or not

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

Bloody awful nimbyism though. We need more homes, not more barriers to building them.

Whatever other rights and wrongs, if the HDV scheme fails they'll be fewer homes built.

For me the power of the Parris article is in his paragraph openings, which are everything in the mini-paragraph style that is now the norm.

Sometimes, the mask slips.
The story was entirely false.
In parliament on Thursday Rees-Mogg asked Steve Baker, a junior Brexit minister, a question.
From the dispatch box Baker replied.
Hours later, Prospect magazine [...]
He should.
And the incident is revealing.
It’s revealing, too [...]
With a complicit prime minister and a supine cabinet trailing in its wake [...]
There were scrupulous assessments, said ministers [...]
Oh for pity’s sake.
So why all the furtiveness?
Isn’t it now clear [...}?
Eden lied about Suez [...]
Brexit is worse.
Wickedness may not always lie in the carrying forward of bad projects.

No question, it is a very good piece.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Laura Pidcock on her feet right now at a Stop The War meeting, behind a sign referencing Trump.

No mention of Putin or Assad.

I don't think this is a big deal but you and Hugo seem to have a problem with this

As far as I know Assad and Putin are not our allies (although Assad was given a state visit I see to remember - remind me who was PM at that time again....I assume he has only become a tyrant recently though?)

We refer to the US (and Saudi and Israel) as allies and we facilitate the selling to them all weapons and also allowing the sale of devices used for civilian repression. Our PM even holds the hand of the President

Our PM also spent last week crawling up the backside of the Chinese

I find the selectivity of the Stop the War mob annoying but that pales into insignificance against the hypocrisy we see in our Government's dealings with tyrants and warmongers!

We can moan about Putin and Assad but how about we stop selling arms to Saudi, Israel and Bahrain....perhaps then we can take the moral high ground

I was going to post something kinda serious but ended up typing Corbyn as Borbyn

And now I'm just chuckling

Rees-Mogg repeats claim Treasury is 'fiddling' Brexit figures

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-report

Jacob Rees-Mogg has repeated his accusation that Treasury officials are “fiddling the figures” in their Brexit forecasts, even after a cabinet minister was forced to apologise for agreeing with the claim.

Rees-Mogg, who chairs the pro-Brexit European Research Group of Tory MPs, reiterated his claim that the forecasts were rigged and that the department was determined to keep the UK in the customs union.

He also repeated his assertion, made in the House of Commons, that he had heard the head of a pro-EU thinktank saying Treasury officials had created an economic model to show that all options other than remaining in the customs union were bad.

The Brexit minister Steve Baker apologised to MPs on Friday for saying Rees-Mogg’s account of the remarks by Charles Grant, the head of the Centre for European Reform, was “essentially correct”.

An audio recording of the lunch where he had been speaking emerged which contradicted the claims.

Truly an idiot. And people think he might make a good PM?

G'wan Scotland.

refitman wrote:G'wan Scotland.

howsillyofme1 wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Laura Pidcock on her feet right now at a Stop The War meeting, behind a sign referencing Trump.

No mention of Putin or Assad.

and you don't mention the Saudis - or the Israelis either.......where do we draw the line?

The US has been involved in wars (or conflicts) whether directly or covertly most of it existence....and I think there are only 5 or so years since WWII they haven't been up to something (although who knows covertly)

Also by far the biggest spending on military hardware and a current President who has threatened expansion of the nuclear arsenal into tactical weapons

I'd mention Yemen if I was calling myself "Stop The War". And I'd swerve Putin apologists if I was a Labour MP.

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:

refitman wrote:G'wan Scotland.

My dad's Welsh. Can't have them winning.

Not going well for Scotland though.

refitman wrote:G'wan Scotland.

How's it going so far?

howsillyofme1 wrote:

refitman wrote:G'wan Scotland.

How's it going so far?

14-0 to Wales. Scotland scrum-half has thrown an intercept and then cocked up a scrum, leading to a second try. Not the greatest day at the office for him.

howsillyofme1 wrote:

Tubby Isaacs wrote:Laura Pidcock on her feet right now at a Stop The War meeting, behind a sign referencing Trump.

No mention of Putin or Assad.

I don't think this is a big deal but you and Hugo seem to have a problem with this

As far as I know Assad and Putin are not our allies (although Assad was given a state visit I see to remember - remind me who was PM at that time again....I assume he has only become a tyrant recently though?)

We refer to the US (and Saudi and Israel) as allies and we facilitate the selling to them all weapons and also allowing the sale of devices used for civilian repression. Our PM even holds the hand of the President

Our PM also spent last week crawling up the backside of the Chinese

I find the selectivity of the Stop the War mob annoying but that pales into insignificance against the hypocrisy we see in our Government's dealings with tyrants and warmongers!

We can moan about Putin and Assad but how about we stop selling arms to Saudi, Israel and Bahrain....perhaps then we can take the moral high ground

I'm not all that worried about moral high ground, at this juncture. I'm worried about the ascendant group in Labour being too close to completely dishonest folk who want to screw up Britain's relations with European allies even more than Brexiters do.

I'm shouting with refitdad I'm afraid

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


Dozens of academy schools need bailouts from taxpayers
Flagship schools under pressure as beleaguered trusts face mounting deficits

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Interesting both with respect to housing policy and with respect to whether Khan and Corbyn are mates or not

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

Bloody awful nimbyism though. We need more homes, not more barriers to building them.

Whatever other rights and wrongs, if the HDV scheme fails they'll be fewer homes built.

"One resident one vote" is pure Nimby, and it'll bite Labour on the arse in government. If it does any major investment, it'll have strong local opposition. Why are residents of council estates allowed a vote on private blocks going up near them, but residents of private blocks don't get a vote on new social housing going up near them?

Sadiq Khan can call bad planning decisions in. There are certainly some bad redevelopments going on, and he's got the power to make them improve the plans.

RogerOThornhill wrote:Rees-Mogg repeats claim Treasury is 'fiddling' Brexit figures

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... xit-report

Jacob Rees-Mogg has repeated his accusation that Treasury officials are “fiddling the figures” in their Brexit forecasts, even after a cabinet minister was forced to apologise for agreeing with the claim.

Rees-Mogg, who chairs the pro-Brexit European Research Group of Tory MPs, reiterated his claim that the forecasts were rigged and that the department was determined to keep the UK in the customs union.

He also repeated his assertion, made in the House of Commons, that he had heard the head of a pro-EU thinktank saying Treasury officials had created an economic model to show that all options other than remaining in the customs union were bad.

The Brexit minister Steve Baker apologised to MPs on Friday for saying Rees-Mogg’s account of the remarks by Charles Grant, the head of the Centre for European Reform, was “essentially correct”.

An audio recording of the lunch where he had been speaking emerged which contradicted the claims.

Truly an idiot. And people think he might make a good PM?

You never apologize, you double down. There'll always be something that can be dressed up to support your view out of context.

Labour needs to hammer away at this, because it's pure Trump, and Trump is seriously unpopular in Britain.

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Interesting both with respect to housing policy and with respect to whether Khan and Corbyn are mates or not

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

Bloody awful nimbyism though. We need more homes, not more barriers to building them.

Whatever other rights and wrongs, if the HDV scheme fails they'll be fewer homes built.

But we need more home people can actually afford to buy and more social housing. Not 40% "affordable", which will be outside the means of the people that most need them.

https://labour.org.uk/press/abandoning- ... -ashworth/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

refitman wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Interesting both with respect to housing policy and with respect to whether Khan and Corbyn are mates or not

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

Bloody awful nimbyism though. We need more homes, not more barriers to building them.

Whatever other rights and wrongs, if the HDV scheme fails they'll be fewer homes built.

But we need more home people can actually afford to buy and more social housing. Not 40% "affordable", which will be outside the means of the people that most need them.

Friends like Hugo, wittingly or unwittingly, will always side with the predatory capitalists (#Progress).

http://www.itv.com/news/2018-02-03/thou ... th-crisis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


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

refitman wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Interesting both with respect to housing policy and with respect to whether Khan and Corbyn are mates or not

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

Bloody awful nimbyism though. We need more homes, not more barriers to building them.

Whatever other rights and wrongs, if the HDV scheme fails they'll be fewer homes built.

But we need more home people can actually afford to buy and more social housing. Not 40% "affordable", which will be outside the means of the people that most need them.

The mayor can knock the plans about till they're acceptable. Councils have been kept going in very difficult times by property development. While I don't see the defeat of HDV as anything other than a grassroots revolt (from people who aren't even all Labour supporters- the Tories probably do fairly well among older white tenants- let alone all leftists) , I'm not entirely confident the new folk understand the shit that local government's in without this developer money.

TINA?

refitman wrote:TINA?

Alternatives to some of the schemes? Sure, and the mayor can make sure that happens.

Alternatives to redeveloping low density social housing in London? Unless the government is going to find a ton more money for London councils- which hardly sits with its commitment to regions- I'm not sure there is.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-42789610" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-42789610

Good to see that the BBC is finally recognising stuff like this happens.

Put it another way.

I've often got pressed on London getting huge sums for Crossrail and the like. And they are huge sums, objectively, not just in terms of "X times more than the South West" or whatever. It can be defended in terms of adding to the overall economy, which can be reinvested everywhere. But I've always felt a bit uncomfortable about relying on that, and I've said too that London needs to find a greater proportion of that money itself locally, and people have generally agreed. There's a limit to what taxes can raise, so development is going to have to play its part.

In that context, I'm not sure I see new swathes of social housing (likely low rise, post Grenfell) being built in London. There are going to be some extremely difficult decisions to make. We can protect existing tenants, stop selling council flats, but I'm not sure I see very much more than that being done.

Excellent open letter to Damian Hinds from edu giant Tim Brighouse.

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/br ... ack-people

And then there’s the free school and academy question – in practice nationalised government schools – some in large chains with prescriptive practices making a mockery of school autonomy. There is the whiff of corruption about this unmanageable system.

I have a lot of time for tweeter Disappointed idealist but think he's wrong on the privatization idea. This is a good description - especially when civil servants are in charge of an increasing number.

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... it-bailout


Dozens of academy schools need bailouts from taxpayers
Flagship schools under pressure as beleaguered trusts face mounting deficits

Send invoices to Tory ministers' homes
If they don't pay up, send bailiffs
That's my advice

Good-evening, everyone

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... fd3c011eca" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Florida’s ban on ex-felons voting is unconstitutional and biased, federal judge rules

The only possibly creditable thing I can think May is doing (and I pause to say that it's not creditable at all, because it will lead to us being damaged, just a bit less damaged) is waiting and waiting to jump into continued CU membership until it's too late for her party to replace her - but I can't see that anywhere in anything that she says or does. Her government seem more keen on forcing the rest of the EU to look back at December's agreement, decide that we're just not taking it seriously at all and revert to those discussions again.

The Parris piece is perfectly fine but completely fucking obvious and the quote from Robert Harris does not belong anywhere in modern discourse.

refitman wrote:

SpinningHugo wrote:

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Interesting both with respect to housing policy and with respect to whether Khan and Corbyn are mates or not

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

Bloody awful nimbyism though. We need more homes, not more barriers to building them.

Whatever other rights and wrongs, if the HDV scheme fails they'll be fewer homes built.

But we need more home people can actually afford to buy and more social housing. Not 40% "affordable", which will be outside the means of the people that most need them.

This is often said but s a terrible error about how the market for homes works.

We just need more units. Full stop. People occupying the newly built ones are then not in other units. You'll get the largest increase in affordable housing by building the moat units you can regardless of the price point of those units.