Friday 18th October 2019

Post by **refitman** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 7:05 am

Morning all.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 7:09 am

Morning!

Great QT Review last night from SGO.

Not so sure about his prediction on the big vote though....

That's if the deal survives the courts today.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 7:11 am

On which has anyone actually got their head round the apparent illegality of the deal?

As far as I understand it contravenes a law that exists because of an amendment put down my Rees-Mogg

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 7:14 am

I certainly couldn't find out from BBC news, where as expected LauraK has been doing Cummings' job with knobs on.

"They said it couldn't be done"

Dear oh dear....

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 7:59 am

"It couldn't be done"...apart from that one time before when Theresa May did it

I mean, I know everyone has very low expectations of Boris, but it's not that remarkable that he's managed to get himself to the same point as May. It's mostly the same deal but with the DUP thrown under a bus.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 8:28 am

https://amp.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unemployment figures should be 3m higher, says research

The "economically inactive" aren't actually hidden, though, they're always there in the labour force surveys. They're just ignored. By the media, by politicians, by the public. Sometimes, when the headline unemployment figure goes down, the "economically inactive" figure goes up and some of us ask the question "why"? Why have people stopped looking for work?

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 8:50 am

So now when people Google "Boris" and "bus" they'll get "threw DUP under a"

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 8:59 am

I found the article totally confusing in that it states they removed
categories and then took account of the same ones eg.carers.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 9:21 am

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/br ... 0431.html4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mark Steel today

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 9:22 am

Not only that but this deal assures us we’ll be rid of the wretched Freedom of Movement. And I for one am SICK of being FREE to move where I WANT. If my kids want to work or study in Spain, I want them to be told “NO. You STAY where you ARE. If anyone wants to go anywhere different they can go to the Co-op.”

Eric_WLothian · Post by **Eric_WLothian** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 9:23 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:On which has anyone actually got their head round the apparent illegality of the deal?

As far as I understand it contravenes a law that exists because of an amendment put down my Rees-Mogg

A question that the Scottish Courts have been asked and are pondering today:

Section 55 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 prevents Northern Ireland from having different customs rules than the rest of the UK.
The clause titled 'Single United Kingdom customs territory' states: "It shall be unlawful for Her Majesty's Government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain."
... The challenge is due to heard at 10am in the Outer House of the Court of Session before Lord Pentland.

Here's a live link (as opposed to the dead one posted last night)!

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/179 ... exit-deal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 9:23 am

And crucially, the tricky issue of Ireland has been resolved. Through vigour we have secured agreements from the EU they were never willing to consider before. For example, Boris Johnson said no prime minister could ever sign up to a border in the Irish Sea, but now through determined negotiating, he’s got them to agree to a border in the Irish Sea.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 9:27 am

I can't help but wonder how the last three years would have gone with a Remainer at Labour's helm.
I apologise for this.
But I can't help it.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 10:02 am

moving forwards we have to work towards a more - er - European style of government, where PR and governing coalitions are the norm.
this is the only way the UK can move forwards in the current version of the world.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 10:04 am

and by move forwards I mean accept that all citizens can and should expect a decent quality of life - including an enjoyment of public space.
was particularly incensed to see homeless people evicted from the pavements of Westminster again.

Post by **adam** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 10:06 am

tinyclanger2 wrote:and by move forwards I mean accept that all citizens can and should expect a decent quality of life - including an enjoyment of public space.
was particularly incensed to see homeless people evicted from the pavements of Westminster again.

Alternatively, moving forwards we can entrench first past the post, as the splitting tories go back home and we have two years before an election, argue fractiously for the next few years about the costs that will come with a wider and more open free trade agreement and end up fighting an election in 2022 about all of this shit all over again, and end up with a very limited new trading deal and the right to cut employment protection, environmental legislation and so on.

Post by **adam** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 10:06 am

Still, mustn't grumble.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 10:42 am

Thanks Eric!

And everyone else for their posts too

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 10:43 am

If anyone is on my Twitter, they can see I provoked an excellent rant at John Harris from a number of fellow Tweeters

Post by **adam** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 10:44 am

Eric_WLothian wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:On which has anyone actually got their head round the apparent illegality of the deal?

As far as I understand it contravenes a law that exists because of an amendment put down my Rees-Mogg

A question that the Scottish Courts have been asked and are pondering today:

Section 55 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 prevents Northern Ireland from having different customs rules than the rest of the UK.
The clause titled 'Single United Kingdom customs territory' states: "It shall be unlawful for Her Majesty's Government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain."
... The challenge is due to heard at 10am in the Outer House of the Court of Session before Lord Pentland.
Here's a live link (as opposed to the dead one posted last night)!

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/179 ... exit-deal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I would imagine, with this, that if the Court of Session find against the government then rather than appeal they can just introduce an amendment to their bill on Saturday that deals with it.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 11:03 am

adam wrote:
tinyclanger2 wrote:and by move forwards I mean accept that all citizens can and should expect a decent quality of life - including an enjoyment of public space.
was particularly incensed to see homeless people evicted from the pavements of Westminster again.
Alternatively, moving forwards we can entrench first past the post, as the splitting tories go back home and we have two years before an election, argue fractiously for the next few years about the costs that will come with a wider and more open free trade agreement and end up fighting an election in 2022 about all of this shit all over again, and end up with a very limited new trading deal and the right to cut employment protection, environmental legislation and so on.

There is that.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 11:07 am

I see some Tories will vote for the deal because it leaves the possibility of no deal.
So that's obviously excellent.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 11:15 am

tinyclanger2 wrote:moving forwards we have to work towards a more - er - European style of government, where PR and governing coalitions are the norm.
this is the only way the UK can move forwards in the current version of the world.

May would have still called her snap election, won it easily through being able to present Labour as "having contempt for the people", and left well before now?

We are only still in the EU today thanks to the actual election result then. That is arguably down to Labour being able to largely defuse Brexit as an issue.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 11:45 am

HindleA wrote:I found the article totally confusing in that it states they removed
categories and then took account of the same ones eg.carers.

I think they're trying to differentiate between people who choose to be economically inactive, such as stay at home parents, which you will always have, and people who have given up looking for work because of the poor state of the jobs market, like people in their fifties and sixties who would work if there were suitable jobs but can afford not to if there aren't by taking early retirement or relying on a partner's income or income from investments.

I'm "economically inactive", previously by choice, but now because of a lack of suitable jobs with hours I can be available. It's certainly strange that with unemployment so historically low, opportunities for people like me are still as scarce as they were at the height of the global financial crisis. When a local pub re-opened the new owners were literally overwhelmed by the number of enquiries about work, which does seem more in keeping with a much higher unemployment rate than figures suggest, though I wouldn't dispute the figures as such, more the story they are telling. I think turnover has slumped and people are retiring later on average, meaning employment is, indeed, quite high, but opportunities to get a job in the first place are actually quite low, but I'm just speculating, really. I think it requires some proper research.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 11:50 am

Not sure I understand your point.
If we move towards PR and broad coalitions governing our godforsaken hellhole of country, then May would still have called her snap GE anyway?
I don't follow.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 11:53 am

I think what looks like employment isn't really. It's about underemployment - many people going for multiple jobs and/or self 'employed'.

In developing countries 'self-employment' (in the scratching a living sense) is much more widespread than in the developed world, but we are getting more and more of it.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 12:16 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:Not sure I understand your point.
If we move towards PR and broad coalitions governing our godforsaken hellhole of country, then May would still have called her snap GE anyway?
I don't follow.

And how would all that have happened less than a year after Brexit?

Ah right, I quoted the wrong post from you - I meant the "what if Labour had been led by a remainer?" one

IMO (and I know its not a universally accepted one) any other Labour leader would have had to follow a similar (even if not identical) approach to Corbyn's post June 2016.

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 12:32 pm

Ah. Yes that was indeed the source of confusion.
I continue to try not to express an opinion of Corbyn (here at least), but I can't help wondering (as I said in the first instance) how things might have been different, had Labour (I nearly said 'we' out of habit) had a different leader.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 12:57 pm

@ Willow I find that differention problematic recategorising the same situation.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 1:10 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:Ah. Yes that was indeed the source of confusion.
I continue to try not to express an opinion of Corbyn (here at least), but I can't help wondering (as I said in the first instance) how things might have been different, had Labour (I nearly said 'we' out of habit) had a different leader.

And my answer to that, again, is that regarding Brexit it would make little difference.

Of course, even now that's not everything.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 1:11 pm

Bad enough carers are categorised as economically active member mind unemployed

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 1:22 pm

Good afternoon, everyone.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 1:23 pm

@ Eric_WLothian
Thank you for posting last night in response to my question.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 1:24 pm

@Sky
Thank you for your Question Time write up.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 1:34 pm

MPs will not see any official economic analysis of the impact of Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal before they vote on it on Saturday, Downing Street has confirmed, with such documents only being produced subsequently.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... 3584c890e8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why not?
How can MPs vote for this without knowing?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 1:51 pm

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

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 1:56 pm

citizenJA wrote:
MPs will not see any official economic analysis of the impact of Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal before they vote on it on Saturday, Downing Street has confirmed, with such documents only being produced subsequently.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... 3584c890e8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Why not?
How can MPs vote for this without knowing?

Well, hopefully not enough will.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 2:01 pm

HindleA wrote:@ Willow I find that differention problematic recategorising the same situation.

To be honest, I don't really know how they can identify people who aren't working by choice as opposed to people who aren't working because of other reasons. I do think, however, there's a very significant difference between someone who has chosen to be a stay at home parent, for instance, and someone who has to because there's no suitable childcare available.

A rise in "economic inactivity" can be a positive because people have the luxury to choose not to work, but it could also be a negative, reflecting a reduction in services that locks people out of employment and thus is reducing standards of living, which is almost certainly what is currently happening as a consequence of government spending cuts. Difficult to prove, though, so government gets away with saying the economy is working because the official unemployment rate is so low.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 2:23 pm

tinyclanger2 wrote:Ah. Yes that was indeed the source of confusion.
I continue to try not to express an opinion of Corbyn (here at least), but I can't help wondering (as I said in the first instance) how things might have been different, had Labour (I nearly said 'we' out of habit) had a different leader.

I don't think there's any harm in expressing opinions of anyone or anything on here. What characterises what I find to be quality debate here is that we try and present evidence for our assertions and, obv, respect others' views.

I have said many times that I don't find Corbyn to be my perfect leader (I'd have Angela Rayner if it were up to me

), but I do tire of the endless assertions, against all evidence (please note TC I'm not accusing YOU of this) that he is this that or the other.

For example, my problem with John Harris today was that he accused Corbyn of tacitly approving of Labour members who vote for Johnson, thereby enabling a Hard Brexit. This could be true, but I see no evidence of it at all, other than his past, well-reasoned critiques of the EU. Rather it seems to be yet another conspiracy theory designed to undermine him.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 2:30 pm

For the record, what Harris said was

Labour’s record on Brexit comes down to 3 years of silence, an 11th-hour flurry of displacement activity that slightly tilted it to Remain & made a lot of noise...and the fact that it looks set to be Lab votes that may get Johnson’s deal through, with the leadership’s permission.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 3:07 pm

HindleA wrote:Bad enough carers are categorised as economically active member mind unemployed

Things like child tax credits, NI contributions credits and carers allowance are political choices that allow people to choose to look after those they care about. That counts as positive reasons for being "economically inactive". Which is why it isn't the same as being unemployed. What if you feel you have no choice, though, or caring responsibilities leave you impoverished or without a pension? Then you may wish you could work to improve your standard of living but lack the opportunities to do so and then being economically inactive becomes a negative and does count as unemployment in an economic sense, if not in actuality.

Which is all to say that high numbers of economically inactive people could indicate something is wrong with our social and economic policy. Which, of course, we know there is.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 3:08 pm

I mean "three years of silence" is pure #FBPE conspiracy theory, its risible.

And it might be slightly less indigestible if the very same J Harris hadn't spent much of that time on his "THESE ARE THE VOICES THAT LABOUR CANNOT IGNORE" racism safaris

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 3:12 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I mean "three years of silence" is pure #FBPE conspiracy theory, its risible.

And it might be slightly less indigestible if the very same J Harris hadn't spent much of that time on his "THESE ARE THE VOICES THAT LABOUR CANNOT IGNORE" racism safaris

Well quite, as pointed out by plenty of posters on Twitter!

I replied with "Do you really believe this?" to which Harris replied "No I Tweeted it for a laugh", which is what set everyone off

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 3:29 pm

The Johnson deal with the EU could've been agreed earlier than this. Government is giving the House only 90 minutes for debate on Johnson's deal during an emergency Saturday sitting. Parliament and the nation are getting hustled. This is irresponsible action from a weak minority government loving their party more than lives and prosperity of people.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 3:56 pm

Looks like the Letwin amendment is centre stage.

Is Bercow still there?

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 6:39 pm

What is the LibDem position now, please?

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 6:52 pm

citizenJA wrote:What is the LibDem position now, please?

A good night U-turn from JA

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 6:53 pm

It's a very good question.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 6:58 pm

Well you did ask!

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/br ... 62056.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

brexit-march-no-deal-boris-johnson-jo-swinson-final-say-peoples-vote

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Fri 18 Oct, 2019 7:01 pm

Frankly I'm none the wiser. You get the impression she's going on the Peoples Vote march instead.