Westministenders: Boris and The By-Elections

[RedToothBrush]

You lot post too fast!

A50 has made it out of the Commons without any amends. Its on its way to the Lords, but this week is half term, so in theory not much going on (in the UK at least). It hit the Lords on the 20th where it might not get such an easy ride. The Lords will not (and CAN NOT) stop brexit or frustrate it. But the numbers are in perhaps more favour of amendments if they choose to go that way, than the Commons. This would throw the bill back to the Commons. This is pretty reasonable.

In the meantime its 12 days to go until the Copeland and Stoke Central By-Elections.

Leave.Eu think UKIP have Stoke in the bag. They think there will be a 33% turnout. I think a turnout that high is the land of fantasy. Paul Nuttalls who was at Hillsborough is now a devout Stokie who has lived there all his life. Except of course he isn't.

Copeland looks like it will go Conservative. Its theirs to throw away. It would be the first victory for a sitting government in a by-election since 1983 if they make it. They intend to use a victory as another argument for a 'mandate'. But have they managed to drop a nuclear booboo?

One more Question. What are the chances of this thread making it to the 23rd?!

National interest hinges on what is best for the country politically, ecomomically, socially, legally, domestically and internationally.

In retrospect it will be apparent that the best interest of the country would have been to remain in the EU after the referendum, whatever the short term political cost. But that is something that will only become clear with hindsight.

The MPs who voted against their convictions for fear of constitutional crisis and social unrest, will discover that the consequences will be far bigger upheaval further down the line.

Have we really answered the question:

'Is it a real problem or a perceived problem?'

On many of these issues?

The white paper seems to indicate it was not straightforward when it said about a 'feeling of sovereignty' having been lost.

Have we examined issues over how employment opportunities are affected by immigration and what can be done to address this?

Is it simply a case of closing the door? Especially when we are already getting numerous reports of labour shortages?

The RIGHT questions are not being asked and addressed.

Rule Number One of Good Management: Decide what the problem really is before you decide what the solution is.

We have decided on the solution to an issue where we don't really know what the problems are first.

This can only lead to a car crash. Simply because that's what happens in management of business.

You'd think the Tories more than anyone would grasp this concept. The fact this is being ignored, is rather more worrying and suggests self interest at the expense of others much more.

There are many reasons for the EU to do a deal for NI - not just for economic and geographic practicalities for the province itself, nor the fact that they voted remain and not even the potential violence. I think the main drivers are that under the GFA, NI citizens can be Irish(i.e. EU) or British and that a hard border will totally fuck another EU country, which has only just recovered from the crash.

None of this applies to Scotland.

tiggy There are numerous many benefits to not triggering without some proper planning, analysis and worst case scenario strategies first. For a start we've already hit on infrastructure issues that cannot be resolved in the 2 years of negotiations. Issues with NI need proper analysis not just hope and prayers. Parliament could have some time to properly analyse why the vote went the way it didn't and really find out what the priorities are for 'the people'. 2 years is not only possibly too short for just EU negotiations but leaves us naked and vulnerable if TM does just stomp off for not getting her own way.

Of course the answer to why speed is needed is the fear that people may change their minds as the complexity becomes clear. But surely its in the National Interest to not have to firefight problems when they could be headed off prior to entering the negotiating room.

Also Tiggy, the delay in negotiation is totally down to the UK not invoking A50 as quickly as envisaged. At the moment, you haven't handed in your notice. So to blame the EU for the UK faffing is totally unfair. They can't move until you do. The ball is firmly in the UK's court at this point.

The EU rules are relatively clear on the 4 freedoms - you need to at lease one plan assuming they will stick to those rules and are not going to bend them for you. The negotiations on trade deals comes AFTER you settle up your outstanding debts and obligations.

We need a transition period in EEA / EFTA

Whether we are likely to get that is debatable.

Neither side is likely to agree to terms in a transitional deal that they would not agree to in a permanent one. You need to know your permanent terms before you can agree temporary ones. A transitional deal will make the discussions more complicated. The EU may just say no.

If May agreed to a short term EEA deal that could be interpreted to be copping out of hard Brexit. I think that Brexiteers would fear that they may get voted out before the permanent deal comes into effect - and thus never happens.

usually the issue with the choice of passport in NI largely didn't matter given both were EU. The only way around it post brexit I can think of is automatic dual citizenship for NI, but that would anger some of the more extreme sides. Just when we thought the butterfly strips on the clusterfuck were holding safe in the main, someone's decided to yank them.

Reducing immigration, fine Ideal in principle.

Less immigrants = more jobs for local labour. Right?

Where do we get this equation from?

Its based on certain assumptions:

1. Labour can get to these jobs. They have the transport or public transport is there. And this is worth the cost. People who are already not taking jobs are more likely to be labelled lazy, rather than people have an appreciation for the practical issues of why they might not be taking jobs. Unemployment is generally at a low level in the UK at the moment - that suggests we need a certain size of labour force.
2. Labour has the skills. These skills may not be immediate and may need training.
3. Business margins are sufficient to cover the costs of training and stay competitive in doing so.
4. Reduced labour, pushes up the costs of labour. But this doesn't necessarily result in an increase in living standards. Labour costs get pushed onto customers or damage profit margins. It might make us less competitive abroad, or put smaller businesses out of business all together as they are unable to absorb these changes in a short space of time.
5. It depends on where these labour shortages occur. If we want to build more houses and reduce the cost of housing, then having a smaller labour force to do this, might well be wholly counter productive. If we want a better health service being hostile to EU nationals might not be a bright idea in the short term.

Without government support in all these areas, reducing immigration is just bullshit. It doesn't solve the problems. It only will serve to make a great many far worse. Brexit will be a shock at some point to our system, that various groups will struggle to adapt to. The economic effects have been labelled as project fear, but there are also social effects that will be difficult to cope with.

Some kind of Finland/Russia style agreement for NI, so residents have free access/shopping/working rights with a hard border around the island? And possibly a few EU grants via the RoI?

But someone has to tell the DUP they'll need to get their passport out to go to the mainland. I'm not sure May will do that at the moment, although if she gets a good return on a GE, she will sell them out easy.

And Mother, while I know only too well that the general population didn't know/care much about NI, the politicians should have and there should have been a plan. I saw some comment on Twitter saying how it took 400 years of war and negotiations to get to the GFA, does anyone really think there will be a NI solution in 2 years?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/12/brexit-migration-cuts-could-push-state-pension-age/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw
Brexit migration cuts could push state pension age up

Just one story in the news today about the knock on effects of reducing migration.

One of the many amendments that the opposition wanted agreed before triggering a50, was the carrying out and publishing of impact assessments.

The Conservatives don't want this.

Why?

If we are talking about the national interest, why object to this?

www.irishtimes.com/opinion/uk-not-taking-seriously-brexit-impact-on-ireland-1.2972598
UK not taking seriously Brexit impact on Ireland
Ireland could become one of the most economically damaged EU countries post-Brexit

Clegg has had article published on Irish impact in Irish Times today if anyone is interested.

Re that Telegraph link... this stood out to me: Projections calculated by actuaries at Hymans Robertson show a “hard Brexit” could result in the state pension age needing to be raised by 18 months for people currently under 40.

So the age group that largely voted Remain are the ones who will pay for Brexit.

RTB
A few months ago you made what I thought was a rather self aware post in
which you wondered whether you posted into an echo chamber where you
only heard self agreeing voices and I see remainers bemoaning the fact that leavers wont stay to argue.However if you cant follow a simple logical argument on a pretty irrelevant issue in the grand scheme of things and doesn't in any way challenge your views on the merits or otherwise of remaining then it is pointless.So back to lurking for me, but I will make a prediction that in the next tory ge manifesto that the £350m per week which translates into £18 billion year will be offered into the NHS. The money may be repackaged from earlier commitments or held back from money that may have been earmarked sooner, or more likely simply borrowed.I say it not as any evidence for the success or failure from Brexit, just as a purely political act to blow up the opposition

I have long come to the conclusion that I will die before I reach pension age

but I will make a prediction that in the next tory ge manifesto that the £350m per week which translates into £18 billion year will be offered into the NHS

Is that before or after the 22bn cuts they're about to make?

Marking place fuck, I'll never catch up

So opting to remain now automatically means opting to ignore something that was only advisable in a legal sense but in every other sense is viewed as significant and as democratic - many Remain MPs acknowledge this is the case.

What is stopping them from making a proper case for Brexit, to get their constituents on side, instead of prattling about the 'will of the people? Eventually some good could come out of it, if the will was there to train up health professionals so we don't constantly poach them from elsewhere; invest in infrastructure so that businesses could operate more effectively. Just to mention two areas which need urgent attention.

I have seen nothing yet. Why aren't they hard at work planning? They won't be able to control exactly what is on the table from the rest of the EU, but the EU isn't dictating how many doctors, nurses and midwives we choose to train. Nor did it dictate that we shouldn't bother to invest in high speed broadband. So what is stopping them setting up Departments devoted to these issues?

www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/02/will-labour-lose-stoke
Will Labour lose in Stoke?

In a symbol of that party’s organisational blues , they have been beaten in the postal vote in almost every seat they have contested. Indeed, in both Eastleigh and Heywood & Middleton, Ukip only lost because of postal votes. Although the party’s activists will occasionally blame postal votes on nefarious practices, the plain truth is that a strong postal vote is primarily the sign of a well-organised campaign. Look at Vote Leave: despite their strongest demographic being elderly voters without degrees, they managed to achieve big victories in the postal votes as well as on the day. There is not a political bias to postal votes – there is however an organisational bias. I'm reliably informed that there have been over 6,000 votes cast by post in Stoke - not very many elsewhere, but in the context of a seat that is bottom of the league as far as turnout, and given what we know about Ukip's inability to turn promises into postal votes, that attests to the likelihood they will fall flat.

Can someone clarify what they think about this article for me. It reads as if Stephen Bush has been told that 6000 postal votes have been cast in THIS ELECTION. Is that how others read it too?

That seems higher than I would expect. A LOT higher. I have the data from the 2015 GE. 31,461 votes were cast in total. 5,850 postal ballots were issued with 4,913 votes returned by close of the polls. This was a 49.9% turnout.

So 6000 postal ballots cast already with 10 days to go, seems awfully high. That would suggest that something is happening that has not been predicted if its right.

Worth pointing out that turnout at the EU was 65% across the whole of Stoke. If that's uniform that would suggest that is anything up to approximately 9800 extra people voted in Stoke Central in the EU Ref than did in the GE (Across Stoke as a whole there were an additional 24,000 voters in the EU ref compared to the 2015 GE so it depends on how that broke down between the three seats).

That's why I ask if people read that the same as me. It would be significant and will have an impact on the result.

Am I misinterpreting something here?

rtb that's how I read it too. you probably know about voting preferences and habits more than me but could it be largely that people had already made their minds up so voted via post and there'll be a drop in poling day votes? Having said that I normally know how or who I'll vote for and prefer to leave until polling day anyway so I wouldn't fit that anyway.

So back to lurking for me, but I will make a prediction that in the next tory ge manifesto that the £350m per week which translates into £18 billion year will be offered into the NHS

Seriously? Ok. Well you going to be very disappointed. I predict further cuts hidden on bad news days. And a US trade deal (if it happens at all) opening up NHS services to the US.

If she got some EEA type agreement, it would just about be acceptable to Remainers and a good few Leavers.If she could get a minor restriction on FoM it would satisfy those who get hung up about Immigration. The UK would still have to pay, and get no say, but we have now had an admission that the EU wasn't stopping us from having sovereignty, so that shouldn't really worry anyone. It also alleviates problems with NI and Gibraltar.

NHS - yes, I forsee a sop, come GE time, but it will be old money repackaged as new.