Westministenders: The bookends to a year of political chaos. Just how far have we come?

[RedToothBrush]

The 15th June 2016.

The Thames was filled with a flotilla of boats in a publicity stunt for the Leave campaign to draw attention to fisheries. Nigel Farage and Kate Hoey in their heads thought they were Leonardo and Kate, but the moment was rather more titanic in nature and could not have been more Alan Partridge if they had tried. Coming up behind was Bob Gedolf in a shameful and cringeworthy display of swearing and abuse that really didn’t help the Remain camp in anyway. Largely unnoticed was a small boat with a family following it all unfold…

The next day things went from fiasco to horror.

Farage unveiled the Dog Whistle Poster and Jo Cox was murdered. And the UK seemed set on its course for 7 days later when the world was turned upside down by the referendum itself.

14th June 2017.

Fast forward 365 days later and another tragedy unfolded. This time of a very different nature but with no less political significance.
Grenfell.

A moment of national shame. A symbol of so many things that had come to pass in the previous twelve months.

The election just the previous week had changed the direction of travel we seemed to be headed and left the Prime Minister exposed and looking wildly out of touch. The Maybot was given one more chance.

And the Maybot seems to be failing the test of her party who had the grace to grant her a second chance.

The Queen dressed in the same shade of blue, May delivered her ‘victory speech’ in, ignored the security threat and visited the ranks of the poor and the forgotten. A deliberate message to May not to forget who she serves? A Queen who feels aggrieved and angry by May’s behaviour? Who knows.

As for Brexit. The government looks lost. Adrift. The ‘Fight of the Summer’ over the EU’s plan for talks sounds out the window despite the denials from the Brexit Department. Hard Brexit is still on the cards. Apparently. But what does anyone believe now? May’s and the Brexiteers domination of the agenda is shattered, its power starting to be questioned.

What next?

This evening the anger is building.

Who knows, what will happen. Some of it might be predictable, but the future is far from certain and we have definitely entered a new era. We just don’t know who will lead it, or what its ambition or what the end goal now is.

What we do know, more acutely than ever is that we are all human and the wise words of Jo Cox about having ‘More in Common’ ring though ever more strongly.

Once again we feel ‘on the brink’.

"This was in return for open access to a $16.6 trillion annual market, a decision that paid off- strengthening the UK’s economic position hugely."

What? WHAT? There is only one computation. The UK ponies up a membership fee of 10/11 billion quid and doesn't receive it all back in rebates, project funding, farm payments, and grants. Why would the conversation shift to the much larger manifold economic (and social) benefits that member state contribution yields?

Don't the dogs on the street know the UK is very simply robbed of the contribution fee. Even though it is less per capita that quite a few other states, the UK is the one most exploited. The state of the union is that the poor, unsuspecting UK is just robbed and taken advantage of.

The strength to the UK economy due to "open access to a $16.6 trillion annual market", indeed.

If you deal in knick-knacks, you could pay £10 for a table at a car boot sale. You could make a few hundred quid profit for your goods at the venue you paid to access. However, all you would think of is how you was robbed lost that tenner.

Sorry I don't understand your point Calli

You think the EU robs us, Cailleach?

I think cail is being sarcastic

The UK still had its Indian Empire until 1947.

Not to mention Allied forces - including the Free French. There were Polish, Czech and French airmen fighting alongside the RAF. Jewish refugees who had fled the the Nazis fought in the British army in a particular regiment (can't remember the name offhand).

Without the US the UK would have lost the war. That's where standing alone would have got us.

And by the 70s with war debt, impact of the oil crisis and political mismanagement of the economy we were the 'sick man of Europe', needing a £2 billion bailout from the IMF.

The point is that someone is saying the EU yields benefits way over and beyond the membership fee which is partially returned anyway.

Isn't the main point the 10/11 billion membership fee? Nothing else was really discussed. That is the dosh which could go into NHS. Not the much higher profits accrued from trading in and through the EU.

If you lose a hundred quid in trade but save your tenner you paid for a membership fee, aren't you much better off? Diane Abbott wasn't the worst mathematician. By a country mile.

Or are you being ironic?

No more food rationing wanted....what do you think the poor does now? Heard of food banks? Want the brains of the world coming here. My gdd is in the top 5% of this country academically in all subjects yet she does not have a hope in hell of getting to Oxbridge. Why? Because we as a family could not support her. Her mum, single parent, minimum wage, zero contract community carer has not been able to put money away to give her that support her dd would need to attend Oxbridge. She will end up at a tuppenny uni cos its cheaper. What a waste. That is if she can afford to go to any uni. The children today are worse off than their baby boom 1960s grandparents. Most young people cannot buy their own property because house prices so high. They don't have job security in fact, they are lucky as graduates to actually get a job they are qualified to do. So no, your children are not better off than their grandparents.

low income families can get bursaries at Oxford
www.ox.ac.uk/students/fees-funding/ug-funding/oxford-support

Tatianna look up 1940.

Only about 6 of the 190 or so countries in the world don't belong to a trading bloc now.

Times have changed from nations going it alone
We can't turn back the clock, because the rest of the world won't turn back with us
And it has been many decades since we were a world superpower, like the US is, to be able to muscle our way into special deals (sometimes)

The UK was desperate to join the then EC in the late 1960s and early 1970s, because even when it was then only the original 6 countries, they were making decisions that affected much of the trade in Western Europe and the UK had little voice

No I wasn't be ironic. Thanks for explaining again

sos but that won't be different outside the EU will it? As an aside it costs the same for Oxbridge as any other Uni atm

Soz. It is just 'lonely's' post so clearly outlines the benefits. Yet all the discussion was about the 10/11 billion contribution.

Just how many from poor families get I to Oxbridge? Give me the %. Its nothing to do with their qualifications its to do with getting g past the interview and having the money to pay for a tutor to get through entrance exam. And yes there are entrance exams, critical thinking exams etc. I know cos I downloaded them for my gdd to study now at age if 15.

Simon the Stylite‏*@Sime0nStylites*
Fasten your seat belts if the govt paper published on Monday re EU citz rights is not indeed generous.

Craig Grannell‏*@CraigGrannell*

Well, it won’t be. And expect careful wording concentrating on “workers” and those “legally resident”. Latter has many caveats.

Ever The point is that people do not see the wood for the trees. They moan about the contribution we make to the EU without considering not just the rebates, subsidies etc that mean we have, sorry had, a better deal than other members but all the wider economic benefits it brings which are worth many times more to the country than the net contribution.

I am not sure I understand your point about the service economy in turn. Thatcher decided on an economic strategy that has enabled the U.K. to compete in global markets very effectively in spite of a perennial failure to invest in productivity and infrastructure. The decision was taken that we could not compete in mass market manufacturing sectors like textiles and to focus on using our capabilities in Science and the financial sector to exploit the markets for high end manufacturing goods and for services. The result is a Services industry, and especially the creation of the City of London as the world leading hub of financial services between Europe and the rest of the world, which provides 70 % of our trade. I think there is a lot they could have done to spread the benefits, for instance why is Cambridge sinking under the weight of a Science and tech without the infrastructure when with modest investment some of that could be focused on Northern Universities. However the reality that we could not compete in many areas of manufacturing and needed to compete where we had the advantage of science , tech and the knowledge economy was a sound one. For China to rise as a manufacturing economy there has been massive infrastructure investment on a scale hard to imagine even when you have seen it, and there is more to come with the new Silk Road.

Yes know tuition fees same but its cost if living in Oxford say compared to living in Suffolk. Fees same but cist if living accommodation not.

If British firms increase training and wages then they have to increase prices to stay in business.
Will UK consumers pay this higher price, or just import the goods instead ?

For services like childcare, nurseries etc they would put up fees, which would hammer working parents

For public services like bin collections, cleaning, care for the elderly etc increasing wages means increasing income tax or council tax.
So does training British people to do the more skilled jobs instead of importing those workers

Yes Callieach is being sarcastic, the 'boot fair fee' is also only 1.2% of annual spending on other matters..

It always mystified me that in the crescendo to the referendum there was minimal awareness of this fact. The UK’s net contribution to the EU budget for example in in 2014/15 runs at a tiny 1.2% of Britain’s total annual spending.....

The pie chart showing the tiny amount of expenditure is here

medium.com/@ChathamHouse/five-things-to-know-about-sovereignty-in-the-uk-s-eu-referendum-debate-2ed7ab82bd41#.27zhptk52) ]]

sos my best friends daughter for one. 2 years ago. If you work with the school they will help her find a route to Oxford if that is what she wants. I know that Oxford actively recruits from state schools and has open days and summer schools for them

The uni with the highest percentage of Private school educated students is Bristol. Not Oxford or Cambridge

Faisal Islam‏*@faisalislam*

Chancellor Hammond re election: "Britain is weary after seven years of hard slog repairing the damage of the great recession."
Hammond on living standards needing growth: "I thought we had won that argument. But I learned in General Election campaign we have not."
Chancellor: "How do we achieve a Brexit for Britain?"... ummm. Can't really achieve a Brexit for anyone but Britain.
Chancellor calls for "transition" arrangements - gone is the Number 10 semantics of "implementation phases": "to avoid dangerous cliffedges"
Hammond: "frictionless customs arrangements to facilitate trade across our borders – and crucially – keep [IE border] open and free-flowing"
...real question here is - if EU says to achieve "frictionless customs arrangements" you really need to be in some version of CU, what then?
... Hammond "evidence based, symmetrical, transparent.. Reciprocal, reliable" financial services regs reflecting "international standards".
... new EU-UK fin regulator "must enable timely coordinated risk management" and "must be permanent and reliable"...
**Chancellor also says that "businesses up and down the country" have put investment decisions "on hold since the Referendum" -
.."collective sigh of relief will be audible.…in manufacturing, the car industry, fin services, and pharma" with prosperity first BRexit
Also Hammond floats that UK will continue a "mutually beneficial" relationship with the European Investment Bank after Brexit
Governor Mark Carney: "Since the prospect of Brexit emerged, financial markets, notably sterling, have marked down UK’s economic prospects"
Gov: "Depending on whether & when any transition arrangement can be agreed, firms [both sides] may soon need to activate contingency plans".
Carney: "Before long, we will..find out the extent to which Brexit is a gentle stroll along a smooth path to a land of cake and consumption"
Governor Carney refers to Brexit as a "land of cake" - who could he possibly be referring to?

Shorter Mansion House:

Taking Back Control...
of Brexit
by HMT & @bankofengland ...

Or rather emboldening Parliament to...
..Chancellor's speech also open invitation to car industry, pharma, manufacturing, fin serv to say what actually think about Brexit impact

I know you think these things nothing to do with being in the EU and you will be right but the point is to the poor it won't make a difference if we are in because clearly it doesn't now. We are still poor with little life chances. I know you will all say it will be a lot worse out for the poor. I'm sure a lit of brexiteers are hoping it won't, in fact, I bet they are praying it won't.

Everthink that's interesting and thanks. Yes gdd school runs Renaissance programme to help with Oxbridge. Last year 14 students to Oxbridge but not one if those pupils were pp pupils like my gdd. 56% of 6th firm did, however, get into a Russell group uni. Our difficulty is finances. A lot of those children proffesiobal parents, private tutoring. My awesome gdd no private tutoring or professional parents. We will struggle next year to pay her fare of £100 a month to go to her schools 6th form as I may not be here to help anymore. Sorry off the point if brexit. Shall make exit.

Sos I suggest you go on the Higher Education threads. There are Oxbridge academics on there who will advise. The % from disadvantaged families going to Oxbridge is still not high enough but there are reasons other than interview bias and the critical thinking tests (which are actually designed to find potential, not the tutored), problems like the advice given in some state schools on subject choices etc. It is very competitive and many bright pupils do not get in regardless of advantage, discerning the best applicants from such a large and competitive field means there is an element of lottery. I am involved with a mentoring charity focused on BME pupils in London schools which has had a lot of success just by encourage them to raise their aspirations and providing them with the necessary knowledge to achieve the successs they deserve. The charity is made hugely welcome by Oxbridge. However it is things like encouraging them to apply for Sciences other than Medicine, to consider Modern Languages and to look beyond Oxbridge at the many world class universities we have.

Frankly the top 5% are now to be found in a lot more universities than Oxbridge and many of those universities have extensive bursary and scholarship schemes. UCL for instance (too 4 in the world by some measures) automatically pays a scholarship and bursary for those whose parents are in low incomes. My DD went to one of those universities and in spite of it being in London two of her flat mates were from disadvantaged backgrounds in the North, one from a single parent family.

sostenueto My parents were born at the end of WW1
My father came from a lower mc family in the NE and the whole area suffered dreadfully during the 1920s and 1930s:

Babies dying because their mothers were too starved to produce milk, people dying in screaming agony because they couldn't pay for a doctor, or medicine.

He, like his mum and all his siblings, went literally hungry and barefoot, even in winter - the family had not a single pair of shoes.
They all had to leave school on their 14th birthday and get a job to help feed the family, backbreaking work at 14.

The 1950s-1970s were a very rare period in British history in which the old class system weakened and briefly the country agreed on a welfare state, with opportunity for bright wc kids.

I came from a very poor family - just me and widowed disabled mum - but I was one of the 6% who went to uni with fees and living costs paid.
Raising to 50% those going to uni was supposed to broaden opportunity. It did for most, but reduced it for some - I would never have gone to any uni if I had to take out a loan, but I have a STEM PhD and a professional career.
That change was a political decision, that most voters thought would be good.

I have just managed to catch up with news and thread. So David Davis went into the meeting room with Barnier totally unprepared but brash?! It is so embarrassing.