Westministenders: Hey Hey we're the Monkies.

[RedToothBrush]

Welcome to the Listening Parliament.

Have you noticed it yet?

The Three Monkeys of See No Evil, Hear No Evil and Speak No Evil have been in a bit of a fight with didn’t fair well. Its funny how politicians of all shades and levels are desperate to prove just how good they at listening and how they see the problems.

Its quite incredible to think that officials elected to serve the public are even in this position where they are having suddenly think about how they show they are listening. It rather shows up that they have been accustomed to telling the public what to think and what to believe.

What they are still to work out, is that in saying they are listening, they also have to demonstrate they are listening and be credible.

The trouble is, that even though some of the monkeys have been killed off, we still have a lot of monkeys in parliament. 'Monkey say, Monkey do' actions still lurk. Politicians who imitate others without understanding the consequences.

There is no point in listening if you are only listening to one group and don’t understand the consequences of simply repeating the words of others.

Politicians saying they are listening when you can find dozens of incidents where they have said completely the opposition, without having the gumption to explain they have changed their position and without having the grace to explain the evidence that has lead them to change that position rather undermines the idea they are listening.

U-Turns are not a bad thing. U-Turns can show that you were making an error but were wise enough to admit that and why you were wrong. U-Turns are bad when you fail to acknowledge your failings and only do it to chase votes. This is where cynicism creeps in and lack of trust in politicians occurs.

Listening also requires actions to reflect words. There is no good in saying one thing, if your actions don’t reflect that. This is where the Listening Parliament is already failing. And I’m sure we will see it more.

Above all, listening is only part of a conversation. A politician is supposed to be accountable. They are supposed to have their eyes open to evil, not deaf to it and not unwilling to speak inconvenient truths where they recognise the evil.

Any politician who tells you they listen needs to back it up somehow. They need to demonstrate and justify their positions accurately. If they don’t they aren’t listening properly.

Isn’t it funny how it was in Hartlepool that the monkey got hung for being a Frenchman? No one was there to explain differently.

^British officials drop 'cake and eat it' approach to Brexit negotiations
Insiders reveal previously muted economic arguments resurface, shifting mood towards ‘realism’, but Brexit secretary aide denies change of strategy^
www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/02/british-officials-drop-cake-and-eat-it-approach-to-brexit-negotiations

Leadership contest in full swing already.

Replying to @IanDunt
Great article, Ian. Here is the thing with automotive and some more industries. Brexit will separate UK from JIT networks.

the turnip jokes of threads past may be autumn menus

I saw that article too, woman, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

Experts predict house prices could plummet by up to 40 PER CENT due to Brexit and wage drop

The double whammy of possible Brexit-sparked recession coupled with a fall in earnings could have catastrophic consequences for homeowners and put them at risk of 'negative equity

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/experts-predict-house-prices-could-10724816

Negative equity, remember that one well too, took a while to recover, and Britain still had a reasonably functioning economy and government then.

.

Thanks Red, you absolute

Posting in full as this is such a good opinion piecewww.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/01/jess-phillips-rebelling-against-jeremy-corbyn-no-just-voting-for-what-i-believe?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Last week, I voted for Chuka Umunna’s amendment to the Queen’s Speech which sought to rule out withdrawal from the EU “without a deal”, and “set out proposals to remain within the customs union and single market”. It has hit the headlines not because of the merits or lack thereof, but instead because votes like mine are considered as a rebellion against Jeremy Corbyn.

We live in a time when the way I tie my shoelaces can somehow be misconstrued as an attack on Jeremy Corbyn. Let me be clear, nobody press-ganged me to vote for or against it on either side. Those who wrote the amendment didn’t even tell me about it. I sat in my office with the day’s debate on in the background, I listened to the arguments and made my decision as I got more and more infuriated by what was being said on the government benches.

What a novel approach, listening to the debate and deciding on the strength of argument – it’ll never catch on.

The final straw for me was the offering of Charlie Elphicke, the MP for Dover, a man for whom I usually have a lot of time. He followed Chuka and, referring to Chuka’s constituency he stated, “Streatham, of course, is a long way from the front line of Brexit, but Dover, which I represent, is on that front line.”

“We are all on the sodding front line of Brexit,” I shrieked out in my office. This is not about the fact that there might be some extra traffic problems in Dover as lorry-loads of goods face the possibility of new customs restrictions, it’s about what those customs restrictions mean for the people all over the country who work in the factories, farms and industries that make the things that go on the lorries which might now be in gridlock.

It seemed to me that the whole debate was full of people trying to iron out petty nuisances which might be caused by removing us from the best trade deal we could ever have hoped for rather than facing the massive obvious issue at hand – the trade deal itself.

The suggestion that Brexit is solely about borders and immigration and somehow Dover was suffering the ravages of this issue more so than Streatham is utterly laughable. Even if immigration is the be-all and end-all of Brexit, which I know for some people it is, the idea that the people in Streatham don’t understand immigration is preposterous.

Pop to the big Tesco in Streatham and then to the one in Dover and tell me which area has been the front line of what happens at our borders.

My constituents voted leave, I respect that, so I voted to trigger article50, but I’ll be damned if I am going to let Tories decide what a good Brexit looks like for my constituents.

Each and every one of us is at the front line of Brexit. It will affect every life in the country and you can bet your bottom dollar that the catastrophe for our economy of a possible “no deal” will hurt places such as where I live and Streatham much harder than any Tory seat. The poorest always pay the price.

Jess Phillips is MP for Birmingham, Yardley

Jess Phillips is a All power to her.

Michel Barnier‏*@MichelBarnier*
UK denunciation of London Convention=no change: EU law/Common Fisheries Policy had superseded it. EU 27 interests=my priority for negs

Michel Barnier says Michael Gove is spouting bollocks in 140 characters.

Tom Jenkins‏*@EUraTol*

@michaelgove moving tanks on @DavidDavisMP lawn re #Conservatives leader election. Facts of no import. Brits eat little coastal fish anyway

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/02/ukip-members-anne-marie-waters-anti-islam-far-right-fears?CMP=share_btn_tw
Large influx of new Ukip members prompts fears of far-right takeover
Arrival of 1,000 new members in fortnight believed to be ‘infiltration’ by supporters of anti-Islam candidate Anne Marie Waters

With little more than 15,000 votes in total cast when Nuttall won the leadership last November, some within Ukip fear it would not take many more new members to potentially push a tight race Waters’s way.

One Ukip source said: “It’s possible that in a multi-horse race without a favourite, an election would be won with 5,000 votes. So 1,000 new members in just two weeks is potentially a fair way towards distorting the result.”

If Waters did win it would most likely see the end of Ukip – the UK’s third-biggest party by votes cast in the 2015 election – as a mainstream political force.

Waters stood for Ukip in the Lewisham East constituency in 2015 but was prevented from doing so at the June election following concerns about her views on Islam, which she has described as “evil”.

and

On Saturday, Waters formally launched her leadership bid in Rotherham, a location chosen because of its association with the long-running scandal of girls abused by men predominantly from Pakistani-British backgrounds.

The event took place at a secret venue after the original choice cancelled Waters’s booking on the advice of local police. Ukip took the unusual step of advising its local members not to attend the launch, saying the party did not endorse Waters’s views.

Good on Jess Phillips 👍

You can really hear her air of fucked off-ness.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/02/british-officials-drop-cake-and-eat-it-approach-to-brexit-negotiations?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
British officials drop 'cake and eat it' approach to Brexit negotiations
Insiders reveal previously muted economic arguments resurface, shifting mood towards ‘realism’, but Brexit secretary aide denies change of strategy

British officials have quietly abandoned hope of securing the government’s promised “cake and eat it” Brexit deal, increasingly accepting the inevitability of a painful trade-off between market access and political control when the UK leaves the EU.

Government insiders report a dramatic change of mood at the Department for Exiting the European Union (DExEU) since the general election, with growing Treasury influence helping force ministers to choose between prioritising economic interests or sovereignty.

This is in stark contrast to the public position of both main political parties, first set out in the Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech in January, in which she echoed Boris Johnson’s boast that Britain can “have its cake and eat it” – enjoying full trade access without conceding over immigration, courts and payments. Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn sacked three shadow ministers on Thursday for departing from a similar position.

Don't get excited. Yet.

But look at that and think about it Corbyn more hardline than the Brexit Department.

The fatal flaw in Gove's plan to take back control of the UK fisheries contained in a House of Lords report on Brexit.

Most of the fish we catch we export to the EU via the Single Market.

We could end up with lots of fish and with no one to sell them to!

DUBLIN, July 2 (Xinhua) -- The Irish government said on Sunday the decision by the British government to withdraw from the 1964 London Fisheries Convention is "unwelcome and unhelpful".

www.china.org.cn/world/Off_the_Wire/2017-07/03/content_41138557.htm

Interesting that China is reporting this, and not surprising that Irish gov is getting more and more pissed off with this shower.

From the last thread:

Sostenueto Sat 01-Jul-17 08:35:25
Is SF just posturing a lot? Wouldn't it be in their interests to come to agreement so the 1 billion can be spent on what they want instead of being under direct rule where they won't have a choice?

No, they are not posturing.
SF wants official status for the Irish language and other evidence of good faith on the part of the DUP that power sharing and all its ramifications is what they are committed to. It wants to see evidence that the DUP is not the Orange Order and the loyalist paramilitaries in disguise. This is absolutely reasonable as part of the process of building up mutual trust and mutual community respect in a society that endured almost 75 years of apartheid, and 25+ years of civil war, some of those years overlapping.

The DUP and the Tories and in fact all the parties in Westminster for their part have a duty to remember they are the Parliament and the government of all the people in NI and are answerable to the entire NI community.

.

The potential house price crash is a mixed blessing. It would be disastrous for those who bought at the top of the market and end up in negative equity. For others, like possibly my DD struggling to get on the housing ladder, it could be welcome.

Michel Barnier says Michael Gove is spouting bollocks in 140 characters.

So again, Gove making noises for domestic consumption, but in practice, it won't make much difference if a) our fishing quotas have been sold off elsewhere by our own Governments and b) the treaty has been superseded anyway.

with growing Treasury influence helping force ministers to choose between prioritising economic interests or sovereign

Er ... what brain-dead numbnuts believes you get something for nothing ?

So we have to pay with some sovereignty for economic prosperity ?

If it means we all have homes and health, how much do they want ?

The Guardian Guide radio section recommends this Ian Dunt podcast.
audioboom.com/channel/remainiacs-podcast

An entertaining read on spreadsheet Phil. You can't trust Labour with the economy says that man who hands over 1.5 billion to the DUP.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/29/freewheelin-phil-emerges-captivity-man-with-no-plan

www.axios.com/trump-may-visit-u-k-this-month-2451956152.html
Trump may visit U.K. this month

The Times reports, "It is understood that any visit would be confirmed only 24 hours in advance so anti-Trump protesters did not have time to disrupt his visit," with a U.K. government source saying:

"We expect him to go to his golf course [in Scotland]. We are aware he might want to see the prime minister. [The Americans] haven't requested that he comes and we haven't invited him, but we are aware it might happen."

I'm sure some protests can be rumbled up at short notice...

Thanks Red, like others it is difficult to keep up, but have a few moments spare (escaping from Poldark!).

Fishing, another EU myth, we signed the original cross Europe agreement in 1964, long before we joined the EU. The UK government (not the EU) administers the licences. Many UK fishermen sold their licence to EU companies.

Could be interesting legally; if Pierre has a legal licence to fish, say, off the South Devon coast, could our government stop them fishing? Or perhaps pay compensation? I've no idea what the answer is, by the way.

Has Gove worked out that if we stop anyone fishing in our waters, surely European countries will prevent us fishing over there.

We love fish, so I'll be more than happy to have a surplus here at, presumably cheaper prices, but I think some fishing folk are in for a shock.

Whhooops
Graphs relate to this post not the last.

Seeing as apparently we may or may not have a debate on University Fees, this is worth a read and reflection. Its a shame no one is really saying discussing the ins and outs in a similar way as its really quite thought provoking. (Actually I believe someone did, but people weren't listening).

Rob Ford‏*@robfordmancs*

So. Student fees. Hot topic again - not for 1st time. First thing to do is go look at this graph - application rates by educ disadvantage
Point 1: The claim that applications from areas with low access fell after fees is inaccurate. It has carried on rising.
Point 2: Access to higher ed is lower, not higher, in Scotland, where there are currently no fees for domestic students.
Point 3: There is a huge differential in access to higher education between low and high access areas - c.50% from higher areas, 20% lower.
What follows from this? Firstl if you abolish fees for all students, the benefits go principally to better off. They use uni more.
Now, this arg depends on believing that diffs in family background - income, wealth, access to privilege etc - is sthing state shld care abt
If you think access to higher ed is a right and state should be blind to existence of those inequalities & their effects on access, OK.
But, that is the real world effect of the policy change you make - it provides a large state resource that privileged families will use more
That is one thing to consider. Another thing to consider is - why is this the bit of the education sector we keep arguing about?
(well, this and grammar schools - where the args are often somewhat similar but those making them ideologically very different)
This isn't the bit of our system where the inequalities arise, They're already baked in - see the grades ppl get, application patterns.
If you want greater inequality of opportunity, free higher education is a v inefficient means to achieving it. Indeed, may not help at all.
Much of the research shows early years education delivers signif direct gains - expose kids from disadvantaged backgrounds to stimulating
educational environments and you can actually close some of the gap that comes from the accidents of birth and privilege.
Early years is hugely underfunded at present. This really should be corrected. It seems, to me, a better priority for funds.
Or, to take another example, private schools. Students from such schools are hugely over-represented in uni. Abolishing fees won't change it
Instead it is handing a state subsidy to parents who have quite literally bought their children an advantage. So attack the prob directly.
Force private schools to open up & accept intake reflecting their local area. If they won't, tax them (they're charities!) or abolish.
If 50% of private school intake was kids from poorer backgrounds, I bet a lot would go on to uni.
Third thing to think about - alternative to abolishing fees isn't keeping current regime. It should be reformed. But, it has some merits.
If you keep fees for kids from wealthier backgrounds, you could concentrate the money set aside for abolishing fees entirely on poorest.
Abolish fees for them, bring back maintencance grants, provide access courses, summer schools, pre-uni training, etc etc.
Provide more money for FE, the perennial poor cousin of the education sector. Fund links between FE and HE.
Fourth thing to consider - opportunity costs elsewhere. Free education for all is a worthy goal, but is it really the most burning problem?
We have multiple crises - social housing, housing in general, social care, providing for the disabled, access to justice. Etc etc.
£12Bn is big annual sum. The really central question isn't "is free higher education right?" it is "is it the best use of thie money?" /ends

Tom Sperlinger‏*@tomsperlinger*

I see your graph and I raise you. Please PLEASE if you're going to talk about access to unis, fees etc acknowledge that part-time...
...numbers have fallen 61% since fees came in, hugely affecting the most disadvantaged. Talking only about full-time reenforces idea these
...students are invisible and don't matter
Here's the report that initial graph was from:
www.ucas.com/sites/default/files/january_application_rates_2015_final_0.pdf

Policy Person‏*@Policy*_Person
It's not even the whole of HE we argue about. It's full time undergraduate education. Part time, foundation degs etc don't get a look.

BTW the point of that post is not so much to start a debate, but to lament the lack of a decent one on the subject and to say that its all about votes and the narrative rather than what the information says.

Who is misinforming us? Everyone really - its not a particular dig at any party. More at all of them. We don't place value on the right information that helps us make good decisions.

Corbyn has been saying a lot about this particular subject this week and was criticised by C4 fact check but continued to say similar this weekend despite this criticism.

We have done a lot of criticism of the Conservative Party and their brain farts, and now some have been talking about doing similar to the Labour party.

The whole thing is bonkers. Its not about how much money there is, its about how much political will there is.

Meanwhile In Scotia‏*@MeanwhileScotia*
UCAS doesn't cover all further/higher education applications in Scotland. This piece covers the lack of data well...

tomforth.co.uk/uniaccess/
Child poverty and university. Where in the UK is doing best?