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.

Thank you, Bolshy, you made my point (but much more concisely and elegantly).

Robbie Gibb @RobbieGibb
·
6 Jul

I am pleased to announce I will be leaving the BBC to join the Prime Minister, Theresa May, as her new Director of Communications

Carrie Symonds @carrie_symonds1
·
3h

Very pleased to be joining CCHQ as Director of Comms. Lots to do. Can't wait to get started.

Are those two different posts? A communications director for May and another for cchq?

Bit of honesty now we're no longer fighting an election would not go amiss.

But he's fighting the next election - you know, the one that's likely to happen this autumn.

Corbyn can talk about removing the paycap until we all fall at his feet but, if he's prepared to let Brexit happen - and he seems more than happy to do this - then it will mean diddly squat because the economy will crash and, I hate to say it, people in the public sector will be lucky to hold onto their jobs much less get pay rises. For that reason, I am a reluctant Hammond-ite.

I agree that Brexit will screw the public sector, but i would also argue that I see no value in rolling back brexit if we just screw up the country using another method. Hammond may be pro-remain but if put in power he will damage the country just as badly through continuing an ideologically motivated policy of austerity.

I would also add that my post was deliberately not pro-corbyn as in my view the arguement against Hammond is nothing to do with Corbyn or whether or not you agree with his approach. Whatever you think of Corbyn does not stop Hammond being dangerous. This is not an either or situation.

The arguement that people in the public sector would be lucky to keep their jobs if brexit goes ahead seems pretty pointless when we are already losing our jobs under Hammond and the Tory Government cuts. There will be no public sector if this continues, brexit or no brexit.

Tory cuts are reversible, hard Brexit isn't.

Bolshy The hard/soft/clean terms are just irrelevant. Brexit IS hard because as far as May is concerned, the non-negotiable red line on supranational judicial bodies (taking back control etc), is absolutely not the ECJ so presumably not the EFTA Court either (i.e. the one Norway has signed up to) so anything that seems to be called 'softer' (i.e.eventual EEA type arrangement) is nowhere on the cards either. The EU are simply bored with the whole business. Moving forward with trade deals with Japan, new G20 place for Netherlands etc. There's always a way back but it won't be on the same terms and in terms of influence and reputation, already shot.

As I was writing my suspicions that Corbyn wants the repeal Bill passed, it suddenly dawned on me where I had picked up that plot line from ...

Die Hard

Where Alan Rickmans character uses the SOP of the FBI to disable the final locks on the Nakatomi vault ...

Hans Gruber: The circuits that cannot be cut are cut automatically in response to a terrorist incident. You asked for miracles, Theo, I give you the F.B.I.

Jeremy Corbyn: The powers that cannot be taken are given automatically in a Repeal Bill. You asked for miracles, Britain, I give you the Hard Brexit.

Marina has perfectly assessed Leadsome's career potential, which I had previously thought was nil:
Loathsome should indeed by snapped up by Ryanair for their baggage desk

Did I read somewhere that Loathsome only agreed the demotion if it came with guaranteed tv interview time?

I totally agree, Bolshy
Within the EU - or with a well negotiated EEA/ EFTA type deal - anything that Hammond does wrt cuts can be reversed after the next GE.

In contrast, Brexit will do irreversible harm to the economy, to jobs, to manufacturing especially.
It would ruin prospects for a generation - if it is the type May & JC seem to want, i.e. leaving the Single Market,CustomsUnion, ECJ, umpteen agencies etc

Even if the next govt wanted to rejoin the EU, that would take several years of negotiation and all the lost ground in the economy and trade would take several more years to recover

I disagree to some extent, citroen
The UK doesn't have the power some Brexiters think, to force the EU to dismantle their 4 pillars.
However, retaining the current #3 largest EU economy and also the London City Financial Centre expertise should be enough to rewind the clock and regain all optouts.

If moving the EU agencies from the UK has gone too far by then, those would be lost though.

Even if the next govt wanted to rejoin the EU

We'd have to go into the Euro, (and social chapter ?).

BigChock I don't understand....the EU has absolutely no intention of dismantling the 4 pillars? This is why they keep saying the UK doesn't really understand Brexit. It's irrelevant whether Brexiteers think the UK had any influence on the EU - they just want to be out of it. And get on with it as quickly as possible is the message from Brussels.

I think some Brexiteers just hate the idea of the EU. It is rules based and they won't lower themselves to do teamwork. Or the soft power. What is wrong with the EU is that it not run by the whims of the UK. They want to be the boss of everyone else. Not just a partner.

You are now beginning to hear quite a bit of 'The EU wants to destroy/punish/make life difficult for the UK'. What a shower of lily livered hypocrites. If they want out to forge the UK's rightful place on the globe, go and do it. Don't whinge that they want to leave but still enjoy the benefits of the EU without the obligations or membership payments or to follow any rules. The way they talk about the EUSSR would make you wonder why they even want the UK to trade with such an evil organisation. They cannot even publicly admit they are choosing this path themselves. Or even take responsibility for the consequences of leaving the EU. So, if the UK is a disaster outside the EU, they will still blame it on the EU.

In fact the one person I have heard saying they want to destroy something is a Con Cabinet minister. Steven Baker wants the EU to be destroyed. So it is they who don't just want to leave and take the consequences of leaving. If the UK is a third country, accepting 3rd country status is no more a punishment than any other 3rd country. They don't even have the courage of their stance.

I read somewhere that some Brexiteers are saying they want changes to the WTO. I think soon, any organisation will just run when the UK say they want to torpedo join it. 'Oh, we'd be honoured for you to join, but we aren't stupid enough to let you good enough for a power sans pareil like you.'

Is the UK seriously going to do more trade with Australia than with the countries geographically closer? Fox's three dozen jollies journeys to sound out places to potentially trade with does make you wonder. Can it be as rudderless and wasteful of time and money as it looks?

I think Hammond does understand Brexit, and would be willing to abide by the four pillars to allow access to the single market. He's a remainer at heart. I don't trust any Tory as far as I could throw them, but I'd rather spreadsheet Phil over some hard nut brexiter at the end of the day.

Citroen I may not have explained properly:
Of course the EU won't dismantle the 4 pillars, no matter how much it wishes to maintain current trade etc with the UK.

My point was that although the UK doesn't have the power to force that, it does have sufficient power, if it decides to revoke A50 - to retain current optouts.

However, if Brexit actually happens and the UK wishes to rejoin, then that is an entirely different case:
the UK would be a new member, not an existing one.

There would be probably be several years of negotiation, but the UK is likely to lose many optouts.
wrt new members having to join the Euro, they first have to fulfill strict economic conditions, e.g. keeping below 3% annual deficit, which the UK is unlikely to fulfill for decades anyway.

Well, if the only other options are hard brexiteers then I would take many things I wouldn't in other circumstances. What I am objecting to is the idea Hammond is going to ride in and save us. He is not. He will just screw us in a different way. So the discussion you are having is how do you prefer the country to be fucked up. Like asking someone to choose if they would prefer to have their arm or leg cut off.

Hardcore Brexiters usually want the EU to collapse.

It's partly because they disapprove of rules that restrict capitalism in any way: all those pesky health & safety regulations we don't need , workers' rights, environment, data protection ....

However, a major reason is that they expect Brexit to hammer the economy and damage standards of living for many people.
They can only justify this damage if it is to escape a worse catastrophe in the EU.

Unfortunately for them, the E27 will be far less damaged by Brexit than the UK will be.

Sensible Leavers and Remainers both realise that major damage to either the Uk or the E27 significantly affects the other, but that damage shared among 27 countries will much less than what the UK will bear on its own.

bigly It's a difference between longterm damage and something short term & reversible
More like the difference between an amputated arm and a broken arm.

Even if A50 is revoked there is no turning back to the previous arrangement. The UK is in Europe - it will have to operate at some level but will be on the sidelines. That some Brexiteers thought the EU would be destroyed if Britain left...I think that is true but from those who have absolutely no clue about how the EU operates or who (like J R-M) simply live on another planet.

bigly It's a difference between longterm damage and something short term & reversible
More like the difference between an amputated arm and a broken arm.

I'm afraid I simply don't share your view that the damage being done to the public sector is short-term or in some cases even reversible. Once the NHS is dismantled and sold off to private companies it will not be a simple job to get it back again. Once the structures of social care are torn apart you can't just change your mind and flip a switch to return them.

While we are in absolute agreement about the damage that Brexit will do, please do not support Hammond in the mistaken belief that the damage he will cause given power will be simply wiped away. It won't. You may believe that sacrificing the NHS and social care is a price worth paying to stop Brexit. That is a valid view and one I can sympathise with, but do it with eyes wide open to what you will lose in the process, because you will not get these things back so easily I assure you.

Mulling over the amputation analogy (because I am clearly in a cheery mood today) I agree the losing your arm or leg isn't quite right. When I think of the Hammond option I feel more like someone was going to needlessly amputate both my arms, but now a second person has suggested they might actually only needlessly amputate one of them. While I would, on balance, rather lose one arm than two I am loath to hold up the second person as a pillar of sanity and compassion.

I don't think any of us support him, its more quietly breathing a sigh of relief that at least one remainer with any sort of power in parliament is speaking up. It doesn't mean I'm suddenly going to turn dyed in the wool Tory!
At the moment we are stuck with a Con government and are likely to be so for some time (I still don't think labour would win in a snap election, the tories would not run such a poor campaign twice in a row), so it's a bit pointless bashing Hammond unless there is another Tory chancellor that you'd prefer.