Westminstenders: Boom. The Brexit Backlash starts to hit.

[RedToothBrush]

So it turns out that immigration figures that stated students overstayed were wrong. The home office knew this. And sat on it. Since 2015. Under Theresa.

That smells a bit doesn't it?

Imagine it: "Let's do lunch Paul. I'll cover up and give you a nice immigration story for your front page. In return, crown me PM."

Then tonight BOOM. Labour look like they have made a move. Soft very swishy Brexit. Even less brexity than the Beano Brexit that the Tories have been trying to announce on the quiet over the summer whilst Brexiteers are on holiday.

amp.theguardian.com/global/2017/aug/26/labour-calls-for-lengthy-transitional-period-post-brexit
Labour makes dramatic shift on Brexit and single market
Party opens clear divide with Tories, with support for free movement and paying into EU budgets for up to four years

Labour is to announce a dramatic policy shift by backing continued membership of the EU single market beyond March 2019, when Britain leaves the EU, establishing a clear dividing line with the Tories on Brexit for the first time.

In a move that positions it decisively as the party of “soft Brexit”, Labour will support full participation in the single market and customs union during a lengthy “transitional period” that it believes could last between two and four years after the day of departure, it is to announce on Sunday.

This will mean that under a Labour government the UK would continue to abide by the EU’s free movement rules, accept the jurisdiction of the European court of justice on trade and economic issues, and pay into the EU budget for a period of years after Brexit, in the hope of lessening the shock of leaving to the UK economy. In a further move that will delight many pro-EU Labour backers, Jeremy Corbyn’s party will also leave open the option of the UK remaining a member of the customs union and single market for good, beyond the end of the transitional period.

Why would Labour suddenly do this? It's not just because of the youth vote. What about their leave voters?

Faisal Islam on the subject:
2. On Labour Leavers is very very interesting and involves quite the psephological judgement re the election....
...the calculation appears to be that Labour Leave voters had the chance to vote for Theresa May's brand of Brexit, and bar 5 seats, said No
Was that because Lableave voters were already signalled "hard Brexit"? Or many millions such voters much more concerned about other things?

Have Labour been polling their voters on this?

Theresa has also apparently set her sell by date: Friday 30th August 2019.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-sets-date-shell-quit-11061894.amp
Theresa May sets date she'll quit as Prime Minister - giving herself time to see Britain through Brexit

The longer the transition and the squishier it gets, the more the more you wonder.

Mr Barnier will enjoy his coffee and newspapers tomorrow as he prepares for round two of Brexit talks starting next week.

The question on his mind most: Will David Davis remember to bring his notes this time?

Hashi...
I care for my mum
So I only work very pt (4 hours a week)
I was once called a prostitute on this very forum as dh is the main salary earner

Believe me, not everyone thinks carers are great!
I also have 2 voluntary roles in the community
I'm fairly busy :)

I think the Clegg article is uncannily accurate because most of the information was out there at the time of the Referendum but was dismissed as "Project Fear". It was common sense - but was surprisingly uncommon. I think it brings home to me how powerful the Leave rhetoric was versus 'expert' 'opinion' (and I put 'opinion' in inverted commas because there was a substantive difference in the truth status of the various 'opinion' that were swimming around prior to the vote.

My feeling is that there is a similar denial floating around with regard to what is going to happen if there is a failure to secure a transition period. Air travel, tarriffs, customs chaos, the NI border, food shortages ... it's all too big - so it surely can't happen, right?

I'm wondering if this is part of the reason David Davis is holding back on those position papers. Once these things are officially discussed, even outlined, they become 'real'. Less to do with holding the cards of a negotiating position close to the chest, more a real fear about how this is going to play out with the population at home.

I genuinely don't know about this. I'd love other people's opinions.

knope it's scary the misogynists here isn't it? There'll always be some people who are arseholes. I upload our task is to make sure they never win. for you and your DM.

Misitgirl Yes, that was what I was talking about. I guess I don't understand why this interference in voting is such a big deal in the USA but is not a big deal here in the UK. Any ideas why that is?

Ah the curse of Samsung random correct strike again

Suppose our task. Not upload FFS.

I suppose so.
I have about 400 topics hidden now :(
And change my nn every couple of months or so it is I, badders!

On the issue of defined benefit pension schemes, though i think it was right that they were brought in line with private sector pension benefits, there are some other factors to take into account.

Firstly some of the black holes in public sector pension funds that you have read about are the result of employers not paying their contributions in the 80s and 90s, the same phenomenon that occurred in the private sector. " In the 1990s many companies took the seemingly painless decision of stopping contributions to occupational schemes. The stock market was riding high and companies thought they could take "pension holidays" and still meet their obligations to pensioners.

Collectively, according to Inland Revenue figures, employers saved almost £18bn during the 1990s pension holidays - although staff were forced to carry on making payments. It was a time of booming corporate profits, although in hindsight much of that profit came directly from the savings in pension contributions."

They were then undone by the bear market of the noughties "The bear market that began in early 2000 and lasted three years dealt the killer blow to an already creaking pension system. It knocked a £200bn hole in pension schemes and reduced the average individual pension pot from £50,000 to £37,500." The bear market that began in early 2000 and lasted three years dealt the killer blow to an already creaking pension system. It knocked a £200bn hole in pension schemes and reduced the average individual pension pot from £50,000 to £37,500." www.theguardian.com/money/2004/jul/10/pensions.jobsandmoney

So in those cases the taxpayer is actually paying for a shortfall that is the employers fault. The employees paid their share of the pot.

Secondly the pension was a part of the benefits package of a public sector job. Along with perceived greater security it was to some extent balanced out by lower salaries and aside from fast track schemes lower prospects of advancement with a HR strategy that was effectively based on dead man's shoes. For those with skills and ability they could often earn more in the private sector, many senior servants end their careers in the private sector, and we are still seeing in the debacle of Brexit management that Civil Service pay does not attract the brightest and the best. I would like to see what the Brexit departments are now forking out for Consultants, some of whom will have come from the public sector because they can earn much more either freelance or as part of a Consultancy.

I am quite surprised and embarrassed by the amount of my public sector pension, arriving as it is years after I worked there, until I think that the monthly amount is what I earned in a day freelance doing the same job but without the responsibilities of line management, which was exponentially more than I had earned as a salary (albeit taxed at higher rate). There were other benefits like career development, training, greater responsibility given at an earlier stage in my career so it was a package, and not purely monetary. In some cases the public sector had a good deal in terms of what they paid civil servants versus their external worth, so what the taxpayer is paying now is to some extent the price of a cheap cost effective bureaucracy in the past.

Thirdly early retirement was a side effect of all those bungled reorganisations that pps have mentioned, and a culture that valued private sector over public sector experience. Consultants would come in and do all the usual consultant stuff such as recycle the ideas of existing workers, or even workers in other companies in the same sector / activity or imposing the latest organisational dogma, and in many cases I know skilled and experienced managers who didn't fit the new template were effectively constructively dismissed with an early pension taking the place of a tribunal pay out, and replaced by people from the private sector who were, given the public sector is not perceived that well on CVs, not actually any good .

I am not saying that there are not baby boomers enjoying a retirement swanning the world on a not particularly deserved, especially given the closing down of opportunities for the generations that follow them, generous pension but equally in some cases they do reflect the worth to society during their careers....

cat I guess because in the US there is evidence of direct collusion between the president and his advisors. In the UK, I don't think there is any serious reason to believe that the government is Russian influenced.

I think it has been accepted for some time that far right parties in Europe have Russian links / access to Russian funding - eg Le Pen in France. Farage is at minimum indirectly linked to Russia, via wikileaks and trump operatives.

That Clegg article is mind blowingly accurate. Are you sure he wrote it before the Referendum?
He should set himself up as a clairvoyant- Mystic Clegg?

Probably be listened to more if he did, rather than former deputy PM and experienced EU trade negotiator. Who needs experts?

knope I now have a vision of you in some rural french bar in the 1940s

Apparently, Radio 4 covered the David Jones story this morning. Well, sort of as I gather (from Twitter - ok, I know) that they didn't mention it in relation to Brexit - just Trump. I think. I'll have to listen to check. Unbelievable, if true.

Howabout Yes I should have added that I am one of the last pensioners in my scheme, already the government has cut back the administration costs so that it takes months to get information and they simply refused to provide the information that my financial adviser expects to receive routinely from other pension funds. Off the record it is assumed within the company's side of the pension fund administration that as the numbers of beneficiaries go down, and helped by negative perceptions of public sector pensions that the government will see it as a ripe target for reduction of benefits.....

Something of course that they have form on, having already done it to women of my age in relation to the state pension....

There is a petition for the couple I linked to the story about you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/we-support-david-kiff-and-wanwan-qiao-s-right-to-stay-in-the-uk

Did they Swedish? That's interesting. I wonder why it's starting to be picked up now?

You've helped me put my finger on what I'm getting at - the silence about the (possible) role in Brexit.

Yes, Mistigirl, you're right that a (possible) link to the President is a much bigger story. But I don't get why there is such an absence of interest in the possible Brexit story.

Is it because it's not possible to prove? Is it because it's not deemed important? I'm genuinely confused about it.

Presumably because it was in the Times. I don't listen to Today but I get the impression Humphys and Robinson are pretty poor at scrutinising pro-Brexit guests.

www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/twitter-account-suspected-of-being-part-of-russian-disinformation-campaign/news-story/ad128e22fd4c3bf6c38d18526d68de42

Here's a readable version of the Times article.

David Jones, is another of ours, I think?
Misinformation in graph form:

🖑
I've been reading all the threads....excellent info and debate as usual
I'm just....baffled by the whole sorry mess

Is this called 'owning'?
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/katie-hopkins-jo-maugham-etonian-father-qc-barrister-twitter-a7917621.html
Makes me admire Maugham even more.

MsHoolies, Ron, thecat
Mystic Clegg!

I've always had time for Nick Clegg - I know he's made mistakes, but strikes me as a decent and capable politician. We need people like him active now. I wonder what he intends to do?
I know he's written a book:

www.theguardian.com/books/2017/aug/15/nick-clegg-book-will-reveal-how-to-stop-brexit

In this article he says there's 'nothing remotely inevitable' about Brexit. I hope he's right about that too.

EU gave us Wallace and Grommit:

Tee hee

Conservatives launching their own "momentum"

• "Activate" - see quite funny link

www.redpepper.org.uk/activate-the-new-tory-momentum-is-100-astroturf/