Brexit View

[WomblingFree]

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And I'm not giving the Labour leadership a get-out

> either. How come we have such incompetent

> individuals at the top of politics these days?

The Economist published an interesting article on this the other week (link below but you might need to register). Summary: neither Labour or the Conservatives have their best people on the front bench - Labour's excludes anti-Corbyn MPs, the Conservatives' excludes those who are pro-EU.

https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21723101-country-will-soon-go-bat-against-brussels-one-its-weakest-teams-decades

I would add: too many career politicians. I can't think of many of the current crop who've achieved much outside parliament.

[Jenny1]

Thank you for the link WomblingFree. I was able to access the article. And it draws sensible conclusions I think - the need to widen the talent pool, and value age and experience more highly when selecting MPs. Longer term that would help. But for now we have to resign ourselves to being lumbered with the 'C Team'.

[JohnL]

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I watched David Davis' performance before the

> Parliamentary select committee and found him

> unprepared.

Turned up today to the negotiations with no notes whilst EU team have thick

folders full of notes.

He had a huge grin on his face though.

[Seabag]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jenny1 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > I watched David Davis' performance before the

> > Parliamentary select committee and found him

> > unprepared.

>

> Turned up today to the negotiations with no notes

> whilst EU team have thick

> folders full of notes.

>

> He had a huge grin on his face though.

Davis even when not grinning has that grinny type of face. That I want to punch that face is no matter.

We the 'UK' look like a bunch of chancers thus far.

[JohnL]

Who's the cabinet leaker then. is it Gove or are they all at it.

[Loz]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Who's the cabinet leaker then. is it Gove or are they all at it.

I think, since the election at least, they are all at it. Before then, I think they were all scared of May. Since then, well...

[red devil]

Gove has definitely got the look of the class sneak about him. Apparently May is going to give the Cabinet a stern talking to today, but with little or no authority, that will be the equivalent of 100 lines rather than six of the best...

[Alan Medic]

http://www.brexitrecord.com/

Appears to be an interesting everything to do with Brexit site.....

[JohnL]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> http://www.brexitrecord.com/

>

> Appears to be an interesting everything to do with

> Brexit site.....

I'm remain but that lightning strike hints the site may not be entirely pro Brexit :)

[Alan Medic]

I saw it as what will happen if we don't remain ☺

[Seabag]

How long before 'Not in the national interest' prevails

[red devil]

I wonder what Cameron's advice for May will be?

Runnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!...

[pato]

More than running she is going to walk for her 3 weeks holidays in Italy..

Some ppl cannot afford holidays this year thanx to her and her inabilities..but than good on her! She better take advantage now

Hopefully last time she can put her feet in Europe..but surely not. She ll be free to move while we (English and EU) gonna be stuck where we are.

Best of all we are also paying somehow for her holidays..

She probably needs somewhere to stay where ppl are not waiting outside for her but than not sure Italy or everywhere else it s good for her.

On the moon maybe...??

[rendelharris]

pato Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Best of all we are also paying somehow for her

> holidays..

For sure, given that a significant security detail and secure communications unit, plus various secretaries and aides, will have to accompany her at our expense. A staycation would have been rather less selfish and more economical for the taxpayer - particularly as she won't be in post more than another year or so, plenty of time for holidays at her own expense after that.

[Loz]

In better news, Vince Cable is now in charge of the Lib Dems. Hopefully he can kick start the fight against Project Economic Suicide.

[JohnL]

Even Liam Fox now saying there will be a transition period of a few years.

That means this Government won't be delivering Brexit.

[Lordship 516]

Maybe the 'transition' model will become the norm for all the EU, effectively becoming a modification of the EU as we know it. Whatever it will be a new government can completely change tack from the present government format.

[JohnL]

and quietly as if nothing has happened this is now today government policy

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/michael-gove-transitional-period-for-brexit-agreed-philip-hammond-may_uk_597117ade4b09e5f6cce4019

[red devil]

Lordship 516 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe the 'transition' model will become the norm

> for all the EU, effectively becoming a

> modification of the EU as we know it.

Agreed, the EU needs to reform but that will take time, something which a transition period would provide...

[Alan Medic]

I like this cartoon....

[uncleglen]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thatcher was clever.. ?? Mmmh no deceitful.

>

> She gave 'Council' Tenants the opportunity to buy

> there own homes..

>

> .. insuring that they could not then afford to go

> on strike..

>

> ...at a time when the

> Shipbuilding industry was finished.. The Mining

> Industry was finished.. The Steel Industry was

> finished.

> The mines closed.. The shipyards closed.. The

> Steelworks closed .. People had no jobs and they

> lost their homes.

>

> They were snapped up at auction by unscrupulous

> landlords. Hence the affordable housing shortage.

>

>

> DulwichFox

As it happens- and I have pointed this out before somewhere on the Forum, the Right To Buy was first proposed in the Labour Party Manifesto of 1959 but Labour lost that election. The policy was then rolled out by Mrs T and is now extended to housing association tenants.

http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab59.htm

see the final line under the Housing paragraph

[rendelharris]

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> As it happens- and I have pointed this out before

> somewhere on the Forum, the Right To Buy was first

> proposed in the Labour Party Manifesto of 1959 but

> Labour lost that election. The policy was then

> rolled out by Mrs T and is now extended to housing

> association tenants.

> http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab59

> .htm

>

> see the final line under the Housing paragraph

Wrong. You need to read the final four lines (how unlike you to cherrypick):

"Labour's plan is that, with reasonable exceptions, local councils shall take over houses which were rent-controlled before 1 January, 1956, and are still tenanted. They will repair and modernise these houses and let them at fair rents. This is a big job which will take time and its speed will vary according to local conditions.

Every tenant, however, will have a chance first to buy from the Council the house he lives in; and all Council tenants in future will enjoy the same security of tenure as rent-restricted tenants."

So what Labour was proposing was that they would take over all privately-owned rent controlled properties from their landlords; they would then offer the sitting tenant the chance to buy the property, if that was declined it would be turned into a council property. Nothing to do with offering a right-to-buy regarding existing council homes.

[Loz]

Can't agree RH. The first paragraph you quote agrees with your conclusion, but the last line definitely agrees with UG. Especially when you read the whole section and see each paragraph is a separate policy.

[rendelharris]

I respectfully suggest you're mistaken, Loz: the "however" in the final line clearly links it to the preceding line, as does the "first": we will buy the rent-controlled houses and turn them into council houses, but first the tenant will be offered the chance to buy. It's offering tenants of rent-controlled properties the right to buy, not all council tenants.

ETA and "all Council tenants in future will enjoy the same security of tenure as rent-restricted tenants." clearly shows it's still talking about council-requisitioned rent-controlled properties.

[keano77]

Rendel quoted

ETA and "all Council tenants in future will enjoy the same security of tenure as rent-restricted tenants." clearly shows it's still talking about council-requisitioned rent-controlled properties

Contradiction here

It's clear Labour in 1959 was hoping to change 'rent controlled' properties to 'rent restricted' properties. Legally (historically) a big difference here

However, off topic