Politics, politics, politics

[the dza]

’high profile’ Labour members with links back to the BBC include: Peter Mendleson (Media guru for Tony Blair with closer links to Greg Dyke (from LWT TV). Greg Dyke later become Director General of the BBC), Will Hutton (Guardian journalist to BBC Journalist), Liz Fogan (BBC and Guardian Journalist), Andrew Rawnsley (BBC to New Labour activist), James McNaughtie (Guardian to BBC staff Radio 4), (1997) Lance Price (BBC to New Labour activist), Martin Sixsmith (BBC to New Labour activist), Tom Kelly (BBC to New Labour activist), Ed Richards (BBC to New Labour activist), Bill Bush (BBC to New Labour activist), Catherine Rimmer (BBC to New Labour activist), John Birt (BBC DG to New Labour activist), Don Briad (BBC to New Labour activist), Sarah Hunter (BBC to New Labour activist), Ben Bradshaw, (BBC to New Labour MP 1997), Chris Bryant (BBC to New Labour MP), Celia Barlow (BBC to New Labour MP), James Purnell (BBC to New Labour Gov. Minster), Ken Macintosh, (BBC to (Scotland) MSP).

Right -- New Labour, Blair's people. All of them against an actual left-winger like Corbyn, because New Labour were not left wing barring some issues of identity politics. Economically, they were liberals, which is why Rupert Murdoch gave them his support, and why he and other media moguls despise actual left-wing politics that can change the economic status-quo.

Most of these "luvvie" types are just liberals when it comes to economics; neo-liberals who are big on gay rights and other issues of identity politics, that was New Labour. That's why they didn't do anything to regulate financiers and prevent the financial crash, on this they were the same as the Tories (who also called for less and less regulation of The City).

It's Neo-Liberal bias, not left-wing bias imo.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I don't think Brown was neo-liberal

In particular his huge bloating of the public sector and introduction of working tax credits to ensure the poor were beholden to the state were very statist.

 

[the dza]

I don't think Brown was neo-liberal

In particular his huge bloating of the public sector and introduction of working tax credits to ensure the poor were beholden to the state were very statist.

I'd argue that supporting low-pay corporations with government subsidies, whilst keeping finance suitably de-regulated to promote and sustain a house-price boom (or debt bubble) was perfectly neo-liberal economics. Unfettered finance from Thatcher onwards, that's the consensus.

There are/were differences here and there between New Labour and the Tories, especially on social issues, but the main constant is that they would go along with whatever The City wanted. The City wants financial de-regulation, low wages (with the government allowing people to live on them via in-work benefits) and easy immigration for unskilled workers and they got it all. Within that box of "acceptable thought" there is some room for manoeuvre on social issues, public sector numbers etc. But The City and the war machine must rule the roost ultimately, hence financiers and interventionists boom under both Bush and Blair, so-called left and right.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I'd argue that supporting low-pay corporations with government subsidies, whilst keeping finance suitably de-regulated to promote and sustain a house-price boom (or debt bubble) was perfectly neo-liberal economics. Unfettered finance from Thatcher onwards, that's the consensus.

There are/were differences here and there between New Labour and the Tories, especially on social issues, but the main constant is that they would go along with whatever The City wanted. The City wants financial de-regulation, low wages (with the government allowing people to live on them via in-work benefits) and easy immigration for unskilled workers and they got it all. Within that box of "acceptable thought" there is some room for manoeuvre on social issues, public sector numbers etc. But The City and the war machine must rule the roost ultimately, hence financiers and interventionists boom under both Bush and Blair, so-called left and right.

Brown's motives for working tax credits were more cynical. It was just to build a majority of people who were so dependant on the state that they would never vote anyone but Labour. It was their version of selling council houses to create home-owners (Tory voters). Wages ratios or similar would have been a much nobler intervention.

I think New Labour moved the Tories left on social policy. Cameron's push for gay emancipation wouldn't have been palatable in the shires if it wasn't for more than a decade in opposite

But I agree that all parties have been influenced by the City too much for too long. We need to disempower/dismantle most financial services and introduce a proper industrial strategy instead (financial services and industrial strategies are inherently in conflict/a net sum game). Hopefully Brexit will enable that - I think it's one of the reasons Corbyn is such a leaver.

 

[the dza]

Brown's motives for working tax credits were more cynical. It was just to build a majority of people who were so dependant on the state that they would never vote anyone but Labour. It was their version of selling council houses to create home-owners (Tory voters). Wages ratios or similar would have been a much nobler intervention.

I think New Labour moved the Tories left on social policy. Cameron's push for gay emancipation wouldn't have been palatable in the shires if it wasn't for more than a decade in opposite

But I agree that all parties have been influenced by the City too much for too long. We need to disempower/dismantle most financial services and introduce a proper industrial strategy instead (financial services and industrial strategies are inherently in conflict/a net sum game). Hopefully Brexit will enable that - I think it's one of the reasons Corbyn is such a leaver.

I agree with the last two paragraphs. Identity politics does have some positive effects too (equality legislation, gay marriage etc), but I don't like how the New-Labour type 'left' uses them as a cover for keeping the Thatcher consensus going when it comes to finance, privatisation, out-sourcing, miitary interventionism etc.

I think on Brown's motivation for tax-credits, the right-wing media story is one of a client state created by in-work benefits, but I don't buy it. I still think the main beneficiaries of in-work benefits is business and also landlords, rather than the individual workers. Also, if it was really Brown's intention to create a class of voter beholden to Labour, it didn't work; Labour lost votes at each election since '97 right through to Brown becoming leader, where the 'bribed' electorate thanked him by delivering a Tory led coalition government.

The biggest financial intervention made by Brown was bailing out the banks and that is something consistent with neo-liberalism again (privatise profits, socialise losses), it happened in America under Bush, continued under Obama, the same with interventionist wars, Blair or Cameron it made no difference. As long as finance and military adventures are given the green light, the Democrat/Republican/Tory/New-Labour factions could have their token differences, but it all had to be done within the confines of a neo-liberal consensus that became established under Thatcher and Reagan.

All imo, of course.

 

[the dza]

Is there anybody who attacks May as much as George Osborne?

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...b08eb8aa037735#block-59638d5ce4b08eb8aa037735

George Osborne, the Evening Standard editor and former Conservative chancellor, has published an editorial accusing Theresa May of over-ruling David Davis, the Brexit secretary, and other cabinet ministers over the rights of EU nationals and Euratom. Here’s the key extract.

To get the negotiations off to a good start, [Davis] wanted to make a unilateral offer to European citizens living here that they could remain. Mrs May repeatedly overruled him. Mr Davis was open to Britain remaining party to the Euratom Treaty — the arrangements between European nations, including those outside the EU, that govern the transit and security of radioactive materials across the continent. As this paper reports exclusively today, the Royal College of Radiologists fears withdrawing from Euratom would endanger the import of the radioisotopes from Europe used in cancer scans and the treatment of 10,000 patients here. It was Mrs May who overruled Mr Davis and others in the Cabinet, such as Greg Clarke, to insist that we sacrifice those sensible international arrangements on the altar of the dogmatic purity of Brexit. That rigid approach now faces humiliating defeat in Parliament, as a growing number of Conservative MPs make clear they will rebel.

The editorial says, if there was a leadership election now, Davis would be a “shoo-in” to replace May. It says he must decide now whether or not to challenge her. The editorial implies he should ...

 

[the dza]

In a weird co-incidence, we were talking in a previous post about Tories being more to the left on social issues in recent times. I guess not everybody got the memo:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40555639

A Conservative MP has been criticised after it emerged she used a racist expression during a public discussion about Brexit.

Anne Marie Morris, the MP for Newton Abbott, used the phrase at an event in London to describe the prospect of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

She told the BBC: "The comment was totally unintentional. I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused."

The Lib Dems have urged Theresa May to discipline her for the "nasty" remark.

According to a recording published on the Huffington Post website, Ms Morris was discussing the impact of Brexit on the UK's financial services industry at an event organised by the Politeia think tank.

Suggesting that just 7% of financial services would be affected by Brexit, she reportedly said: "Now I am sure there will be many people who will challenge that but my response and my request is look at the detail - it isn't all doom and gloom."

She went on: "Now we get to the real nigger in the woodpile, which is in two years what happens if there is no deal."

The phrase originated in the American Deep South in the mid-19th Century and is thought to have referred to slaves having to conceal themselves as they sought to flee north and secure their freedom.

It was subsequently used in the 20th Century - including by a number of leading novelists - as a metaphor to describe a hidden fact or problem.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I don't know much about the nuclear thing, and we should be curtailing that dinosaur industry anyway.

But I don't get the issue with the EU nationals thing. The only thing we haven't given is continued jurisdiction of the ECJ over them. But that's like saying the UK courts should have jurisdiction over Donald Trump because his mother was Scottish. It's just something a sovereign country can't agree to.

 

[Gutter Boy]

In a weird co-incidence, we were talking in a previous post about Tories being more to the left on social issues in recent times. I guess not everybody got the memo:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40555639

A Conservative MP has been criticised after it emerged she used a racist expression during a public discussion about Brexit.

Anne Marie Morris, the MP for Newton Abbott, used the phrase at an event in London to describe the prospect of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

She told the BBC: "The comment was totally unintentional. I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused."

The Lib Dems have urged Theresa May to discipline her for the "nasty" remark.

According to a recording published on the Huffington Post website, Ms Morris was discussing the impact of Brexit on the UK's financial services industry at an event organised by the Politeia think tank.

Suggesting that just 7% of financial services would be affected by Brexit, she reportedly said: "Now I am sure there will be many people who will challenge that but my response and my request is look at the detail - it isn't all doom and gloom."

She went on: "Now we get to the real nigger in the woodpile, which is in two years what happens if there is no deal."

The phrase originated in the American Deep South in the mid-19th Century and is thought to have referred to slaves having to conceal themselves as they sought to flee north and secure their freedom.

It was subsequently used in the 20th Century - including by a number of leading novelists - as a metaphor to describe a hidden fact or problem.

It's no coincidence that Straw Dogs was set in the south-west

 

[milo]

But I don't get the issue with the EU nationals thing. The only thing we haven't given is continued jurisdiction of the ECJ over them. But that's like saying the UK courts should have jurisdiction over Donald Trump because his mother was Scottish. It's just something a sovereign country can't agree to.

That's not true, the UK government's proposal is significantly less generous than the EU proposal made in April and going back on the promise made by the Leave campaign that EU nationals in the UK would not see their rights downgraded post Brexit.

If all we were disagreeing on was ECJ jurisdiction, we could've accepted the bulk of the EU proposal and just pushed back on judicial oversight. I think that it would be been reasonably easy to get agreement on a new supranational judicial arrangement to cover this.

It is a stupid own goal as well. It is wasting negotiating time that we don't have, creates bad will, extends uncertainty for EU citizens living here and UK nationals living in the EU and we will end up conceding on this.

 

[milo]

I don't know much about the nuclear thing, and we should be curtailing that dinosaur industry anyway.

These are good primers on it

http://bruegel.org/2017/02/brexit-goes-nuclear-the-consequences-of-leaving-euratom/

https://www.cam.ac.uk/news/opinion-brexit-euratom-and-article-50

We are committed to building new nuclear power stations, it is needed for the treatment of cancer and much of the science community need access to radioactive materials.

Not having something in place in April 2019 is not an option. Setting up parallel organisations and treaties is incredibly inefficient and expensive.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

All the government needs to do is offer the same deal to the bomby tacos too. They won't swear allegiance to the queen though so they'll just have to endure the cost of being so petty.

The UDA were aligned to this mob too and the last time I checked, that was a terrorist organization.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

I don't think the editors of their political programs being Tory is a token gesture, just shows the "left-wing bias" thing is a load of b0ll0cks. Establishment bias, definitely. Kuensberg, Andrew Neil, Paxman, all Tories though.

Tories spout this nonsense constantly. They think if they repeat this lie often enough then suddenly it will become truth.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Maybe it's not an establishment bias, maybe it's just some kind of patriotism. Defending the country against those who wish it harm, etc.

Too funny.

 

[scaramanga]

The UDA were aligned to this mob too and the last time I checked, that was a terrorist organization.

Were. I don't believe there is an extant military wing of the UDP.

 

[scaramanga]

In a weird co-incidence, we were talking in a previous post about Tories being more to the left on social issues in recent times. I guess not everybody got the memo:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40555639

A Conservative MP has been criticised after it emerged she used a racist expression during a public discussion about Brexit.

Anne Marie Morris, the MP for Newton Abbott, used the phrase at an event in London to describe the prospect of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

She told the BBC: "The comment was totally unintentional. I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused."

The Lib Dems have urged Theresa May to discipline her for the "nasty" remark.

According to a recording published on the Huffington Post website, Ms Morris was discussing the impact of Brexit on the UK's financial services industry at an event organised by the Politeia think tank.

Suggesting that just 7% of financial services would be affected by Brexit, she reportedly said: "Now I am sure there will be many people who will challenge that but my response and my request is look at the detail - it isn't all doom and gloom."

She went on: "Now we get to the real nigger in the woodpile, which is in two years what happens if there is no deal."

The phrase originated in the American Deep South in the mid-19th Century and is thought to have referred to slaves having to conceal themselves as they sought to flee north and secure their freedom.

It was subsequently used in the 20th Century - including by a number of leading novelists - as a metaphor to describe a hidden fact or problem.

She should be sacked with immediate effect.

It's not only the right thing to do, but it also puts an extra spotlight on Corbyn's tolerance (I'll stop short of using the term encouragement) of anti-Semitism in his own party.

 

[scaramanga]

That's not true, the UK government's proposal is significantly less generous than the EU proposal made in April and going back on the promise made by the Leave campaign that EU nationals in the UK would not see their rights downgraded post Brexit.

If all we were disagreeing on was ECJ jurisdiction, we could've accepted the bulk of the EU proposal and just pushed back on judicial oversight. I think that it would be been reasonably easy to get agreement on a new supranational judicial arrangement to cover this.

It is a stupid own goal as well. It is wasting negotiating time that we don't have, creates bad will, extends uncertainty for EU citizens living here and UK nationals living in the EU and we will end up conceding on this.

But by doing it this way, when we concede on it we'll be able to ensure we get something in return.

 

[milo]

But by doing it this way, when we concede on it we'll be able to ensure we get something in return.

I doubt that we will, we need to settle this and our exit terms before we can move on with negotiations and we need to move on with negotiations. If that was our strategy, we should have published this in the autumn. All we have done is squander time and good will.

 

[scaramanga]

I doubt that we will, we need to settle this and our exit terms before we can move on with negotiations and we need to move on with negotiations. If that was our strategy, we should have published this in the autumn. All we have done is squander time and good will.

It's something the EU needs - way more than we do. We'll get something in return or we should change our negotiators.

The EU say we must settle it before other discussions, we say no. That's as much a part of the negotiation as anything else.

 

[milo]

It's something the EU needs - way more than we do. We'll get something in return or we should change our negotiators.

The EU say we must settle it before other discussions, we say no. That's as much a part of the negotiation as anything else.

Why does the EU need something more than we do?

We will concede on this. There is not parliamentary support for the government's proposal and we do not have time to waste chasing lost causes.

We conceded the point on the sequencing of negotiations on the first day, so that one has gone.

Is see that No. 10 conceded on ECJ oversight during transition today. May's red lines are causing are causing a lot of problems for five minutes of applause at last autumn's party conference.