Let me make it clear; the Treeza Rant thread

1356737

Comments

  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Partly, I'll give you. Partly more than me, I'll give you that too. But 'partly' makes it sound like he was responsible, which he wasn't.

    It's pretty widely accepted that a lack of regulation on banks and financial markets was what caused the crash. Financial regulation is, ISTM, squarely within the remit of the Chancellor. And who had been Chancellor for the entire decade prior to the crash?

    The problem here Marvin is that you're actually missing the point.

    Whilst there is near-universal agreement now that back in the early 2000s the regulation of the financial sector was inadequate, there were no voices saying so then. It's not that Brown ignored warnings about under-regulation, it's that there were no warnings. In fact, most prominent voices said the very opposite.

    But let us be hyper-critical and say that as Chancellor of the Exchequor, regardless of what anyone else said, it remains his responsibility. Ok, fine. Given that the crisis began in the US sub-prime mortgage market and was virtually world-wide, what would have happened in the UK if we had had better regulation?

    Well, I don't think anyone's done formal analysis but it's easy to do a back-of-an-envelope version: None. No real difference to the UK government's finances at all. All the headline figures are about the bank rescue packages. These were multi-billion dollar figures. If the UK banks had been less exposed, then these figures would have been avoided. But they are not a cost as such. The UK government issued bonds for this money and most of it back when it sold its shares. It would have done better if not for the way Osborne handled this but that's another story. So whilst the UK banking's exposure was a problem, it's not as big an issue as people think. The only direct cost to HM government was in the cost of servicing these bonds which, with interest rates at 0.25% was not a large sum at all. Certainly not compared to the massive drop in tax revenue that resulted from the recession.

    The real cost to the UK economy was a deepest recession since the Great Depression. Without the banking exposure this would not have been so very different - remember, world-wide crisis....

    It's so convenient for people to attribute blame to Brown and of course he should (and does) accept responsibility but the idea that had he done things differently it would have made a big difference are fantasy.

    AFZ
  • Yes Brown and others were responsible for the crash. Brown was, IMO, on the way to handling this. It is the Tories mismanagement that halted the recovery from this. To my mind, that is the greatest problem - we could have sorted the issues a long time ago, if it wasn't for greedy incompetence.
  • It’s funny, but I can’t help the feeling that if Blair and Brown had been Conservatives you’d all have been lining up to describe them as somewhere slightly below Beelzebub in the “good guy” stakes...
  • Democracy in action?
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    It’s funny, but I can’t help the feeling that if Blair and Brown had been Conservatives you’d all have been lining up to describe them as somewhere slightly below Beelzebub in the “good guy” stakes...
    I'm not sure what sort of microscopic measuring apparatus it takes to register "good guy" qualities in politicians, but it seems logical that if Jesus was obviously a social liberal then social conservatives would naturally be rubbing elbows with his imaginary opposite.
  • It’s funny, but I can’t help the feeling that if Blair and Brown had been Conservatives you’d all have been lining up to describe them as somewhere slightly below Beelzebub in the “good guy” stakes...

    Maybe. We are all at risk of confirmational bias.

    Alastair Darling's book is really interesting. The Brown he describes does sound like a nightmare to work with, and the Blair/Brown feud was clearly not constructive. Although I suspect that kind of rivaly is actually ubiquitous in governing parties to some extent.

    But, I note, you've avoided my point. So let's pose it as question: What actions could/should Brown have taken as chancellor that would have made a material difference to the situation Britain was faced with in 2008/9?

    AFZ
  • It’s funny, but I can’t help the feeling that if Blair and Brown had been Conservatives you’d all have been lining up to describe them as somewhere slightly below Beelzebub in the “good guy” stakes...

    Anyone quite so beloved of the Daily Heil and George W Bush as Blair has to be well to the right of the political spectrum, and (entirely coincidentally) your description of him is accurate. The figure you leave out is Peter Mandelsson, and Alistair Campbell deserves a mention. The red rose was a flag of convenience, the effectiveness of which has disabled the Labour party over the decade since his departure from the UK political scene.
  • It’s funny, but I can’t help the feeling that if Blair and Brown had been Conservatives you’d all have been lining up to describe them as somewhere slightly below Beelzebub in the “good guy” stakes...

    Blair was a conservative: a one-nation conservative, for sure, and yes, there was some very good work done, but he shit the bed over Iraq. He should face the Hague (the war crimes tribunal, not William) to answer for that.

    Brown's feud with Blair was almost entirely of his own making. So yes, he was a dick. However, even a dick can save the country from bankruptcy, and we should all be incredibly grateful for that.
  • As a part-time and inadequate misanthrope, I would like to note that most people are dicks. I'm a dick; a saintly dick with a rapier-like wit, but a dick.

    Punctuation wank? I can never remember.
  • Andras wrote: »
    It should be remembered that the UK economy under Brown was beginning to recover when Osborne slammed on the brakes and caused all the problems we've had since, right down to and including Brexit.

    Precisely this - the biggest crisis we were facing he was dealing with. Osborne didn't deal with it.

    Oh no, Osborne dealt with it all right. He made it much, much worse. Brown may have been an awkward cuss, but there have been plenty of those at the Treasury (Ruth Kelly springs to mind) but at least they were clever people. Cameron wanted Vince Cable at the Treasury as Chief Secretary (ie, bearer of Bad Tidings) but Cable didn't want anything to do with Osborne: rightly, he wanted the Chancellorship, but oh no, Cameron wouldn't (and here we hear the same old, same old) put country before party so that twat Osborne got the job and various other LibDems the #2 job at HMT.
  • And now there's a rumour - or worse - that Cameron wants to come back as Foreign Secretary no less.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I'm not saying Cameron would be a good Foreign Secretary, but the bar at the moment is set very low.
  • Actually, Blair was an arrognat shit, and Major was boringly good.

    Cameron should never be allowed a position of power ever again, except, perhaps, in charge of the prison laundry.
  • Except even prisoners deserve clean clothes, and they're unlikely to get that if Cameron is in charge of the laundry.
  • I reckon that boring makes an excellent politician when it comes to running a country but a rubbish politician when it comes to getting re-elected.
  • Indeed, competence is a much under-rated characteristic for political leaders, especially when it comes to securing votes at election time. I think there are at least two big issues that drive the problem of not electing those able to do the job.

    One is that democracy is heavily biased towards personality. Quite competence is a great way to actually get things done, but to gain votes there needs to be a large element of name recognition - which gives an advantage to celebrity, oratorical ability or a quirkiness that makes someone stand out as different. We all know the dangers these characteristics present: celebrities like Trump, great orators like Hitler, quirky individuals like BoJo or Rees-Mogg.

    My other issue is possibly even bigger, since no individual (no matter how big a celebrity) will be in power forever. The issue is the nature of adversarial party-based politics. Each party needs to stand apart as offering a distinctive alternative to the other parties (or, at least to the other major parties they are competing with). This leads to a culture where parties routinely declare the policies of other parties to be rubbish, while at the same time presenting their own policies as both superior and distinct. Imagine if in 2010 the Conservative Party was saying that the economic management of the Brown government had been a good response to the global economic turn-down of 2008 and they'd continue with that policy with no more than minor changes, would Cameron have had any chance of getting enough MPs to form a government? I doubt it. To compete against Labour Cameron needed a radically different approach, whether it was an objectively better economic policy is secondary to the perception that could be sold that Labour was failing and that the Tories would do things differently (and the implication that they would do things better). Politics is a competition where the prize is forming a government and the good of the country is a secondary issue to the game of one-up-manship over other parties.
  • Jonathan Bartley said much the same thing at Greenbelt - the parties are only interested in winning arguments, in being on the winning side, not on having the best policies.

    An adversarial system, like the one we have, is fundamentally broken and damaging. It needs to be a co-operative system, to find the right way forward. That is the way politics should be done.
  • Having just spent far too long watching the wretched woman's 'deal' with the EU being shot down from all sides of the House, I'm simply astonished at her utter bull-headedness.

    She knows - positively knows - that any deal she and her little crowd of know-nothings patch up with the EU will leave the ordinary citizens of this country worse off than they are now; and yet she persists in banging on because she claims that 'It's the People's Will.' Although her deal seems to have almost no chance of getting through the House, she still stands up there hour by hour and takes the flak in order to defend it.

    Is she mad? Or just treasonous, because that's surely what deliberately wrecking your country amounts to?
  • I am not sure whether she is playing some really clever game to scupper Brexit permanantly, by proving that it is an impossible deal, or she is just incompetent.

    I generally lean towards incompetence.

    She cannot convince her own cabinet - not even her own Brexit minister - to support the deal. So she has no chance of a wider acceptance.
  • She is trying to deliver the Holy Grail of a cherry-picked rejig of the Single Market, all at zero cost to the UK. If she doesn't, somehow, retain borderless trade, businesses will murder her. If she can't keep the foreigners out, especially non-white ones, the knuckledraggers will slaughter her.
  • And all that the press and TV news seem to care about is whether this is affecting her as PM, or the unity of her party, or similar issues within the Labour party - and not discussing / investigating what it all means for the rest of us "normal" people and our futures
  • Andras wrote: »
    She knows - positively knows - that any deal she and her little crowd of know-nothings patch up with the EU will leave the ordinary citizens of this country worse off than they are now

    Fact 1- Any deal she can make with the EU will make us worse off.
    Fact 2- No deal will be even worse.
    Fact 3- Brexit cannot be undone.

    Given these three facts, I'm curious what you would have her (or anyone else in her position) do. When the choice is between bad or horrific then pushing for bad is the only realistic way to go.
  • Wet Kipper wrote: »
    And all that the press and TV news seem to care about is whether this is affecting her as PM, or the unity of her party, or similar issues within the Labour party - and not discussing / investigating what it all means for the rest of us "normal" people and our futures

    To be honest, are the major parties really worried about anything other their continued survival? They have always valued survival and internal consistency above anything else. In that, they are like not a few churches.

    eta the only person who looks consistently more desperate and world weary than the PM is Mr Philip May. He looks like a miserable version of Michael Gove, if you can believe that possible.
  • Baptist TrainfanBaptist Trainfan Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    Wet Kipper wrote: »
    And all that the press and TV news seem to care about is whether this is affecting her as PM, or the unity of her party, or similar issues within the Labour party - and not discussing / investigating what it all means for the rest of us "normal" people and our futures

    Yes. I heard John McDonell being interviewed at lunchtime, saying that Theresa ought to step aside and give the Opposition a chance to form a Government. And would that be a Government of National Unity? No way!

    We need the Queen to step in and bash their heads together.
  • Wet Kipper wrote: »
    And all that the press and TV news seem to care about is whether this is affecting her as PM, or the unity of her party, or similar issues within the Labour party - and not discussing / investigating what it all means for the rest of us "normal" people and our futures

    Yes. I heard John McDonell being interviewed at lunchtime, saying that Theresa ought to step aside and give the Opposition a chance to form a Government. And would that be a Government of National Unity? No way!

    We need the Queen to step in and bash their heads together.

    Constitutionally I don't think she can. The only circumstances where she has a role are where the leaders of political parties themselves tell her that they can't form an administration.

    That said, I think the Crown has, at times, intervened in other jurisdictions. But still nothing compared to these circumstances.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    Well, in my Fantasy World:

    1. Let Scotland, Ireland, Wales, and Cornwall ALL invade 'England', peacefully, but simultaneously;
    2. Let Hell gape for TreezaMay, BoJoTheClown, ReesMoggTheHyphen, 'CallMeDave'ThePigPoker, NigelTheGarbage etc. etc.;
    3. Let BrendaTheHandbag, CharlesTheOld etc. etc. all retire to Scotland or The Colonies;
    4. Let someone else (no disrespect to BrendaTheHandbag) with decency and integrity (such as Michelle Obama or Caroline Lucas MP) become Head of State.

    :confounded:
  • Really the most obvious solution is the the rUK to remain and England to exit - hard border round England and freight routed through the other nations. After all it was basically England that voted to leave.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    May seems to have gone out of her way to annoy Scotland. Davidson’s star is waning since it was pinned to Scottish Before Tory but she has not been fighting that corner. Chances are Mundell will head up the disaffection north of the Border.

    Arlene will see which side her farl is buttered. The DUP may be stupid, but they’re crafty.
  • Firenze wrote: »
    May seems to have gone out of her way to annoy Scotland. Davidson’s star is waning since it was pinned to Scottish Before Tory but she has not been fighting that corner. Chances are Mundell will head up the disaffection north of the Border.

    Arlene will see which side her farl is buttered. The DUP may be stupid, but they’re crafty.

    ... and to annoy Wales as well; neither of the Devolved Parliaments (not their official names I know, but that's what they really are) have been kept in the loop, although in common decency (or even pragmatic politics) they should have been.

    And the barefaced lies continue - this morning it was 'an end to freedom of movement.' With the Irish border wide open and unchecked as per our treaty obligations? How does that work?

    In the name of sanity, don't be so fecking stupid! And don't assume that we are either!
  • I can't see how there could be any restriction on movement from the EU via Ireland.

    The positions are mutually exclusive; if there is to be freedom of movement within Ireland and across the Irish sea, there can't also be control of borders.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited November 2018
    Ireland, along with the UK, is not in Schengen, and movement of people into non-Schengen countries, including those within the EU, is controlled.
  • But they've said no borders down the Irish sea. Schengen is a bust.
  • Which is to say that there will be brief checks in the Republic - mostly a wave through of EU citizens.

    Once in, they can travel to the UK via NI with no other checks.
  • TubbsTubbs Admin
    edited November 2018
    Andras wrote: »
    She knows - positively knows - that any deal she and her little crowd of know-nothings patch up with the EU will leave the ordinary citizens of this country worse off than they are now

    Fact 1- Any deal she can make with the EU will make us worse off.
    Fact 2- No deal will be even worse.
    Fact 3- Brexit cannot be undone.

    Given these three facts, I'm curious what you would have her (or anyone else in her position) do. When the choice is between bad or horrific then pushing for bad is the only realistic way to go.

    Fact 4 - She can't point out that many of the promises Vote Leave made were outright lies without throwing a load of her MPs under their bus. Which leads us back to Fact 1. Added to which there is little appetite for a re-do within the EU. This is it. The deal's rubbish but Fact 2 and 3 mean it's likely to be the best we'll get. Although Fact 3 is probably up for debate.

    I don't particularly like the woman but no one has come up with a better solution that's going to survive contact with reality. And unlike most of the Brexiteers, she hasn't given up and run away. Which I would have by now ...
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Ireland, along with the UK, is not in Schengen, and movement of people into non-Schengen countries, including those within the EU, is controlled.

    You can enter but once there you're subject to local rules about residency, ability to work etc.
  • What I mean is that there is a physical border control on entry to Eire, including from and to other EU countries. "Non-Schengen" remains unchanged by Brexit.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    What I mean is that there is a physical border control on entry to Eire, including from and to other EU countries. "Non-Schengen" remains unchanged by Brexit.

    Doesn't matter. EU citizens can travel to the Republic with minimal checks. According to the deal, they can continue on to the UK, whether or not either country are in Schengen.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    What I mean is that there is a physical border control on entry to Eire, including from and to other EU countries. "Non-Schengen" remains unchanged by Brexit.

    Doesn't matter. EU citizens can travel to the Republic with minimal checks. According to the deal, they can continue on to the UK, whether or not either country are in Schengen.

    But AFAICT no-one is proposing that EU citizens will require a visa merely to enter the UK. So they could enter the UK just by getting on a plane, ferry or Eurostar.
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    What I mean is that there is a physical border control on entry to Eire, including from and to other EU countries. "Non-Schengen" remains unchanged by Brexit.

    Doesn't matter. EU citizens can travel to the Republic with minimal checks. According to the deal, they can continue on to the UK, whether or not either country are in Schengen.

    But AFAICT no-one is proposing that EU citizens will require a visa merely to enter the UK. So they could enter the UK just by getting on a plane, ferry or Eurostar.

    Which since we're not in Schengen would involve a passport check at the point of entry, just as it does now; so far, so good. Removing freedom of movement would mean that someone who has the current absolute EU right of entry would then mean that they could be barred at the border - which presumably would mean at the passport check at, for instance, the Gare du Nord. So we will then have control of our borders?

    No we won't, because that same person whom we might bar if they took that route can nonetheless freely enter Eire (the right of any EU citizen), then freely cross into Northern Ireland (no hard border) and then freely cross the Irish Sea into the UK. No change, in other words.

    So taking back control of our borders is just another Treeza lie. You can tell when she's lying; her lips move.
  • The really telling fact that shows how low a priority control of borders is to the current government (and predecessors) is that the options for further control of borders and immigration from the EU have not been taken up. The UK could already require non-UK EU citizens to register entry into the UK, and after 90 days their right to live here is dependent upon having work here (or, through marriage to someone who does - with all the usual restrictions on immigrants re: access to benefits, NHS treatment etc). If the government was serious about control of borders then they would already be enacting the controls that are available to them.
  • Andras wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    mr cheesy wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    What I mean is that there is a physical border control on entry to Eire, including from and to other EU countries. "Non-Schengen" remains unchanged by Brexit.

    Doesn't matter. EU citizens can travel to the Republic with minimal checks. According to the deal, they can continue on to the UK, whether or not either country are in Schengen.

    But AFAICT no-one is proposing that EU citizens will require a visa merely to enter the UK. So they could enter the UK just by getting on a plane, ferry or Eurostar.

    Which since we're not in Schengen would involve a passport check at the point of entry, just as it does now; so far, so good. Removing freedom of movement would mean that someone who has the current absolute EU right of entry would then mean that they could be barred at the border - which presumably would mean at the passport check at, for instance, the Gare du Nord. So we will then have control of our borders?

    No we won't, because that same person whom we might bar if they took that route can nonetheless freely enter Eire (the right of any EU citizen), then freely cross into Northern Ireland (no hard border) and then freely cross the Irish Sea into the UK. No change, in other words.

    So taking back control of our borders is just another Treeza lie. You can tell when she's lying; her lips move.

    But I think what was supposed to end was the right of EU citizens to work, live and claim benefits in the UK. I don't think even Nigel Farage objects to Polish citizens coming to the UK just to spend money.

    I agree that UK's ability to enforce its borders is indeed restricted in the way you say, but I think that would be the case even with no deal, because ultimately it's a consequence of the Common Travel Area which predates the EU/EEC, and which again I think even Mr Farage wants to keep.

    In any case, AIUI border controls are fairly irrelevant to immigration policy, because the vast majority of illegal immigrants cross the border legally and then overstay.
  • Well the problem is that there will be several different kinds of EU citizen that would not be immediately clear from their passports.

    First those with 5 years in the UK and/or spouse. They can stay and work etc.

    Second those post-Brexit that the UK decides are worthy of a work permit. They can come via Heathrow and Dover in the normal way.

    Then those whom the UK decides are only able to get a short term visitor visa - such as Brit holiday makers get to visit Egypt and Turkey.

    Then those who are able to work in the Irish Republic as EU citizens - ie for essentially any job they want. But these, according to the draft deal can also do the same in NI.

    Then those who are in the Republic *for any reason* but decide that they are illegally coming to the rUK. They come via Belfast and Holyhead.

    So customs officials now have 4 or 5 different types of EU citizen in the UK for different reasons and with different histories that must be treated differently if found working and living in the UK. Good luck with that.
  • Deport them all. God will know His own.
  • These are scary times. Imagine if the hard right and fascists rise - this confusion would be a recipe for some really bad stuff.
  • The hard right and the fascists have already risen.
  • The hard right and the fascists have already risen.

    Mm. No.

    They are on the rise, they're clearly not yet in charge.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    Well the problem is that there will be several different kinds of EU citizen that would not be immediately clear from their passports.

    First those with 5 years in the UK and/or spouse. They can stay and work etc.

    Second those post-Brexit that the UK decides are worthy of a work permit. They can come via Heathrow and Dover in the normal way.

    Then those whom the UK decides are only able to get a short term visitor visa - such as Brit holiday makers get to visit Egypt and Turkey.

    Then those who are able to work in the Irish Republic as EU citizens - ie for essentially any job they want. But these, according to the draft deal can also do the same in NI.

    Then those who are in the Republic *for any reason* but decide that they are illegally coming to the rUK. They come via Belfast and Holyhead.

    So customs officials now have 4 or 5 different types of EU citizen in the UK for different reasons and with different histories that must be treated differently if found working and living in the UK. Good luck with that.

    Yes and no. I think it's necessary to separate working in the UK from merely being present in the UK.

    It would be up to employers to work out whether non-UK citizens have the right to take up the job being offered. So when you fill in the job application, you would need to say what kind of residence permit you have or whether you would need sponsorship and it would be the employer's responsibility to know what to do about it.

    If an EU citizen is merely present in the UK without taking up a job, then I agree any kind of time limit (e.g. maximum 90 days' stay without a visa) would be hard to enforce, because although people who entered via Heathrow would have a passport stamp to say when they entered, people who entered via Dublin and then the Irish border wouldn't.

    But this hole is intrinsic to the CTA, not to Theresa May's plan - it's a hole that already exists for non-EU citizens who have a visa to enter Ireland but not the UK or vice versa, because Ireland and the UK don't have a common visa system.


    Having said all this -- immigration enforcement for non-EU citizens is utterly shit, so the consequence of Brexit is that it will be shit for EU citizens as well. But that is a separate issue.
  • mr cheesy wrote: »
    The hard right and the fascists have already risen.

    Mm. No.

    They are on the rise, they're clearly not yet in charge.
    Only cos some of them quit the cabinet last week. Not all though, by a long shot.
  • I think expecting employers to be border guards is a problem, and leads to institutional racism. As in, won't risk employing an 'obvious' foreigner in case they miss dodgy paperwork and then later get done for employing illegal immigrants.

    Currently, this problem exists with both employers and landlords - but it will become more widespread.
  • Ran out of edit time:

    The solution to this in my opinion, if we resourced the infrastructure correctly, would be to make it the landlord's responsibility to inform the council they were renting to person x for the purposes of council tax and the employer to inform HMRC they were employing person x for the purposes of income tax. [In the case of house sales this reuirement would arise out of the need for the government to work out stamp duty and/or capital gains tax.] It would then be the tax office's job to establish the legal right to work / being the country this long **before** they could take tax payments.

    At no point would it be the job of non-public servants to enforce the governments immigration policy.
This discussion has been closed.