Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is nationalisation really making a comeback? Don Brind doubts

SystemSystem Posts: 3,967
edited October 9 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is nationalisation really making a comeback? Don Brind doubts it.

I’m a bit of a fan of the old Clause Four  of Labour’s constitution drafted by Sidney Webb in 1918. I love that line about securing “for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry”. Pure poetry.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,650
    First. And hooray no Brexit to be discussed I am sure...
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,708
    edited October 9
    Second like the UK post Brexit!
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 8,782
    Nationalisation was a disaster, run for interests of union members at the expense of consumers and taxpayers.

    Privatisation copied across most major economies since 1979.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 1,650
    Very interesting this should be here on the day Thaler wins the Nobel Prize. Not so much defending Capital not Capitalism, but too often defending a knee jerk form of Capitalism which has proved to be incapable of raising real incomes in practice, and theoretically outdated too. How many leading Conservatives, learned their economics long before behavioural economics emerged?
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,579

    Second like the UK post Brexit!

    Wow, we are only fifth or sixth at the moment. You expect it to be a massive success!
  • jonny83jonny83 Posts: 801
    Nationalisation coupled with repealing a lot of the trade union laws is the future under a Labour government.

    People aren't exaggerating when they say they are worried about this country going back to the 70's and strikes.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,048
    I get extremely annoyed when the private sector gets the upside risk but the taxpayer picks up the tab if it all goes wrong.

    Interesting article from Mr. Brind and very interesting that the FT (those well-known communists?) are also picking up on the problems of utility privatisation specifically

    I certainly think the nationalisations discussed in the Labour Manifesto are likely to the upper end... and it's quite possible we wouldn't even get there.

    But if instead we get a system which stops these companies avoiding tax, gets a better deal for consumers and taxpayers - then of course I'm fine with that.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,579
    rkrkrk said:

    I get extremely annoyed when the private sector gets the upside risk but the taxpayer picks up the tab if it all goes wrong.

    Interesting article from Mr. Brind and very interesting that the FT (those well-known communists?) are also picking up on the problems of utility privatisation specifically

    I certainly think the nationalisations discussed in the Labour Manifesto are likely to the upper end... and it's quite possible we wouldn't even get there.

    But if instead we get a system which stops these companies avoiding tax, gets a better deal for consumers and taxpayers - then of course I'm fine with that.

    It is undoubtedly true that the balance is wrong between consumer, company, shareholder and taxing authority in many ways at the moment.

    The scales need re balancing in our current internationalist globalist society where some elements regard self and wealth as more important than community and society.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,708
    philiph said:

    Second like the UK post Brexit!

    Wow, we are only fifth or sixth at the moment. You expect it to be a massive success!
    :D
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 5,389
    dr_spyn said:

    Nationalisation was a disaster, run for interests of union members at the expense of consumers and taxpayers.

    Privatisation copied across most major economies since 1979.

    Not always
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/sep/09/state-owned-east-coast-rail-franchise-paid-225m-pounds-treasury-still-faces-privatisation
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,048
    philiph said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I get extremely annoyed when the private sector gets the upside risk but the taxpayer picks up the tab if it all goes wrong.

    Interesting article from Mr. Brind and very interesting that the FT (those well-known communists?) are also picking up on the problems of utility privatisation specifically

    I certainly think the nationalisations discussed in the Labour Manifesto are likely to the upper end... and it's quite possible we wouldn't even get there.

    But if instead we get a system which stops these companies avoiding tax, gets a better deal for consumers and taxpayers - then of course I'm fine with that.

    It is undoubtedly true that the balance is wrong between consumer, company, shareholder and taxing authority in many ways at the moment.

    The scales need re balancing in our current internationalist globalist society where some elements regard self and wealth as more important than community and society.
    Who in the Conservative party would do that?

    Definitely not Dave and George.... TM there was a slim chance but she could never oppose the right now...

    Ruth Davidson is the only one I hear talking like that to be honest.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,963
    Scott_P said:
    No deal would be bad, but what would be truly devastating to this country is no deal after last minute brinkmanship fails at the last possible moment. We need to set ourselves and the EU a deadline of March 2018 by which we entirely withdraw from negotiations and say WTO it is come 2019.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,972
    I do find it amusing that by far the best example of organisations which secure “for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry” are the mega investment banks - in the case of Goldman Sachs, $367K per worker on average.

    Beat that, Sidney Webb!
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,412
    Enough. The Conservative Party does not need to worry about being likeable. Its currency is not likeability but respect. For decades there has been a belief that while you might loathe the Tories, they get the job done. Yes, they could be arrogant, high-handed bastards but at least they were competent bastards. They were capable. They could envision and see through big, nation-changing projects. This is the fatal thing about the current state of the Conservative Party. The reputation for competence is gone — and with it the grudging respect that brought millions of people to vote Tory.

    At conference the Conservative MP James Cleverly said of Labour that “their cosmic role in life” is to “screw things up, so we can come and fix them”. This is standard Tory rhetoric; I put enough of it in speeches over the years. Yet the assertion that Conservatives are the real “fixers” in British politics feels out of step with reality after the bodged campaign, the manifesto U-turn, the snap election that snapped back, and the slowly deflating balloon that is expectations on Brexit. If the Conservatives are fixers, they are Del Boy and Rodney fixing that chandelier.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-tories-reputation-for-competence-is-going-nxxktmbfh
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 1,143
    jonny83 said:

    Nationalisation coupled with repealing a lot of the trade union laws is the future under a Labour government.

    People aren't exaggerating when they say they are worried about this country going back to the 70's and strikes.

    Living standards rose much more quickly in the 1970s than they have in the past two decades, strikes notwithstanding.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 3,963
    On topic, the simplest approach is to believe that people mean what they say, absent a reason to think otherwise. Lots of people thought Trump never really meant it about the wall.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,412
    Ishmael_Z said:

    We need to set ourselves and the EU a deadline of March 2018 by which we entirely withdraw from negotiations and say WTO it is come 2019.

    We can't.

    As Ian Dunt noted on the previous thread, the consequences of WTO are so bad not even hardline Brexiteers like Zahawi can't sell it to the electorate.

    As soon as they admit in public how catastrophic it will actually be, they can't deliver it.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,972

    jonny83 said:

    Nationalisation coupled with repealing a lot of the trade union laws is the future under a Labour government.

    People aren't exaggerating when they say they are worried about this country going back to the 70's and strikes.

    Living standards rose much more quickly in the 1970s than they have in the past two decades, strikes notwithstanding.
    But less well than the rest of Europe, which is the relevant measure. It's not for nothing that we were regarded as the sick man of Europe.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,972
    Ishmael_Z said:

    On topic, the simplest approach is to believe that people mean what they say, absent a reason to think otherwise. Lots of people thought Trump never really meant it about the wall.

    Well, quite. Once sane Labour supporters are now arguing that a vote for Corbyn and McDonnell is OK because they won't or can't do what they say they want to do.
  • ElliotElliot Posts: 233
    Angela Merkel might recognise some of the statements in the manifesto, but it is eminently clear to anyone who knows Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell that the manifesto is only the beginning. We know they would not accept Merkel's fiscal approach because they have opposed it consistently over the last few years. We know they would not support the supply side measures she likes because they opposed them when the EU needed to reform Spanish and Italian labour markets. We know they opposed them when Schroeder tried them in Germany.

    The policy or the Labour far left is to completely reject any sense of balance between competing effects or any sense of limited funds to spend things on. The investment in public services would turn out to be eaten up by "fair wages" in the public sector. To get things done beyond that taxes would have to increase on more than the rich and hit normal working people. When their living standards decline, minimum wages would be increased to make sure they can afford to live comfortably. When businesses can't afford that and start going to the wall, they would nationalise those companies. Under government control, fair wages for the nationalised industries would be increased further. When they are not profitable, another wave of borrowing would pay for them.

    The end will be when the Labour Party is discredited for 20 years and we will then face Thatcherite austerity on steroids. We desperately need social democratic governance in this country, but it needs Corbyn to be removed first.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,364
    I see the Front National is changing its view on the EU, and no longer supports Frexit.

    Odd choice, one would think, as it opens up a space for a Frexit party in France, and there are a substantial minority of Frenchmen who are Eurosceptic.
  • If Corbyn, Mcdonnell et al don't mean what they say then why vote for them?
  • stevefstevef Posts: 464
    So Corbyn is going to disappoint on nationalisation?

    I dont think Corbyn and McDonnell have an economic strategy worthy of its name. I think voters are pretty fed up with Thatcherite capitalism but I am afraid that the diagnosis and prescription of Doctor Corbyn far from curing the illness will make the patient even worse. A year or two of after Labour has sent in its quacks to cure capitalitis, and the stench of angry and frustrated expectations will be overpowering.
  • PongPong Posts: 4,564
    edited October 9

    Ishmael_Z said:

    On topic, the simplest approach is to believe that people mean what they say, absent a reason to think otherwise. Lots of people thought Trump never really meant it about the wall.

    Well, quite. Once sane Labour supporters are now arguing that a vote for Corbyn and McDonnell is OK because they won't or can't do what they say they want to do.
    Meh.

    The 2017 manifesto was moderate European social democracy tax/spend.

    A more competent and comprehensive state is what the people want.

    It’s completely viable - and for the majority - desirable.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 2,579
    edited October 9

    jonny83 said:

    Nationalisation coupled with repealing a lot of the trade union laws is the future under a Labour government.

    People aren't exaggerating when they say they are worried about this country going back to the 70's and strikes.

    Living standards rose much more quickly in the 1970s than they have in the past two decades, strikes notwithstanding.
    edit - too much needed adding
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,478
    edited October 9
    rcs1000 said:

    I see the Front National is changing its view on the EU, and no longer supports Frexit.

    Odd choice, one would think, as it opens up a space for a Frexit party in France, and there are a substantial minority of Frenchmen who are Eurosceptic.

    In the UK, Eurosceptics used to swear blind that they weren't secretly harbouring thoughts of leaving the EU because that would be crazy. Brexit has proven them wrong on the first count, and right on the second.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 2,914
    edited October 9
    rcs1000 said:

    I see the Front National is changing its view on the EU, and no longer supports Frexit.

    Odd choice, one would think, as it opens up a space for a Frexit party in France, and there are a substantial minority of Frenchmen who are Eurosceptic.

    Interesting. An upside might be that the FN will no longer be endorsed so enthusiastically by some hardcore British Leavers, who saw it as an ally. That was a worrying development. But it's depressing, from our perspective, that Brexit has so toxified anti-EUism that even the FN no longer wants to go near it.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107
    I like Don Brind's headers and I love the fact that Labour is a socialist party again. Now what we need is for the Conservatives to stand up for a small state, low tax, capitalist form of government and we've got real choice for the first time in decades.

    Unfortunately the Conservatives are bland, shallow, weak and incapable of making a positive argument about anything.
  • sarissasarissa Posts: 306
    jonny83 said:

    Nationalisation coupled with repealing a lot of the trade union laws is the future under a Labour government.

    People aren't exaggerating when they say they are worried about this country going back to the 70's and strikes.

    Globalisation, the internet and the rise of China/SE Asia has fatally undermined a lot of the unions' former clout. Short of an ultra-protectionist government denying the British Public goods and services they see other societies and nations taking for granted I don't see it happening.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    Ishmael_Z said:

    On topic, the simplest approach is to believe that people mean what they say, absent a reason to think otherwise. Lots of people thought Trump never really meant it about the wall.

    Well, quite. Once sane Labour supporters are now arguing that a vote for Corbyn and McDonnell is OK because they won't or can't do what they say they want to do.
    You're a bright bloke, offer to make a public case on behalf of the tory party why Corbyn and his gang are dreamers. Nobody at the moment appears capable.
  • WinstanleyWinstanley Posts: 414
    edited October 9
    https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/oh-dear-what-are-the-british-people-thinking-of/

    Labour have just caught up with the opinions of the British public on nationalisation, before Corbyn and co. But yes, common ownership covers a lot of very different actual models and Sidney Webb wanted a whole lot of different models of ownership and functioning.

    And, from back in the day, worth reading: https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/corbynomics-extreme-or-moderate/
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,048

    I do find it amusing that by far the best example of organisations which secure “for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry” are the mega investment banks - in the case of Goldman Sachs, $367K per worker on average.

    Beat that, Sidney Webb!

    Arguably many of those investment banks secure rather more than the full fruits of their industry...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,478

    I like Don Brind's headers and I love the fact that Labour is a socialist party again. Now what we need is for the Conservatives to stand up for a small state, low tax, capitalist form of government and we've got real choice for the first time in decades.

    All things being equal, Brexit increases the size of the state.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,412
    @gabyhinsliff: What's stopped me panicking re Brexit til now is having repeatedly seen politicians pull off near-impossible in past (eg NI peace process)

    @gabyhinsliff: I mean if yr my age, you've rarely seen a UK govt utterly fail to prevent an avoidable disaster/war/run on banks etc. It's hard to imagine

    @gabyhinsliff: But it's pretty flipping easy to imagine now. Cavalry has never in my life seemed less likely to come over the hill in time.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,523
    Pong said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    On topic, the simplest approach is to believe that people mean what they say, absent a reason to think otherwise. Lots of people thought Trump never really meant it about the wall.

    Well, quite. Once sane Labour supporters are now arguing that a vote for Corbyn and McDonnell is OK because they won't or can't do what they say they want to do.
    Meh.

    The 2017 manifesto was moderate European social democracy tax/spend.

    A more competent and comprehensive state is what the people want.

    It’s completely viable - and for the majority - desirable.
    That would be why Labour won more votes, more
    Seats and are now in government, right

    Oh, wait...

  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    I like Don Brind's headers and I love the fact that Labour is a socialist party again. Now what we need is for the Conservatives to stand up for a small state, low tax, capitalist form of government and we've got real choice for the first time in decades.

    All things being equal, Brexit increases the size of the state.
    How?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,048
    Scott_P said:

    @gabyhinsliff: What's stopped me panicking re Brexit til now is having repeatedly seen politicians pull off near-impossible in past (eg NI peace process)

    @gabyhinsliff: I mean if yr my age, you've rarely seen a UK govt utterly fail to prevent an avoidable disaster/war/run on banks etc. It's hard to imagine

    @gabyhinsliff: But it's pretty flipping easy to imagine now. Cavalry has never in my life seemed less likely to come over the hill in time.

    I still think a deal is likely - even if it's a total can kick down the road (which I'm totally fine with).
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 1,635
    "We'll pretend to believe in something, but when push comes to shove, we know, and you know, we won't do it".

    Dear Labour, there's your new slogan. Truthful, to the point, perfect.

    Brexit - CHECK
    Nationalisation - CHECK
    Student Fees - CHECK

    any more for any more?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,478

    I like Don Brind's headers and I love the fact that Labour is a socialist party again. Now what we need is for the Conservatives to stand up for a small state, low tax, capitalist form of government and we've got real choice for the first time in decades.

    All things being equal, Brexit increases the size of the state.
    How?
    Loss of economies of scale. Just look at the additional customs infrastructure we were discussing on the previous thread. In addition you have duplication of regulatory functions and encroachment of the Home Office bureaucracy into more people's lives and more businesses.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,364
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Scott_P said:
    No deal would be bad, but what would be truly devastating to this country is no deal after last minute brinkmanship fails at the last possible moment. We need to set ourselves and the EU a deadline of March 2018 by which we entirely withdraw from negotiations and say WTO it is come 2019.
    The problem has always been this:

    1. To secure the best possible deal for the UK, it is imperative that the UK appears fully willing to go down the "no deal" route, and that means that we should be seen to have all the pieces in places to go WTO on the two year anniversary of Article 50.

    2. To make the threat of WTO real, the UK government needs to communicate its willingness to leave without a deal. This dramatically increases the likelihood that businesses in professional services, in finance, or with multinational supply chains will (in a good scenario) reduce investment in the UK or (in a bad one) up sticks and move. Which - in all likelihood - results in a serious recession.

    The problem the UK government has had is that while it has said it is willing to leave without a deal, it's actions give lie to the statement. If we wanted to appear serious, we'd be building customs facilities at Dover, and at key crossing points on the Irish border. We'd be looking to hire a large number of new staff to work in customs. We'd have actually made progress with forging deals with existing countries the EU had trade agreements with. And we'd have published our tariff schedules.

    We haven't done any of those things, and that means the EU has decided we will accept almost any deal.
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    I like Don Brind's headers and I love the fact that Labour is a socialist party again. Now what we need is for the Conservatives to stand up for a small state, low tax, capitalist form of government and we've got real choice for the first time in decades.

    All things being equal, Brexit increases the size of the state.
    How?
    Loss of economies of scale. Just look at the additional customs infrastructure we were discussing on the previous thread. In addition you have duplication of regulatory functions and encroachment of the Home Office bureaucracy into more people's lives and more businesses.
    I've gone and done it again, much to my regret.

    The problem with arguing with idiots in the street is that passers by can't tell the difference.


  • rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Scott_P said:
    No deal would be bad, but what would be truly devastating to this country is no deal after last minute brinkmanship fails at the last possible moment. We need to set ourselves and the EU a deadline of March 2018 by which we entirely withdraw from negotiations and say WTO it is come 2019.
    The problem has always been this:

    1. To secure the best possible deal for the UK, it is imperative that the UK appears fully willing to go down the "no deal" route, and that means that we should be seen to have all the pieces in places to go WTO on the two year anniversary of Article 50.

    2. To make the threat of WTO real, the UK government needs to communicate its willingness to leave without a deal. This dramatically increases the likelihood that businesses in professional services, in finance, or with multinational supply chains will (in a good scenario) reduce investment in the UK or (in a bad one) up sticks and move. Which - in all likelihood - results in a serious recession.

    The problem the UK government has had is that while it has said it is willing to leave without a deal, it's actions give lie to the statement. If we wanted to appear serious, we'd be building customs facilities at Dover, and at key crossing points on the Irish border. We'd be looking to hire a large number of new staff to work in customs. We'd have actually made progress with forging deals with existing countries the EU had trade agreements with. And we'd have published our tariff schedules.

    We haven't done any of those things, and that means the EU has decided we will accept almost any deal.
    Don’t worry, Leavers like Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, and David Davis are on the case.

    They know what they are doing.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,478
    rcs1000 said:

    If we wanted to appear serious, we'd be building customs facilities at Dover, and at key crossing points on the Irish border.

    It's an odd version of 'looking serious' that consists of turning yourself into an international joke.

    Doing what you propose would simply accelerate the loss of confidence in the UK as a trustworthy first world nation.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,450
    Just been to see Bladerunner 2049

    My personal view (and of course that is all any of us can really have) is that it is not better than the original.

    Nor is it worse.

    It is a perfect continuation of the world which captures every aspect that made the original great. For me it is nothing short of being the perfect sequel in every way.

    I genuinely believe no one could have made a better and more worthy sequel to the original. I will certainly be watching it again several times over the next couple of weeks.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 20,364

    I like Don Brind's headers and I love the fact that Labour is a socialist party again. Now what we need is for the Conservatives to stand up for a small state, low tax, capitalist form of government and we've got real choice for the first time in decades.

    All things being equal, Brexit increases the size of the state.
    How?
    Presumably because:

    (a) we will need more people dealing with immigration (as that from the EU required no administration)
    (b) we will need more people employed in customs & excise (if that's what it's called these days)
    and
    (c) we previously outsourced certain regulatory function to the EU that we will now have to do ourselves

    You might (or might not) also add (d) which is that it probably worsens the population pyramid in the medium term because you have fewer young people coming temporarily to the UK.

    With the exception of (d), of course, these are all pretty minor in the context of a state that takes up 40% of GDP, and is likely to grow because of our ageing population.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 8,523
    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Scott_P said:
    No deal would be bad, but what would be truly devastating to this country is no deal after last minute brinkmanship fails at the last possible moment. We need to set ourselves and the EU a deadline of March 2018 by which we entirely withdraw from negotiations and say WTO it is come 2019.
    The problem has always been this:

    1. To secure the best possible deal for the UK, it is imperative that the UK appears fully willing to go down the "no deal" route, and that means that we should be seen to have all the pieces in places to go WTO on the two year anniversary of Article 50.

    2. To make the threat of WTO real, the UK government needs to communicate its willingness to leave without a deal. This dramatically increases the likelihood that businesses in professional services, in finance, or with multinational supply chains will (in a good scenario) reduce investment in the UK or (in a bad one) up sticks and move. Which - in all likelihood - results in a serious recession.

    The problem the UK government has had is that while it has said it is willing to leave without a deal, it's actions give lie to the statement. If we wanted to appear serious, we'd be building customs facilities at Dover, and at key crossing points on the Irish border. We'd be looking to hire a large number of new staff to work in customs. We'd have actually made progress with forging deals with existing countries the EU had trade agreements with. And we'd have published our tariff schedules.

    We haven't done any of those things, and that means the EU has decided we will accept almost any deal.
    The third problem, in my view, is that signalling no deal as a possibility makes the passage of Brexit related measures very difficult domestically. Partly rationally (as it could drive down demand and lead to a pre Brexit recession) and partly irrationally (making those resolved not to accept the result louder and prouder).
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,478

    I like Don Brind's headers and I love the fact that Labour is a socialist party again. Now what we need is for the Conservatives to stand up for a small state, low tax, capitalist form of government and we've got real choice for the first time in decades.

    All things being equal, Brexit increases the size of the state.
    How?
    Loss of economies of scale. Just look at the additional customs infrastructure we were discussing on the previous thread. In addition you have duplication of regulatory functions and encroachment of the Home Office bureaucracy into more people's lives and more businesses.
    I've gone and done it again, much to my regret.

    The problem with arguing with idiots in the street is that passers by can't tell the difference.
    Perhaps you could put the contrary view? Tell us how Brexit will reduce the size of the state.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,263
    Scott_P said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    We need to set ourselves and the EU a deadline of March 2018 by which we entirely withdraw from negotiations and say WTO it is come 2019.

    We can't.

    As Ian Dunt noted on the previous thread, the consequences of WTO are so bad not even hardline Brexiteers like Zahawi can't sell it to the electorate.

    As soon as they admit in public how catastrophic it will actually be, they can't deliver it.
    There may be a few starry-eyed Brexiteers who really do believe in WTO and that it will provide a brave new world for the UK.

    I suspect, however, that most Brexiteers who call for preparations for WTO do so to strengthen the hand of the UK negotiators. They can see that unless the UK makes a credible case for being able to take the WTO route, it has a very weak hand. Unfortunately it can't make a credible case. The threat is as transparent as Cameron's threat to the EU that he might recommend Leave if they didn't come up with the goods. And we know how that turned out.

    Unless there is a terrible negotiating accident and we do in fact crash out, the result is that we will take what is on offer. We'll pay the bill, accept the ECJ, accept the rules and end up in a worse position that remaining in the EU. As that slowly dawns, there will be a rolling WTF conversation across the UK. There will be cries of betrayal, shouts of told you so, and a clear majority for cancelling the whole exercise. We know who will then take the blame.



  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,972
    Pong said:

    The 2017 manifesto was moderate European social democracy tax/spend..

    Really? What moderate European social democratic party would propose to add something like £150bn-£200bn extra spending (depending on exactly which madnesses you include) when the deficit is already still amongst the highest in Europe?
  • freetochoosefreetochoose Posts: 1,107

    I like Don Brind's headers and I love the fact that Labour is a socialist party again. Now what we need is for the Conservatives to stand up for a small state, low tax, capitalist form of government and we've got real choice for the first time in decades.

    All things being equal, Brexit increases the size of the state.
    How?
    Loss of economies of scale. Just look at the additional customs infrastructure we were discussing on the previous thread. In addition you have duplication of regulatory functions and encroachment of the Home Office bureaucracy into more people's lives and more businesses.
    I've gone and done it again, much to my regret.

    The problem with arguing with idiots in the street is that passers by can't tell the difference.
    Perhaps you could put the contrary view? Tell us how Brexit will reduce the size of the state.
    This is the final time I engage with you or anybody else re Brexit, its pointless and pathetic. Last June arguments were had on both sides, I campaigned for Leave, the majority found the Leave ones more convincing.

    Carry on crying over spilt milk, life's far too short for infantile tit for tatting I'm afraid. Remainers have become modern day Holocaust deniers.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,048



    Carry on crying over spilt milk, life's far too short for infantile tit for tatting I'm afraid. Remainers have become modern day Holocaust deniers.

    That paragraph escalated quickly!
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,478
    In the space of two threads we’ve had Remainers being called traitors who should be locked up and now compared with Holocaust deniers. It’s all going so well...
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,412
    rkrkrk said:

    That paragraph escalated quickly!

    "Can you justify your Brexit assertions?"

    "HITLER!"
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,263

    Just been to see Bladerunner 2049

    My personal view (and of course that is all any of us can really have) is that it is not better than the original.

    Nor is it worse.

    It is a perfect continuation of the world which captures every aspect that made the original great. For me it is nothing short of being the perfect sequel in every way.

    I genuinely believe no one could have made a better and more worthy sequel to the original. I will certainly be watching it again several times over the next couple of weeks.

    I saw it on Saturday and I agree with you completely.

    I've seen the original Bladerunner at least six times and know it off by heart and this sequel totally matches it. I love the soundtrack too. I'll be watching it again I'm sure.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,412

    In the space of two threads we’ve had Remainers being called traitors who should be locked up and now compared with Holocaust deniers. It’s all going so well...

    And Brexiteers are not the angry ones...
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,263
    rkrkrk said:



    Carry on crying over spilt milk, life's far too short for infantile tit for tatting I'm afraid. Remainers have become modern day Holocaust deniers.

    That paragraph escalated quickly!
    Yes! I think he feels a little bit on the defensive.
  • sarissa said:

    jonny83 said:

    Nationalisation coupled with repealing a lot of the trade union laws is the future under a Labour government.

    People aren't exaggerating when they say they are worried about this country going back to the 70's and strikes.

    Globalisation, the internet and the rise of China/SE Asia has fatally undermined a lot of the unions' former clout. Short of an ultra-protectionist government denying the British Public goods and services they see other societies and nations taking for granted I don't see it happening.
    Exchange controls.
  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 255
    rcs1000 said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Scott_P said:
    No deal would be bad, but what would be truly devastating to this country is no deal after last minute brinkmanship fails at the last possible moment. We need to set ourselves and the EU a deadline of March 2018 by which we entirely withdraw from negotiations and say WTO it is come 2019.
    The problem has always been this:

    1. To secure the best possible deal for the UK, it is imperative that the UK appears fully willing to go down the "no deal" route, and that means that we should be seen to have all the pieces in places to go WTO on the two year anniversary of Article 50.

    2. To make the threat of WTO real, the UK government needs to communicate its willingness to leave without a deal. This dramatically increases the likelihood that businesses in professional services, in finance, or with multinational supply chains will (in a good scenario) reduce investment in the UK or (in a bad one) up sticks and move. Which - in all likelihood - results in a serious recession.

    The problem the UK government has had is that while it has said it is willing to leave without a deal, it's actions give lie to the statement. If we wanted to appear serious, we'd be building customs facilities at Dover, and at key crossing points on the Irish border. We'd be looking to hire a large number of new staff to work in customs. We'd have actually made progress with forging deals with existing countries the EU had trade agreements with. And we'd have published our tariff schedules.

    We haven't done any of those things, and that means the EU has decided we will accept almost any deal.
    And in the full knowledge of that, you yourself nevertheless voted Leave (and, to add insult to injury, promptly emigrated)
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,362
    Afternoon all :)

    On topic, yes, an interesting piece from Don, for which, as always, many thanks.

    I think the difference between the thinking of the 80s/90s and now has been partly influenced by the global financial crisis (which involved the part nationalisation of a couple of banks, one of which will undoubtedly end up costing the taxpayer millions of pounds).

    There are also hybrid models of ownership out there - part public, part private. Network Rail is one example I've quoted in the past - we see local authorities setting up property investment companies and housing management companies so the line between "private" and "public" is blurred.

    I agree with Don the current model of capitalism and the economic culture it perpetuates has failed. That's emphatically not to disavow capitalism in favour of Marxist economic planning but there needs to be a recognition the current economic model is failing a number of people. It's interesting to look at the dreadful productivity numbers so see how the British model is getting nowhere fast (or slowly).

    An economic model for the 2020s which works for all is the holy grail.
  • rkrkrk said:



    Carry on crying over spilt milk, life's far too short for infantile tit for tatting I'm afraid. Remainers have become modern day Holocaust deniers.

    That paragraph escalated quickly!
    Bravo! I find it somewhat surreal that people seem to think that because one side won a referendum that people with opposing views must shut up. That is what politics is.

    Those that voted to remain are free to hold those “delivering” Brexit to account, to challenge what they think as bad choices and to mock any hypocracy they perceive.

    And had the result gone the other way there would be nothing wrong in the Eurosceptics continuing to expose the EU’s failings.

    If it was a requirement that following a referendum the losers must agree to a vow of silence then we would miss out on PB.COM articles on voting reform. And who would wish that?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    I largely agree with Mr. Brind. I don't believe nationalism is popular except with the foolish, and I do think we need better regulation in the marketplace of energy.

    Mr. Calum, Boris is not a credible PM. But, then, he isn't a credible Foreign Secretary either. And Corbyn isn't a credible PM either. We live in the Age of Incredible Happenings.

    Mr. P, I was wondering about this earlier. If politicians had been honest about the powers they'd been throwing away and the degree of integration, it would've created far more scepticism and anti-EU sentiment. The very fact British politicians tried to portray the EU as just a friendly club with lovely rules and nothing to worry about may well have worked, during the referendum, to encourage people to vote against it, comfortable that it'd be easy to leave.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,343
    Norm said:
    Key paragraph

    "Philip Hammond may have found a throat lozenge for his next-door neighbour but he (and there’s a lot of competition from his ministerial colleagues) most typifies the sucking of teeth and cannot-doism that, on front after front, keeps bringing May’s government to a spluttering, croaking halt."
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,343

    I like Don Brind's headers and I love the fact that Labour is a socialist party again. Now what we need is for the Conservatives to stand up for a small state, low tax, capitalist form of government and we've got real choice for the first time in decades.

    All things being equal, Brexit increases the size of the state.
    Doesn't increase the size of the EU state.

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 33,412
    TGOHF said:

    Key paragraph

    "Philip Hammond may have found a throat lozenge for his next-door neighbour but he (and there’s a lot of competition from his ministerial colleagues) most typifies the sucking of teeth and cannot-doism that, on front after front, keeps bringing May’s government to a spluttering, croaking halt."

    What brings "May’s government to a spluttering, croaking halt" is reality.

    When the unstoppable claims of the brexiteers meet the immovable objects of logic, reason and the way the World works.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,343
    Scott_P said:

    TGOHF said:

    Key paragraph

    "Philip Hammond may have found a throat lozenge for his next-door neighbour but he (and there’s a lot of competition from his ministerial colleagues) most typifies the sucking of teeth and cannot-doism that, on front after front, keeps bringing May’s government to a spluttering, croaking halt."

    What brings "May’s government to a spluttering, croaking halt" is reality.

    When the unstoppable claims of the brexiteers meet the immovable objects of logic, reason and the way the World works.
    "You can't win a referendum on leaving the EU" (c) the Cannotdoers.

  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,333

    This is the final time I engage with you or anybody else re Brexit, its pointless and pathetic. Last June arguments were had on both sides, I campaigned for Leave, the majority found the Leave ones more convincing.

    I thought the Leave campaign "won" on a basis of lies, false unkeepable promises and possibly the intervention of foreign interests who wished to destroy the country. Plus a lot of false accounting via the DUP. The Leave case was overwhelming.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 16,343
    Paucity of ambition and chicken licken-ism lost Cameron his negotiation, the 16 EU referendum for Remain and nearly the '17 GE for the Cons.

    Yet it's the only game in town for some..
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 17,997

    Just been to see Bladerunner 2049

    My personal view (and of course that is all any of us can really have) is that it is not better than the original.

    Nor is it worse.

    It is a perfect continuation of the world which captures every aspect that made the original great. For me it is nothing short of being the perfect sequel in every way.

    I genuinely believe no one could have made a better and more worthy sequel to the original. I will certainly be watching it again several times over the next couple of weeks.

    May I ask whether you first saw the original on the big or small screen?

    I first saw the original on TV (perhaps via VHS) , and despite being sci-fi mad, was fairly underwhelmed. I'd never claim it was a bad film, but it didn't seem to approach the hype surrounding it. I've seen it a couple of times since, and haven't changed my view. I feel about it the same way I do about Inception: a film with massive hype that sadly underdelivers.

    I do wonder if viewing it on the small screen might have had an effect. Or if I'd been exposed to knock-offs in the meantime that meant the impact was lessened.

    Or perhaps I'm just an idiot ... ;)
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 3,708

    May I ask whether you first saw the original on the big or small screen?

    TVs in the range 40" to 50" are quite common these days. Do they count as small screens?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Jessop, or you just have a valid opinion :)

    I read the first Harry Potter and wasn't especially taken with it.
  • Has anyone stayed at Lumley Castle? Any reviews ?
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,109
    rcs1000 said:

    The problem the UK government has had is that while it has said it is willing to leave without a deal, it's actions give lie to the statement. If we wanted to appear serious, we'd be building customs facilities at Dover, and at key crossing points on the Irish border. We'd be looking to hire a large number of new staff to work in customs. We'd have actually made progress with forging deals with existing countries the EU had trade agreements with. And we'd have published our tariff schedules.

    We haven't done any of those things, and that means the EU has decided we will accept almost any deal.

    Yes, this is the key issue at the moment. I think the best we can do is to "walk away" from the talks until the EU comes round on "sufficient progress*," coupled with a lot of serious-sounding Whitehall taskforces.

    You don't necessarily have to build customs facilities for Day 1 - but you will have to accept a lot of leakage and unhappy compliant businesses if you don't.

    * "sufficient progress" is of course ridiculous, but a very effective negotiating ploy from the EU. It's remarkable how accepted the concept has become amongst UK commentators, coupled with the idea that we are the ones failing if we're not judged up to scratch.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,527

    May I ask whether you first saw the original on the big or small screen?

    TVs in the range 40" to 50" are quite common these days. Do they count as small screens?
    You'd be disappointed if you went to the cinema and found a 50" screen.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 39,546
    Mr. Price, an astute point.

    It's not being treated as a negotiation so much as an exam with the UK taking the test and the EU doing the marking.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,972

    * "sufficient progress" is of course ridiculous, but a very effective negotiating ploy from the EU. It's remarkable how accepted the concept has become amongst UK commentators, coupled with the idea that we are the ones failing if we're not judged up to scratch.

    Yes, the UK government should never have let that nonsense establish itself.

    Mind you, if the EU27 are not simply prepared to negotiate, it's not obvious what the UK can do about it, other than pointing out that the disagreeable consequences won't be limited to the UK.
  • * "sufficient progress" is of course ridiculous, but a very effective negotiating ploy from the EU. It's remarkable how accepted the concept has become amongst UK commentators, coupled with the idea that we are the ones failing if we're not judged up to scratch.

    Yes, the UK government should never have let that nonsense establish itself.

    Mind you, if the EU27 are not simply prepared to negotiate, it's not obvious what the UK can do about it, other than pointing out that the disagreeable consequences won't be limited to the UK.
    Didn’t David David promise us the row of the summer over this before acquiescing ?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 2,263
    edited October 9

    Just been to see Bladerunner 2049

    My personal view (and of course that is all any of us can really have) is that it is not better than the original.

    Nor is it worse.

    It is a perfect continuation of the world which captures every aspect that made the original great. For me it is nothing short of being the perfect sequel in every way.

    I genuinely believe no one could have made a better and more worthy sequel to the original. I will certainly be watching it again several times over the next couple of weeks.

    May I ask whether you first saw the original on the big or small screen?

    I first saw the original on TV (perhaps via VHS) , and despite being sci-fi mad, was fairly underwhelmed. I'd never claim it was a bad film, but it didn't seem to approach the hype surrounding it. I've seen it a couple of times since, and haven't changed my view. I feel about it the same way I do about Inception: a film with massive hype that sadly underdelivers.

    I do wonder if viewing it on the small screen might have had an effect. Or if I'd been exposed to knock-offs in the meantime that meant the impact was lessened.

    Or perhaps I'm just an idiot ... ;)
    The big screen works best. I think the appeal to me is the total immersion in that world of technology and decay, oppressive advertising and AI/biotech. I also liked the moral conundrum posed by sentient AI. And of course - "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,450

    Just been to see Bladerunner 2049

    My personal view (and of course that is all any of us can really have) is that it is not better than the original.

    Nor is it worse.

    It is a perfect continuation of the world which captures every aspect that made the original great. For me it is nothing short of being the perfect sequel in every way.

    I genuinely believe no one could have made a better and more worthy sequel to the original. I will certainly be watching it again several times over the next couple of weeks.

    May I ask whether you first saw the original on the big or small screen?

    I first saw the original on TV (perhaps via VHS) , and despite being sci-fi mad, was fairly underwhelmed. I'd never claim it was a bad film, but it didn't seem to approach the hype surrounding it. I've seen it a couple of times since, and haven't changed my view. I feel about it the same way I do about Inception: a film with massive hype that sadly underdelivers.

    I do wonder if viewing it on the small screen might have had an effect. Or if I'd been exposed to knock-offs in the meantime that meant the impact was lessened.

    Or perhaps I'm just an idiot ... ;)
    I saw it first at the cinema club at University so on a fairly small screen. I have since watched it perhaps 30 or 40 times including going to see it again on the big screen on its 30th anniversary.

    Of course you are not an idiot. (Though as I said to Kle4 the other day you might have no soul :) ). I have no idea what makes some people view a film as a masterpiece whilst others go 'meh'. Anyone who claims they do really is an idiot.

    All I can say for me is that the combination of the intelligent script which asks many questions without necessarily providing easy answers, the stunning cinematography, the perfect music score and the way in which the 'bad guys' are humanised makes for what is, for me, an almost perfect film.

    It probably ties in with my love of Film Noir and classics like the Maltese Falcon. For me Bladerunner is second only to Casablanca as the greatest film ever made.

    The new version is pushing both of those films hard for top spot.
  • eekeek Posts: 1,913
    edited October 9

    Has anyone stayed at Lumley Castle? Any reviews ?

    What's the purpose of your visit? Chester-Le-Street is hardly renowned as a major visitors attraction - heck for locals Tesco's is a highlight..
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,109

    * "sufficient progress" is of course ridiculous, but a very effective negotiating ploy from the EU. It's remarkable how accepted the concept has become amongst UK commentators, coupled with the idea that we are the ones failing if we're not judged up to scratch.

    Yes, the UK government should never have let that nonsense establish itself.

    Mind you, if the EU27 are not simply prepared to negotiate, it's not obvious what the UK can do about it, other than pointing out that the disagreeable consequences won't be limited to the UK.
    Didn’t David David promise us the row of the summer over this before acquiescing ?
    Well, that may have been astute - letting Barnier have an early "win". With an understanding that in the end the trade deal will affect the divorce bill and vice versa.

    But none of us really know which is why so much of the speculation about the negotiations is hot air. Unfortunately it will almost inevitably come down to the wire, as do all such crises.
  • eek said:

    Has anyone stayed at Lumley Castle? Any reviews ?

    What's the purpose of your visit?
    Romantic break. The other half wants to stay in a castle.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,972

    Didn’t David David promise us the row of the summer over this before acquiescing ?

    Yes, and it's odd that it never happened. Maybe he was (wrongly) persuaded that they were about to accept that we'd filled in the first form correctly and could proceed to the next stage of their loony process.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 1,143

    * "sufficient progress" is of course ridiculous, but a very effective negotiating ploy from the EU. It's remarkable how accepted the concept has become amongst UK commentators, coupled with the idea that we are the ones failing if we're not judged up to scratch.

    Yes, the UK government should never have let that nonsense establish itself.

    Mind you, if the EU27 are not simply prepared to negotiate, it's not obvious what the UK can do about it, other than pointing out that the disagreeable consequences won't be limited to the UK.
    No. But they will be worse in the UK than elsewhere.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,972

    * "sufficient progress" is of course ridiculous, but a very effective negotiating ploy from the EU. It's remarkable how accepted the concept has become amongst UK commentators, coupled with the idea that we are the ones failing if we're not judged up to scratch.

    Yes, the UK government should never have let that nonsense establish itself.

    Mind you, if the EU27 are not simply prepared to negotiate, it's not obvious what the UK can do about it, other than pointing out that the disagreeable consequences won't be limited to the UK.
    No. But they will be worse in the UK than elsewhere.
    Indeed. But that won't be much of a consolation to those in the EU27 who are badly hit by them.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 13,450

    Just been to see Bladerunner 2049

    My personal view (and of course that is all any of us can really have) is that it is not better than the original.

    Nor is it worse.

    It is a perfect continuation of the world which captures every aspect that made the original great. For me it is nothing short of being the perfect sequel in every way.

    I genuinely believe no one could have made a better and more worthy sequel to the original. I will certainly be watching it again several times over the next couple of weeks.

    May I ask whether you first saw the original on the big or small screen?

    I first saw the original on TV (perhaps via VHS) , and despite being sci-fi mad, was fairly underwhelmed. I'd never claim it was a bad film, but it didn't seem to approach the hype surrounding it. I've seen it a couple of times since, and haven't changed my view. I feel about it the same way I do about Inception: a film with massive hype that sadly underdelivers.

    I do wonder if viewing it on the small screen might have had an effect. Or if I'd been exposed to knock-offs in the meantime that meant the impact was lessened.

    Or perhaps I'm just an idiot ... ;)
    I would add that Mark Kermode the other day correctly identified (IMHO) that science fiction films can be split into pre-Bladerunner and post-Bladerunner categories, such was the visual impact of the film and its influence on later Science fiction cinematography.

    So I do wonder if there is some truth in your comment about exposure to later knock offs (although not exactly in the way you mean)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,527

    * "sufficient progress" is of course ridiculous, but a very effective negotiating ploy from the EU. It's remarkable how accepted the concept has become amongst UK commentators, coupled with the idea that we are the ones failing if we're not judged up to scratch.

    Yes, the UK government should never have let that nonsense establish itself.

    Mind you, if the EU27 are not simply prepared to negotiate, it's not obvious what the UK can do about it, other than pointing out that the disagreeable consequences won't be limited to the UK.
    No. But they will be worse in the UK than elsewhere.
    I wonder what hit to GDP, unemployment would be acceptable to teach the UK a lesson.
  • Didn’t David David promise us the row of the summer over this before acquiescing ?

    Yes, and it's odd that it never happened. Maybe he was (wrongly) persuaded that they were about to accept that we'd filled in the first form correctly and could proceed to the next stage of their loony process.
    The more plausible answer is that he’s just not up to it.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,821

    Didn’t David David promise us the row of the summer over this before acquiescing ?

    Yes, and it's odd that it never happened. Maybe he was (wrongly) persuaded that they were about to accept that we'd filled in the first form correctly and could proceed to the next stage of their loony process.
    The government has been aggressive when it should have been emollient and emollient when it should have been aggressive. The latter stems from the former.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 16,972

    Didn’t David David promise us the row of the summer over this before acquiescing ?

    Yes, and it's odd that it never happened. Maybe he was (wrongly) persuaded that they were about to accept that we'd filled in the first form correctly and could proceed to the next stage of their loony process.
    The more plausible answer is that he’s just not up to it.
    Possibly, but (as far as one can tell from the outside) he seems to be doing the right things. The UK position papers have been very good - not that our EU friends seem to have much interest in reading them - and he's avoided getting drawn into spats.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 2,914

    Just been to see Bladerunner 2049

    My personal view (and of course that is all any of us can really have) is that it is not better than the original.

    Nor is it worse.

    It is a perfect continuation of the world which captures every aspect that made the original great. For me it is nothing short of being the perfect sequel in every way.

    I genuinely believe no one could have made a better and more worthy sequel to the original. I will certainly be watching it again several times over the next couple of weeks.

    May I ask whether you first saw the original on the big or small screen?

    I first saw the original on TV (perhaps via VHS) , and despite being sci-fi mad, was fairly underwhelmed. I'd never claim it was a bad film, but it didn't seem to approach the hype surrounding it. I've seen it a couple of times since, and haven't changed my view. I feel about it the same way I do about Inception: a film with massive hype that sadly underdelivers.

    I do wonder if viewing it on the small screen might have had an effect. Or if I'd been exposed to knock-offs in the meantime that meant the impact was lessened.

    Or perhaps I'm just an idiot ... ;)
    I saw it first at the cinema club at University so on a fairly small screen. I have since watched it perhaps 30 or 40 times including going to see it again on the big screen on its 30th anniversary.

    Of course you are not an idiot. (Though as I said to Kle4 the other day you might have no soul :) ). I have no idea what makes some people view a film as a masterpiece whilst others go 'meh'. Anyone who claims they do really is an idiot.

    All I can say for me is that the combination of the intelligent script which asks many questions without necessarily providing easy answers, the stunning cinematography, the perfect music score and the way in which the 'bad guys' are humanised makes for what is, for me, an almost perfect film.

    It probably ties in with my love of Film Noir and classics like the Maltese Falcon. For me Bladerunner is second only to Casablanca as the greatest film ever made.

    The new version is pushing both of those films hard for top spot.
    But where do you stand on the voice-over in the first version of the original? Although Ridley Scott hates it, some BR fans think it's integral.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 9,576

    eek said:

    Has anyone stayed at Lumley Castle? Any reviews ?

    What's the purpose of your visit?
    Romantic break. The other half wants to stay in a castle.
    Tell us if you come across the ghost.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 17,821
    On topic, I'd have thought that nationalisation was the populist policy that Labour would use to cover some of their far less popular policies.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,527
    From the Telegraph, so much for ‘sufficient progress’

    Sources close to Mr Barnier told The Telegraph that even if full agreement is reached on Ireland and citizens’ rights, “two out of three isn’t good enough” and trade talks will only proceed if agreement is reached on the financial settlement.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/09/theresa-may-seizes-brexit-initiative-customs-trade-white-papers/
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 1,143
    RobD said:

    * "sufficient progress" is of course ridiculous, but a very effective negotiating ploy from the EU. It's remarkable how accepted the concept has become amongst UK commentators, coupled with the idea that we are the ones failing if we're not judged up to scratch.

    Yes, the UK government should never have let that nonsense establish itself.

    Mind you, if the EU27 are not simply prepared to negotiate, it's not obvious what the UK can do about it, other than pointing out that the disagreeable consequences won't be limited to the UK.
    No. But they will be worse in the UK than elsewhere.
    I wonder what hit to GDP, unemployment would be acceptable to teach the UK a lesson.
    Many in the EU are tired of what they see as the UK's condescending exceptionalism and endless demands for opt-outs. Brexit is a golden opportunity for other EU countries to steal UK commerce and industry and reduce its political influence. And that is what they are going to do, with the help of our own Brexit headbangers.
This discussion has been closed.