shurlock

The Second Coming of Gorman and Dodd.

Clueless.

Mixed feelings - the season could have been better; it could have been worse -and it certainly could have been more entertaining. Hope the club and Uncle Les are honest enough to admit that things begin with recruitment and the quality of the squad.

Guess the politics of disgust are more your cup of tea.

Farron's stepped down. #losingmyreligion

I guess you're not jumping to conclusions and blaming Muslims, Ramadan and midnight cooking for the blaze, unlike many of your companions on order-order and a site ou described as balanced and nonpartisan.

Hypo's made a fool of himself. No need to rub it in.

Not sure Sanders and Cobyn were separated at birth. Sanders was quite explicit about linking his programme to the American Dream and middle class opportunity. There were elements of this in Corbyn's campaign, though there was a stronger emphasis on public services and public sector workers -with at times a musk of clientelism. Corbyn was most successful when he made the link between inequality of outcome and inequality of opportunity (tackling the latter is also a goal of New Labour and many Tories). He didn't do it consistently enough and will need to do it more if he's to convince more voters he's less a class warrior, motivated by the politics of envy than a politician interested in democratising opportunities so everyone can flourish and contribute to the economy and society. Whether he can deliver his policies is another matter. His most successful line, by far, was ruling out tax rises for 95% of earners. Rhetorically it was brilliant, though it was also dishonest and oddly conservative. Dishonest because while the Labour manifesto was costed, it said nothing about the behavioural response of high earners and corporations to higher taxes (though some of the predictions of exodus made by the right were just as ludicrous). And conservative because it leaves the needs-based welfare system and public services fundamentally untouched. A consequence of such a setup is those paying in the most see little out of it, which makes it hard to sell the common good argument. Over the long-term, it's unlikely to change public antipathy towards benefit claimants and leaves the system vulnerable to stricter means-testing as soon as the electoral tides shift. Arguably Corbyn would have been more radical had he begun to make the case for contributory welfare i.e. what people get out of the system is more closely linked to what they put in. In effect, a variant of the German social democracy model. It would leave the system better funded and more popular - as something that's relevant to everyone, not just the poor. Of course, that would require a more honest debate about financing and past contributions across society, not just doubling down on milking anyone with a higher income.

Not sure it makes sense to lump the traditional media together. Traditional newspapers may not have cut much ice. However, t's unclear whether their limited impact was due to the thoroughly negative message they were peddling or their distribution strategy. For instance I saw plenty of social media with links to guardian articles and other mainstream outlets. Social media doesn't just generate its own content; but is also a carrier for wider content. To pit one against the traditional vs the new is to misunderstand their interdependence. Not sure we can proclaim the death of television just yet. Citing party political broadcasts is a strawman - they've never been taken seriously. By contrast, the news and leadership debates seem to have had far more traction. Interviews with the young suggest that their impression of Corbyn was great influenced by his performance in these TV formats.

A lot of helmets throwing around the word 'socialism' without an inkling of what it means and somehow equating the Labour manifesto with Chavez's Venezuela or other radical experiments in socialism. Yeh hardcore socialists believe in having the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7

No reason not to make a fast start and enjoy some momentum.

Corbyn's offering more than that pal. He wants the UK to continue to participate in a host of EU agencies (research, environmental etc.) as well as remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights and European Court of Human Rights. The loons and brexithadis are against these things. As for state aid rules, many forms of intervention are still permissible - the UK hasn't done so out of choice and ideology.

Let's be clear, Aaron Lennon in his pomp was very good (20+ appearances for various England sides that are much better than today's crop). It's not a slight; just a recognition that he ultimately flattered to deceive and never delivered on his promise at the highest level.

Assuming the reports are accurate, you'd hope for £15m difference that KL has gone with the offer that is best for the club's long-term interests and sustainability.

You mean a takeaway? #hilarious

Welcome back pal. Trust a poster of your intelligence to see the big picture. Been a bit quiet on the Trident front: have missed your little updates and paeans to your foresight regarding how the EU is going to hell in a handbasket and Global Britain is going from strength to strength

Tripe - his ceiling is Aaron Lennon in his pomp.

Are you going to use the fall as a buying opportunity?

Certainly a possibility, though very hard to see how the EU would, in return, grant the UK full access to the single market e.g. the EEA is signed up to the 2004 Citizens’ Directive, which guarantees the free movement rights of EU citizens, including jobseekers. Politically it might be easier to sell, though it would also deny the UK full control over its immigration system, which the loons promised. Since most EU migrants are in employment, it's unlikely that numbers would fall significantly. Of course, many migrants in employment arrive initially without a job (ONS estimates that between one-quarter and one-third of the total number of EU immigrants to the UK come without a definite job). Conceivably such a requirement would impact this segment, though since many do go on and find jobs, it seems badly targeted, a misunderstanding of how flexible labour markets work. The main effect would be drive up labour market search costs (ultimately passed onto the consumer). Finally implementing such a system would be tricky, as Jonathan Portes points out (see his EEA-minus blog post). In theory, the government would only grant national insurance (NI) numbers to individuals applying from abroad with a job offer in the UK. However, assuming visa-free travel continues (as it undoubtedly will), nothing, in practice, would stop migrants from coming to the UK, finding a job, returning home, and then coming back in with their shiny new offer.

Nope, though Corbyn's ambiguity -as much strategic as out of principle- doesn't help. Guess that's a privilege of being in opposition.

What would this entail? There are ‘safeguard mechanisms’ contained in Articles 112 and 113 as part of the EEA agreement, though for a country the size of the UK -unlike Norway which has less than 1/10th of the population, it's difficult to envisage situations in which immigration would be so problematic as to justify the UK triggering these mechanisms. Freedom of movement was phased in stages in Switzerland via a quota system, though it wasn't particularly restrictive and meant only to be temporary (5 years). In return, the Swiss were granted partial access to the single market thanks to a mindboggling web of 10,000 bilateral treaties, though it has fallen far short of full liberalisation of trade in goods, services and capital. Attempts to renegotiate freedom of movement have cut little ice, other than largely tokenistic compromises such as recent legislation to give local residents priority in new job vacancies. In other words, not sure how these precedents would be sufficient to placate the loons.

Is nuts - a 33% increase in a week. Was a small, if signifucant tech selloff on Friday amid growing concerns of bubbly behaviour in the sector. This thing seems impervious to it.

Even that leaves plenty to play for. Per Charles Grant (a remainer) "A softer Brexit is unlikely to mean staying in the single market, since the EU would insist on free movement of labour – a price many Conservative and Labour MPs would not want to pay. But a softer Brexit could mean introducing only modest curbs on free movement, staying in EU regulatory agencies and avoiding a dogmatic rejection of any role for the European court of justice (ECJ). It could even mean maintaining the customs union. There would then be no need for controls and perhaps queues on the EU-UK border – or for customs posts between the north and south of Ireland. But the UK would have to adopt EU tariffs and could not negotiate its own free trade agreements with countries outside the EU. Staying in the customs union would madden the Tory right as much as it would please businesses". It would also madden the kipper mentalists on here; but it would be perfectly compatible with the statements made by McDonnell. Whatever transpires, the Brexit, including exiting customs union that the mentalists were looking forward to a few days ago is arguably now gone forever.

The two-year negotiation period only applies to the withdrawal agreement under Article 50. Negotiations on the future UK–EU relationship can take much longer, depending on what the goal is e.g. bespoke vs. off-the-shelf deal. In other words, not everything has to be agreed within two years.

Its pretty clear that transitional arrangements will be required - only question is what those arrangements look like. Good chance they look pretty similar to the status quo in order to minimise disrtruption.