Mailwatch(ed) Forum

The Tories will doubtless go hard for now on this if the sums raised disappoint, or if it costs money. But once it's done and settles down, are they going to run in an election on bringing back non-doms? I think that would be very tough.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2024 9:28 pm
Good. U-turn, obviously, but what are the Tories going to do? "Cut investment now!"?

Had they run on this in the election, they'd have probably got more votes.

"Tax and spend! Throw money at it! Bad old days of bloated public sector!". That or after a few months declare there's been no improvement, thus it was all a waste of time.

Since Thatcher, they've managed something rather cunning - to get people to demand excellence, but expect shit. The result being that the service delivered will never be good enough for people to say "that was money well spent", but simultaneously never quite bad enough for people to demand the investment the services need.

An observation : Though the government has made, and is still making, significant progress in re-setting/rebuilding the UK’s relationship with the EU, still working towards the regulatory and standards alignment that are necessary precursors to, one day, reversing Brexit and getting the UK’s EU membership back, it is to be hoped, there is still work to do. Stealthily, if need be.

But Keir still needs to be careful. In particular, he needs to pack in using the phrase “make Brexit work”. In social media terms, in particular, amongst fervent remainer/re-joiners (of which I might count myself , if possessed of a measure pore pragmatism than some), it is like a red rag to a bull.

I think he just said it in relation to a meeting with Ursula von der Leyn.

Here’s what it triggers : “BREXIT CAN NEVER WORK”. “LABOUR IS PRO-BREXIT !!!!”.

Which is a shame, as of course, it is very true that Brexit cannot possibly “work”. It is an unmitigated disaster, and always was. But Starmer really isn’t trying to “make Brexit work”, he is trying to make the UK work, in a post-Brexit, 14-years of Tories-damaged, climate of shite everywhere. In which there are innumerable other more pressing priorities than seeking to re-join the EU. Meanwhile the work of re-setting relations with the EU continues. He needs to say so. More often, and more clearly.

My view is that it's about as low intensity as they can get away with. It's not "seize the benefits of Brexit" or whatever. It's closer to "make the best of Brexit".

But you're dead right, there is a significant constituency who really hate it. I think it would be better to put it in terms of "resetting our relations with the EU".

Do you remember the far-off days before the election, when the Cult said the media were going kind on Starmer because he was an Establishment stooge? I'd hate to see them setting the attack dogs loose.

Yep.

We’ve now had the “son doing exams wanted somewhere quiet to study” scandal. It’s basically the same as Bozo getting Simon Case and Richard Sharpe to arrange loans for him, or something.

What's great is that they're putting this cash value on something that was given for free. Almost like "Well, if this was a top rated AirBNB, it'd go for...". Bit like saying "Your holiday in Cleethorpes may have cost a few hundred quid, but you could have gone to Maui, and that would have been many thousands so let's say that's what you spent...".

All these 'exclusives' are just hacks reading the registry of declarations, they haven't discovered shit.
Did Jezza pay for his Glastonbury ticket?

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu Sep 26, 2024 8:51 pm My view is that it's about as low intensity as they can get away with. It's not "seize the benefits of Brexit" or whatever. It's closer to "make the best of Brexit".

But you're dead right, there is a significant constituency who really hate it. I think it would be better to put it in terms of "resetting our relations with the EU".

As luck would have it, O'Brien was talking about this earlier today. The conundrum goes like this :

- the polls show that hardly anybody thinks that Brexit was a great idea any more
- if there was a re-run of the 2016 referendum tomorrow, there would be a clear majority to remain (re-join).
- to possibly a lesser extent, people are aware, or are becoming aware, of the actual damage that Brexit has done to the UK's economy and society.

It is therefore a massive mistake, or category error, for Starmer to say that he wants to "make Brexit work". It cannot "work", and never could. Saying so also, as I alluded to previously, puts people's backs up in an instant.

So, why is Starmer not telling the truth - that Brexit was a dreadful idea, that it has caused considerable damage to the UK's economy and society, and that his job as PM - the best he can hope to achieve - is to minimise or mitigate that damage (aka "re-set" the UK's relationship with the EU), not "make it work"? After all, the fabled priceless ming vase has now been safely carried along the full length of the highly polished floor, and is safely installed in a secure cabinet in Downing Street.

The only conclusion I can tentatively draw is that Starmer still has an eye on the (fragile) coalition of voters that carried him to victory in July - in particular those Leave voters in the "Red Wall" seats who voted Labour this time. Arguably, that cohort of voters - those who still cling to "sovereignty" - is diminishing, and will continue to do so, but Starmer still needs to mind his Ps and Qs with respect to them, as his ten year project very much depends on winning re-election in 2029. Until he is happy that this particular cohort of voters has diminished to a point where it can safely be either ignored or told the unvarnished truth, he is going to continue to tread this incredibly frustrating line.

It can work better than it can though, with less trade fiction. They're trying to negotiate that, see how it goes.

I really don't find it frustrating. You can't run on "well, it's shit, but what can you do?"

Per the FT, Reeves is going to water down some of the non-dom stuff. I'd rather it weren't, because I don't like inconsistent tax treatment. But I guess, she has been convinced that revenue will suffer.

There'll doubtless be a load of the usual stuff from the left, but it's worth acknowledging that Labour has already gone further than anyone before, and successfully pushed the Sunak Government in this direction. That's a fairly substantial and durable shift to "taxing the rich".

Keir better hope for a global upturn in 2030 that Thatcher enjoyed in the mid 80s. Oldies will recall the beginning of her tenure in government was more muddlesome and disastrous than this one.

This is good by Lou Haigh. Ought to bring more freight to rail, at least in the short term.

As further reform to rail continues apace, changes to rail freight and the charges attached to it have already been made. In a move designed to encourage further modal shift to rail freight, Network Rail and the Department for Transport (DfT) has waived track access charges for new freight flows for the next six months in a bid to bring new business onto the nation’s tracks.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 2:14 pm You can't run on "well, it's shit, but what can you do?"

Equally, you can't polish a turd. - see "make Brexit work". "Re-set our relationship with the EU" looks like a reasonable halfway house. He just needs to stop saying he can "make Brexit work".

The issue with Brexit is not so much about the popularity of the decision now. It's that it gets a certain group of people and commentators very angry and extremely loud.

Any reasonable person knows that life is a series of compromises. Brexit though was turned into a panacea. An answer to everything, a final riposte to those awful foreigners. As long as it stayed pure. It was always a fugazi, an illusion that meant whatever you wanted it to mean. The only consistent thing was that it had been mucked around with and wasn't any good now.

But still, biggist voat evah senteen milyun and all that. "Even though I voted against leaving, I have come to respect the decision" as every fucking pundit started saying, vox populi vox dei, insult to those who voted, like shitting on a war memorial. It's just too bloody toxic.

Abernathy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 2:51 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri Sep 27, 2024 2:14 pm You can't run on "well, it's shit, but what can you do?"

Equally, you can't polish a turd. - see "make Brexit work". "Re-set our relationship with the EU" looks like a reasonable halfway house. He just needs to stop saying he can "make Brexit work".

The view from here, the two aren't mutually exclusive. I'm taking it Starmer is simply using a word the 17m recognise.

Andy wrote:The issue with Brexit is not so much about the popularity of the decision now. It's that it gets a certain group of people and commentators very angry and extremely loud.

This is the point. The vested interests that promoted the disaster in the first place would put up such a barrage of shit that government would be impossible. The public will has to come first, and at the moment there seems to be a general agreement that Brexit has been shit, but not for rejoining. That's probably a generational thing.

See my thoughts elsewhere on the expectations paradox. You want the best but expect the worst, so aren't particularly impressed by either.

My other belief is that we're watching the enshittification of western politics.

‪Naomi Smith‬ ‪@pimlicat.bsky.social‬

“I have never seen so much EU representation at a Labour conference. They were there in force. They see [Labour] as people they can do business with, for the first time in a long time...the level of excitement about what the EU and UK are going to do, was palpable.”

See where this leads, but sounds promising.

This is pure shit stirring.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ll-sources

Labour’s flagship “non-dom” policy was largely copied and pasted from the Conservatives even though it contains “basic errors” and risks damaging the UK’s financial sector, Whitehall sources have told the Guardian.

They claimed that the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, dismissed concerns raised by Whitehall officials about the potential negative impact of the policy, and is still set on introducing it in the manner Hunt pledged. “This is copy-pasting basic errors into the new policy,” one Whitehall source said.

The "basic errors" turn out to be a difference of opinion between Reeves-Hunt and this person on how long non-dom should last. Reeves and Hunt both think 4 years, this person evidently wants longer. That's not what "basic errors" suggests to me.

And "copied from the Tories" isn't quite the killer it sounds. Hunt adopted Reeves' policy. So what would you expect? They're civil service proposals put together to achieve a shared policy.