Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 2:20 pm See how the negotiations go, but if the EU are really saying "nothing changes unless you agree to this", that's pretty silly red line stuff too. I wonder if some of the countries closer to Putin would be happy for the EU to chuck away defence cooperation over this?

The Commission suggested a 4 year visa for 18-30. That's potentially a lot of people, especially if the Opposition say "we'll scrap this on day one". It was overwhelmingly this group who came before, and the Labour government got killed on that. Sure, lots fewer of them will settle, but you're still in a situation where you're treading on toes to build houses and they're barely keeping up with immigration.

I wonder if some of the people championing this stuff know that it's up to age 30. That's not really "youth".

Yeah I mean why can't the EU be flexible here as well?

It almost certainly will be. Starmer has shown some flexibility on EU Courts, for example. Provided they don't lose their nerve on that, they can do better than the current deal, not least with food exports.

This chap seems to be quite good on the situation. Among other things If you follow links) he thinks a customs union a la Turkey would be bad and doesn't think that the EU would have accepted the sort of Customs Union Corbyn talked about in 2019. I assume that applies to the Lib Dem proposals now- who'd have thought it, eh? Nice headlines, stick it to Kipper Starmer, but not a practical policy. Wouldn't be the first time.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpoli ... agreement/

I disagree with him that Starmer can set out a Single Market Agreement this Parliament and implement it after the next election. I think that's a gift to Farage.

So Cooper said the EU youth visas were “not the right starting point for us at all”. As the Guardian fairly says, she’s not ruled it out as part of the deal.

That seems fairly reasonable really.

I see Maguire and Pogrund have uncovered a scandal.

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sat Feb 01, 2025 12:11 pm Thoughts on this?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... g-34594641

The long-term sick will be required to look for work and many will see their benefits cut under a massive overhaul of welfare, it is reported.

Labour says it now must repair "Tory failures on welfare," which the party says has left the welfare bill ballooning. However, it means hundreds of thousands of people could see reductions in sickness benefits payments.

Chaminda Jayanetti isn't happy about it for one.

I think it sounds awful. I think an unintended consequence of harassing job seekers is that people who might previously have dropped in and out of employment go for sickness benefit for a quieter life. That's something which could be reformed. Cutting the amounts so drastically though, that shouldn't be on.

Local housing allowance was frozen last year. I declare an interest but it's an objectively bad policy.

Labour's messaging is really bad. For all Reeves's blathering on about Heathrow's runway, the very next day it was announced that some water bills will rise nearly 50%. Coupled with rises in council tax upto 25% and the impression that they're going to cut disability benefits it really looks like Labour just don't give an actual shit about the cost of living and only care about some mythical growth. It's still early days, but I'm starting to think that this government will go down as squandering a huge majority by doing not very much at all with it.

They've done things it's just a lot of the time it gets ignored or dismissed out of hand.

@Dalem Lake :

How do you think Labour's messaging could (should) be improved?

I think they're being hurt by the planning stuff, almost like they're gleefully slaughtering newts and bats. It's very Friday Night Armistice "Paramilitary Wing Of The Labour Party". I understand why they're doing it, seeing they just get relentless "no business should invest, Labour hopeless" but there's a balance.

The policy of a much wider nature fund is, I think, very good. Still at the consultation phase, but more people should be told about it. If they knew, I reckon they'd accept that, sure, HS2 might have been bad for those bats, but rather than £100m mitigation (this seems to be a genuine figure), we can spent a fraction of that and do lots of good elsewhere. You occasionally see things in the Guardian where a bunch of good people are fund raising to buy some land somewhere to rewild. Everybody likes that. Imagine having the Government do more of it, while still getting infrastructure built.

Just like real wars, it seems like trade wars have lots of armchair generals.

The thing with Trump is that he doesn't give a fuck. "Let's all get together with the EU and show him" is like the old "stand up to a bully and they immediately stop" nonsense. Except unlike the bully, Trump doesn't care how much the US gets spanked back. Bigger the trade war the better, as far as he's probably concerned.

Lots of talk about Starmer being "delusional". Well, if he is, then so are the world stock markets, where the falls in no way reflect the magnitude of the the threat. Lots of non-stupid people, with presumably reasonable lobbying access, think it won't be as bad as it seems. As with North Korea last time, Trump could completely give up and barely mention it again. Perhaps some donors will get in his ear. Maybe somebody will persuade him that he's already won a brilliant victory over Canada.

As much as anyone, I'd enjoy the politics of Badenoch and Farage being put on the sport to support the British Prime Minister or Trump. But it's not my job that might get lost.

Trump's already postponed the Mexico tariffs a month, I see. Both of them will definitely stop bad shit coming out of their countries.

The Weeping Angel wrote: ↑Sun Feb 02, 2025 9:27 pm I see Maguire and Pogrund have uncovered a scandal.

Was actually allowed. I assume that’s why it’s in their book. Wasn’t Johnson’s whole spiel about work meetings. And this was a work meeting as opposed to Johnson’s which always seemed to have booze flowing from the start.

Reform lead with yougov. Could be an outlier, who knows?

Point made on another board is how naive Farage (and Badenoch) seem to be about reliance on Trumpists. The Canadian Tories have been taught a very quick lesson about that and are having to think about diversifying. The political line seems to be that Starmer isn't getting close enough to the US. That's absolutely mad.

Ha ha ha. The Mail thinks this is a very bad time to improve relations with the EU. Apparently that's "groveling" to the EU.

I get the feeling this'll date about as well as Simon Case's talk about Trump maybe remaking government in some positive way.

Important stuff here in the Guardian.

When the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr) modelled the impact of a 10% tariff on all US imports recently – with retaliation from trading partners – the outcome for the UK was unsettling.

Niesr suggested sterling could lose 10-15% of its value against the dollar, which is widely expected to strengthen in the event of a trade war. A weaker pound would then feed into higher import prices, and a resurgence of inflation.

Special tariffs on Britain would be even more of a disaster.

Shame more of the BTL armchair trade war generals won't read it. Or indeed Ed Davey, who sees himself (if he's even serious) as the lost leader to lead the fight. Clever old Ed would probably still object to taxes on rich farmers and private schools. By all means say you see the future in the EU, that's great, so do I. But at least allow that things are a bit tricky now for Britain. And no, "That's why I opposed leaving the EU" isn't a solution.

Oh and the Chagos deal is back in the news because Mauritius are asking for more money.

Foreign Government in "Has its own domestic audience" shock.

Jenrick called Starmer a "quisling". Pure Farage. And Priti Patel (actual Shadow Foreign Secretary) says Starmer is ashamed of British history. Is there nothing she thinks was bad? Opium Wars? The slave trade? She'd have probably accused Wilberforce of being ashamed of history.

Like her own party presumably who started the negotiations. And did I see them trying to quote the 99 year lease cost to make it sound more scary than it is?

Why does the UK need a base in the southern Indian Ocean, to battle pirates heading to Madagascar with East India Company booty?

Staging post for flights/voyages to Australasia. Or for bombing the Middle East from the south. Allows intercepts of shipping from Red Sea to SE Asia, and back. Good place to torture people off the radar.

If you look at the empire at its height (and the bits we held onto), there were a lot of strategic holdings that basically granted control over pinch points and major shipping routes. The real power of the empire was that it could shut trade and supply lines down.

Like castles, innit.

France has bases in the region too. Though I think they're in places that are properly part of France, so not off the radar.