My point is that real change is very difficult to bring about in the American system, and it seems the same in the UK, where they've been bickering about Brexit long after they supposedly decided to exit. — Hanover

The reason was parliament was particularly weak. Now the Conservatives have a whooping majority it’ll be easy to ‘change’. Don’t forget that May assumed she’d get a clean sweep and be able to push through Brexit much earlier - her plan backfired stupendously.

Overall I reckon it’s been a good period of shake up. Once the Brexit train is well and truly rolling perhaps the opposition parties will accept this and restructure their policies rather than pandering to popular opinion - for that Corbyn was certainly a breath of fresh air. The difference in the UK is the lesser parties. The Lib Dems have suffered massively, but they can still rise up again with a half-decent leader. Now Labour is imploding it may lead to my dream finally coming true ... an election where THREE parties have a decent chance of winning out. In terms of the popular vote the Lib Dems have been there or there about (even though the number of seats has never shown this support).

Anyway, enough of all that from me. I jumped the ship Blighty 8 years ago and have no intention of living there again :) it is still part of me though, but having it at a distance helps me put things into perspective (people don’t appreciate what they have most of the time).

From what I've seen happen is that the economy has boomed, with unemployment at record lows, and a regained confidence in the system, notwithstanding the massive blow back from Marxist Dutch academics who are so critical to worldwide economic policy.

I'd say real change would be very much possible in the US if there would be a meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans. — Benkei

If there's no difference, then why can't anything get passed?

The system doesn't provide any protections for the losing party accept a filibuster. In other words, any 60% majority means you're scotfree to do whatever you like. — Benkei

Nice pun with the scotfree comment in light of the Scots claiming they're not free. I'm just asking though what the Democrats have to complain about right now in terms of Republican policy being forced down their throat? They really haven't taken any big hits.

From what I've seen happen is that the economy has boomed, with unemployment at record lows, and a regained confidence in the system, notwithstanding the massive blow back from Marxist Dutch academics who are so critical to worldwide economic policy. — Hanover

Which metric are you using to say the economy has boomed?

Second, inequality has risen, so full time jobs but lower living standards especially for manual labour.

Third, full employment is a Keynesian metric and goal which is debatable as a measure for an economy's health. Quite a few argue we should be concerned with full production.

Except that didn't happen following the Great Recession.

Do you think that the financial crisis was a blip and in a year or two the world economy will be booming again?

Talking about views on the Brexit issue, can anyone name a tangible benefit to leaving the EU? — Punshhh

Unless the area gets bargained away in the trade deal our fishing industries should gain substantially, and ergo many coastal communities. As an island, if we have control of our own waters we stand to gain much in quota once all the spanish and french boats are excluded.

Also, one reason for some wanting to leave is the overarching influence of the EU courts. I have yet to see an example of where they dictated to the UK what to do in the face of clear opposition here. But presumably there is one somewhere?..

Thirdly I recall hearing our livestock transportation welfare standards are higher than the EU, and as we can't enforce them currently we have to 'trade down' to compete on price. The livestock would benefit if our prefered standards were enforced. Maybe they're the ones who voted for Brexit!

Yes of course, but I don't know if you were aware, there is an equally pervasive issue with Islamophobia in the Tory party and opposition MPs repeatedly called this out, but it didn't cut through in the media and was repeatedly laughed off by Tory politicians. While the media couldn't stop talking about the media circus they had created around anti semitism in the Labour Party. — Punshhh

When you can laugh off things, things are good. But in the example I gave Blair wasn't laughing it off. And this was just one issue from many.

Here is the thing that is the problem of our time.

We assume that every political question divides by the juxtaposition of the left and right.

They simply don't, but the most vocal voices assume they do. Their argument creates the siren song of everything being part of a culture war and people being tribal. Yet Labour voter (and social democrats) and Conservatives in general simply don't fit such simplistic stereotype molds.

Just look at Brexit. A quarter of Leave-voters were supporters of Labour. Same is with any question on immigration, which was a major issue in the whole Brexit debate. Yes, I understood that you were talking about Islamophobia, but the general context of this debate is immigration policy. And it isn't as simplistic that the left is for open borders and the right is islamophobic or basically xenophobic nativists.

The worst thing is when we take some difficult area of environmental policy and then start to divide it along similar silly lines.

But there sure is a drive to dumb down the debate and cling to the most eccentric stereotypes that one can find on either side to show just how out of whack the other side is. The social media makes this so easy.

It's probably as good an idea as the Scots leaving Britain, which is as much based upon their desire for independence and desire to lose their association with England than it is whether they'll actually economically benefit.

Scotland would gain a great deal of independence, as currently it is almost entirely controlled from Westminster. Britain is already independent of the EU, except for certain treaties of cooperation between a number of independent countries.

I think independence has value in its own right, even if means a loss of economic benefit. It's entirely possible that Canada, for example, would economically benefit if it ceded certain powers to the US, but I can fully understand why Canada wouldn't do that.

In the case of Britain about 40% of our trade is through and benefits from the common market, plus the thing I value most, total freedom of movement throughout the European Union, including access to all benefits.

Yes there are some benefits which are in reality small beer. The fishing rights would benefit only a few hundred boats at most. Those rights in question were granted when we entered the EU, but for some strange reason, the fishermen sold the quoters or rights to the EU fishermen. Effectively they voluntarily gave them away. Also I expect the fishing rights would be one of the first concessions to be thrown under the bus during the negotiations.

I have never heard of a case where the EU courts caused a problem and a forthright Prime minister would probably be able to demand a change in the rules on live animal exports.

I've heard that we will get back our Blue passports, but it turns out we don't need to leave the EU to do that. As far as I know all the benefits suggested are not actively prevented by the EU except for divergence on regulation, tariffs and the liberty to have total control of the movement of citizens and their benefits.

Of all the benefits I have come across, the freedom to control the movement of citizens and their benefits is the greatest and certainly from my experience this is the primary reason for the vote to leave.

However it has been pointed out following the vote that there were a number of means of controlling these citizens while in the EU, but they were never exercised by the government, during the critical periods of mass immigration. So it was the incompetence of our government which caused the circumstances which lead to the referendum.

Of all the benefits I have come across, the freedom to control the movement of citizens and their benefits is the greatest and certainly from my experience this is the primary reason for the vote to leave.

However it has been pointed out following the vote that there were a number of means of controlling these citizens while in the EU, but they were never exercised by the government, during the critical periods of mass immigration. So it was the incompetence of our government which caused the circumstances which lead to the referendum. — Punshhh

I have thought all along that the freedom of movement issue was a red herring as control of immigration is really an illusion. Isn't it strange how none of the Brexiteers talk about reducing immigration any more, still less of setting ambitious targets as in the past? No. The major incompetence was of the Remain campaign, which failed to make this point during the lead up to the referendum. The concept of 'benefits tourism' was a fiction and a disgraceful scare story pedalled by the Leave campaign.

What are the means of control you mention?

This article lays it out

In Brussels yesterday, Blair met Guy Verhofstadt and learnt how Belgium handles freedom of movement for European citizens who want to work and live in Belgium. Measures include identity cards, registration when a European arrives or moves homes, the obligation to leave Belgium after three months without a job, a requirement to take out health care, unemployment and other insurance.

As a result, although Belgium has about one third more of its population from other EU member states than Britain, there is none of the obsession with other Europeans that was central to the Brexit debate.

(https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/opinion/tony-blair-is-right-on-immigration-but-did-nothing-to-control-freedom-of-movement/)

I agree that ideas like benefit tourism and tight control of immigration are a myth. They don't go on about immigration anymore because it is toxic, they can be accused of racism. They simply reduced all discussion about Brexit to two slogans, "get it done" and "the will of the people". There were more remainers in parliament than leavers and yet no one took the government to task on the issue. There was an open goal, but we required a statesman/woman to lead the opposition. Corbyn failed in this, even though he was also a leaver, he could have taken the initiative and won the argument and given us a Labour deal. I know that his party and support was split down the middle, which left him hamstrung, but that was no excuse for in action.

They don't go on about immigration anymore because it is toxic, they can be accused of racism. — Punshhh

I think the Tories don't go on about it any more because it's so patently obvious that with the NHS short by 100,000 staff and everyone saying they want a better NHS the new staff have to come from abroad. And maybe people have twigged that as EU immigration has been falling over the past year so non-EU figures have risen to compensate. I also think that peoples' fears of immigration have been molified by the prospect of being able to control it. The so-called aussie-style points system which Boris proffers will be a fig-leaf for a while, but when his hospital and rail building plans stipulates we'll need 5000 new brickies and plumbers as well as NHS cleaners, social care workers - plus of course fruit pickers, people may begin to realise. The 'control' is illusory if we want our job positions filled, and the points system will become simply a means to this end. Additonally, working-age immigration is of course a big help when it comes to offsetting our ageing population - many of whom who are the most vulnerable themselves being the most virulently against it!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/brexit-summit-eu-accepts-united-ireland-declaration-1.3066569?mode=amp&fbclid=IwAR3lszhjRgyt_hOS_MmE5DyqEOp3FVDLx9jDfzE_LGE4-vlBq82qC1QcN-c

let's see if they make a similar declaration for Scotland.

let's see if they make a similar declaration for Scotland. — Punshhh

Only if Scotland votes to become part of Ireland!

I can't see Scotland unifying with Eire in the near term. They would have to go via independence to join the EU.

IOW they don't have a potential partner already in the EU to lobby for them.

I can't see Scotland unifying with Eire in the near term. They would have to go via independence to join the EU. — unenlightened

My comment was a joke!

One man's joke is another man's political agenda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-Celticism

Quite so, remember Johnson's plans for a bridge between Scotland and Ireland. So that EU citizens can move seamlessly between parts of the EU without having to go via Little England. We wouldn't want pesky EU nationals sneaking in by the back door.

IOW they don't have a potential partner already in the EU to lobby for them.

They do have a partner, the EU itself.

I came here to point out a cynical development. The government is proposing cross party talks to come up with a solution to social care. This is a trap to blame their own failure to deal with it on opposition parties. So if the opposition parties cooperate, then when the government fails, they can blame the opposition. Alternatively if the opposition refuses to cooperate, then they will get the blame for not caring about social care.

This government is showing its colours, integrity, truth, honesty has left the building. They will use any underhand tactics they can to hold on to power. Next we can expect them to mimic the Labour Party so as to move onto Labour political territory, leaving them politically homeless. The fact that it will only be hollow promises and they won't deliver is irrelevant, because they will just bluff and bluster and claim black is white, or white is black.

Yes. Cross party talks are bad. Far better to take the stance they have in the US: do not do anything with the administration if you are in opposition. If nothing works, that's good for you. :shade:

Honestly speaking there's a good path to follow here: be simply consistent on your agenda when talking to the administration. Don't flip flop here and there.

Punshhh — Punshhh

Unwarranted cynicism at this stage I think. It's a huge problem. At least give Boris the chance to address it before shooting him down..

Yes, but if the opposition doesn't agree to cross party talks the government will start shouting that they don't care about social care. Although if the Labour Party gets a good orator he/she should be able to stand their ground, it will be a few years before social care becomes an acute crisis.

Judging by the Queen's speech today Johnson is not a good orator, he's not over the detail, or the subject even. He's nothing more than a showman, UK Trump.

Unwarranted cynicism at this stage I think. It's a huge problem. At least give Boris the chance to address it before shooting him down..

Perhaps you are right, although since I wrote that, Eddie Mair was interviewing a political commentator who spelt out what I said. This understanding of the government is already in the political discourse.

I suggest you need to get on board with what it means for an administration to be lacking in integrity, truth and honesty. Have you noticed that Johnson in the House of Commons and all the government ministers who were on the media today are saying 36 billion for the NHS and that it's a big increase in spending and 40 new hospitals. That it will be easy to negotiate a trade deal with the EU in 11 months, because we are in perfect alignment on tariffs and regulations etc. All which have been proven to be untruthful by analysts and fact checkers. They are not going to let up, they are just getting going.

Oh and we won't know if he actually addresses it, rather than just claiming to have done so.

How are things in Sydney? It looks terrifying on the news.

Well - we are having a family wedding today, 60km north of Sydney. Yesterday, the getting everyone and their luggage into cars day, the temperature hit 45c and the smoke haze as thick as a fog. Sydney is ringed by bushfires, and in fact my younger sister has been unable to make it to this wedding because of road closures. There's nothing in our immediate vicinity, in fact no fires east of the Pacific Highway, so we're lucky in that respect.

I don't think at this point it's topped the destruction visited on California, but it's horribly destructive and I think in the popular imagination is a stark testimony to climate change. And, the Australian government is one of the most retrograde in the world on that front. In fact today's headline is, PM Scott Morrison Returns Early from Pre-Christmas Break, due to popular perception of him fiddling while Sydney burns.

Worst of all, this looks like the new normal, or an early foretaste of an even worse new normal.

that's 2017...

I hope your wedding goes ok and that it doesn't get much hotter. We are getting large amounts of rain at the moment, it feels like it has been raining for two months, the weather is definitely becoming less stable. I would start a thread on climate change, but I'm no expert on it.

Have you noticed that Johnson in the House of Commons and all the government ministers who were on the media today are saying 36 billion for the NHS and that it's a big increase in spending and 40 new hospitals. That it will be easy to negotiate a trade deal with the EU in 11 months, because we are in perfect alignment on tariffs and regulations etc. All which have been proven to be untruthful by analysts and fact checkers. — Punshhh

You can't say these claims have been proven to be untruthful simply because fact checkers dispute them. These are doubtless the same people who said Boris could not get a Brexit deal.. Anyway, no claim about future events can be called 'untruthful' any more than 'a lie'; 'absurd' or 'implausible' yes.

Re the care crisis: I think it is acute now. Part of the cause of the chronic shortage of beds and nurses in the NHS is the use of faciltiites on the long term care needs of those who cannot survive alone at home, and for whom no care provider beds are avialable. The problem is that whatever system the govt comes up with to address the crisis will be a vote loser, because it entails taking extra money either by general taxes or from those directly needing care - meaning they have to sell their houses, give up their childrens' inheritances etc. The piftfalls any govt faces were shown by Theresa May's attempt - it immediately became labelled as the dementia tax, although it was a viable idea, and quickly got buried. So the only way through is a cross-party agreement on the basic strategy, that way all parties take any hit in popularity and the 'political football' aspect of the issue is removed. As we face more unpopular decisions in future this cross-party approach will be more needed: most immediate example; to tackle climate change by a rapid de-carbonisation programme.