Boris as PM

rjsterry

With all due application of salt, I was pleasantly surprised by this.

It is absolutely true that I have raised it several times [when] I was in government. I must say, it did not receive an overwhelming endorsement from the previous prime minister when I raised it in cabinet.

But I have to say I do think our arrangements – theoretically being committed to the expulsion of perhaps half a million people who don’t have the correct papers and who may have been living and working here for many, many years without being involved in any criminal activity at all – I think that legal position is anomalous.

And we saw the difficulties that that kind of problem occasioned in the Windrush fiasco. We know the difficulties that can be caused.

And I do think – yes, I will answer [Huq] directly – I do think we need to look at our arrangements for people who have lived and worked here for a long time, unable to enter the economy, unable to participate properly or pay taxes without documents.

We should look at it. And the truth is the law already basically allows them an effective amnesty. That’s basically where things have settled down. But we should look at the the economic advantages and disadvantages of going ahead with the policy that [Huq] described and which I think she and I share.

The 100K target has evaporated as well.

kingstongraham

rjsterry wrote:

With all due application of salt, I was pleasantly surprised by this.

It is absolutely true that I have raised it several times [when] I was in government. I must say, it did not receive an overwhelming endorsement from the previous prime minister when I raised it in cabinet.

But I have to say I do think our arrangements – theoretically being committed to the expulsion of perhaps half a million people who don’t have the correct papers and who may have been living and working here for many, many years without being involved in any criminal activity at all – I think that legal position is anomalous.

And we saw the difficulties that that kind of problem occasioned in the Windrush fiasco. We know the difficulties that can be caused.

And I do think – yes, I will answer [Huq] directly – I do think we need to look at our arrangements for people who have lived and worked here for a long time, unable to enter the economy, unable to participate properly or pay taxes without documents.

We should look at it. And the truth is the law already basically allows them an effective amnesty. That’s basically where things have settled down. But we should look at the the economic advantages and disadvantages of going ahead with the policy that [Huq] described and which I think she and I share.

The 100K target has evaporated as well.

Let's see if it survives any hyperbolic reporting on it, because it seems entirely sensible.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

Au contraire, they have already done a lot, as per the above.

They’re not grads straight out of uni.

You could say the same for Corbyn but you don’t. Surely by the logic you’ve just used you ought to wait until he’s PM to see how he does?

Duuuuh.

But Corbyn isn't PM. So that's a hypothetical point and a bit of whataboutery. Best think through your points before you post.

Stevo_666

Slowmart wrote:

Stevo, would you employ a minion who has found to be dishonest, lying to the PM or Williamson who leaks information, brings an organisation into disrepute and harms stakeholders relationships within a key HMG committee for political gain?

I love the way you state your opinions on people then ask me to comment as if they were all fact. As mentioned to Rick above (which you appear to have not read/ignored), I'll judge them on what they do in office.

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Stevo, would you employ a minion who has found to be dishonest, lying to the PM or Williamson who leaks information, brings an organisation into disrepute and harms stakeholders relationships within a key HMG committee for political gain?

I love the way you state your opinions on people then ask me to comment as if they were all fact. As mentioned to Rick above (which you appear to have not read/ignored), I'll judge them on what they do in office.

The points raised against Patel and Williamson are precisely what they did in office. The reasons for their dismissal are in the public domain so it's hardly just a matter of opinion. If you're saying that's all in the (fairly recent) past and you think they should only be judged on future performance, that's very forgiving of you.

rick_chasey

Stevo 666 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Stevo, would you employ a minion who has found to be dishonest, lying to the PM or Williamson who leaks information, brings an organisation into disrepute and harms stakeholders relationships within a key HMG committee for political gain?

I love the way you state your opinions on people then ask me to comment as if they were all fact. As mentioned to Rick above (which you appear to have not read/ignored), I'll judge them on what they do in office.

They are actual facts though, not opinions.

Williamson was actually sacked for leaking highly confidential information. 86 days ago!

Priti Patel did actually go behind the government’s back and conduct her own secret negotiations with the Israeli prime minister.

Shapps did actually lie about moonlighting and operating under a false name in order to avoid being detected.

They were all done in office.

slowmart

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Stevo, would you employ a minion who has found to be dishonest, lying to the PM or Williamson who leaks information, brings an organisation into disrepute and harms stakeholders relationships within a key HMG committee for political gain?

I love the way you state your opinions on people then ask me to comment as if they were all fact. As mentioned to Rick above (which you appear to have not read/ignored), I'll judge them on what they do in office.

The points raised against Patel and Williamson are precisely what they did in office. The reasons for their dismissal are in the public domain so it's hardly just a matter of opinion. If you're saying that's all in the (fairly recent) past and you think they should only be judged on future performance, that's very forgiving of you.

“Yes boss, I knew about these two new employees and their questionable ethics and I still employed them, no boss I don’t see it was foreseeable that they would have us over at the first opportunity”

Top tip Stevo, if you ever find yourself in prison and you are in the showers, don’t fall for being asked to pick up the soap

robert88

Slowmart wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Stevo, would you employ a minion who has found to be dishonest, lying to the PM or Williamson who leaks information, brings an organisation into disrepute and harms stakeholders relationships within a key HMG committee for political gain?

I love the way you state your opinions on people then ask me to comment as if they were all fact. As mentioned to Rick above (which you appear to have not read/ignored), I'll judge them on what they do in office.

The points raised against Patel and Williamson are precisely what they did in office. The reasons for their dismissal are in the public domain so it's hardly just a matter of opinion. If you're saying that's all in the (fairly recent) past and you think they should only be judged on future performance, that's very forgiving of you.

“Yes boss, I knew about these two new employees and their questionable ethics and I still employed them, no boss I don’t see it was foreseeable that they would have us over at the first opportunity”

Top tip Stevo, if you ever find yourself in prison and you are in the showers, don’t fall for being asked to pick up the soap

Metaphorically speaking I think Stevo is already bending for the soap. :shock:

tailwindhome

Steve Baker turned down an unspecified ministerial role

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Stevo, would you employ a minion who has found to be dishonest, lying to the PM or Williamson who leaks information, brings an organisation into disrepute and harms stakeholders relationships within a key HMG committee for political gain?

I love the way you state your opinions on people then ask me to comment as if they were all fact. As mentioned to Rick above (which you appear to have not read/ignored), I'll judge them on what they do in office.

The points raised against Patel and Williamson are precisely what they did in office. The reasons for their dismissal are in the public domain so it's hardly just a matter of opinion. If you're saying that's all in the (fairly recent) past and you think they should only be judged on future performance, that's very forgiving of you.

Dishonesty and intentions are by definition subjective and not factual. But clearly that doesn't fit your political agenda here

Stevo_666

TailWindHome wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Out of interest, what do you think Jo Swinson has achieved since taking over the LibDem leadership?

Well it's not gone 10 o clock yet and she's already put down a no confidence vote.


Edit - apparently this was overstated somewhat

Well exactly; did it work? Didnt think so...

So same question again. What has Jo (who the **** is that) Swinson achieved?

Stevo_666

Slowmart wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Stevo, would you employ a minion who has found to be dishonest, lying to the PM or Williamson who leaks information, brings an organisation into disrepute and harms stakeholders relationships within a key HMG committee for political gain?

I love the way you state your opinions on people then ask me to comment as if they were all fact. As mentioned to Rick above (which you appear to have not read/ignored), I'll judge them on what they do in office.

The points raised against Patel and Williamson are precisely what they did in office. The reasons for their dismissal are in the public domain so it's hardly just a matter of opinion. If you're saying that's all in the (fairly recent) past and you think they should only be judged on future performance, that's very forgiving of you.

“Yes boss, I knew about these two new employees and their questionable ethics and I still employed them, no boss I don’t see it was foreseeable that they would have us over at the first opportunity”

Top tip Stevo, if you ever find yourself in prison and you are in the showers, don’t fall for being asked to pick up the soap

RTFA - again.

Centre lefties in low IQ scandal

slowmart

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Stevo, would you employ a minion who has found to be dishonest, lying to the PM or Williamson who leaks information, brings an organisation into disrepute and harms stakeholders relationships within a key HMG committee for political gain?

I love the way you state your opinions on people then ask me to comment as if they were all fact. As mentioned to Rick above (which you appear to have not read/ignored), I'll judge them on what they do in office.

The points raised against Patel and Williamson are precisely what they did in office. The reasons for their dismissal are in the public domain so it's hardly just a matter of opinion. If you're saying that's all in the (fairly recent) past and you think they should only be judged on future performance, that's very forgiving of you.

Dishonesty and intentions are by definition subjective and not factual. But clearly that doesn't fit your political agenda here

Dishonesty is black and white.

Misleading the PM was the actual trigger for Patel getting the boot, not the unsanctioned and unaccompanied meetings.

Williamson, leaking details of a private briefing given by security chiefs.

What is subjective about that?

Oh and it turns out Patel is getting £1k an hour as “advisor” from a supplier to the MOD. You really would have thought that Patel’s desire for questionable meetings might have been curtailed but it seems that’s her nature. No surprise really... :roll:

Do you think you’d keep your job if you employed someone who has been sacked for dishonesty, who you then employed, who then thought it was acceptable to take £5k a month from a supplier to your company.

And if you can’t see the flaw in your argument then I’d politely suggest you don’t find yourself in a similar situation as your feet wouldn’t touch until you hit the pavement outside your building.

rolf_f

Slowmart wrote:

Do you think you’d keep your job if you employed someone who has been sacked for dishonesty, who you then employed, who then thought it was acceptable to take £5k a month from a supplier to your company.

But if you knew that your employer thought it OK to conspire to have someone who upset a mate of theirs beaten up you might come to the conclusion (correctly) that they wouldn't be too bothered about your own lack of integrity, honesty, decency etc.

slowmart

Rolf F wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Do you think you’d keep your job if you employed someone who has been sacked for dishonesty, who you then employed, who then thought it was acceptable to take £5k a month from a supplier to your company.

But if you knew that your employer thought it OK to conspire to have someone who upset a mate of theirs beaten up you might come to the conclusion (correctly) that they wouldn't be too bothered about your own lack of integrity, honesty, decency etc.

Sorry I forgot Stevo’s occupation, low bar then and little wonder he can’t recognise the issues

surrey_commuter

Reading through BoJo’s spending and borrowing plans he really should fvck off and join the Labour Party

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Stevo, would you employ a minion who has found to be dishonest, lying to the PM or Williamson who leaks information, brings an organisation into disrepute and harms stakeholders relationships within a key HMG committee for political gain?

I love the way you state your opinions on people then ask me to comment as if they were all fact. As mentioned to Rick above (which you appear to have not read/ignored), I'll judge them on what they do in office.

The points raised against Patel and Williamson are precisely what they did in office. The reasons for their dismissal are in the public domain so it's hardly just a matter of opinion. If you're saying that's all in the (fairly recent) past and you think they should only be judged on future performance, that's very forgiving of you.

Dishonesty and intentions are by definition subjective and not factual. But clearly that doesn't fit your political agenda here

Not sure I agree that dishonesty is in the eye of the beholder and nobody is debating their intentions. But what is factual is that they were sacked and the reasons given for those sackings. It's not as if such things are confined to one party - the same eyebrows were raised when Mandelson kept resigning and then getting a different job back a few months later - but it's unusual for the 'period in the wilderness' to be quite so short. As for agendas, we've all got one of those.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Reading through BoJo’s spending and borrowing plans he really should fvck off and join the Labour Party

Well quite. No wonder Hammond resigned in disgust.

Still, his views on immigration seem like an improvement on his predecessor.

robert88

Slowmart wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Do you think you’d keep your job if you employed someone who has been sacked for dishonesty, who you then employed, who then thought it was acceptable to take £5k a month from a supplier to your company.

But if you knew that your employer thought it OK to conspire to have someone who upset a mate of theirs beaten up you might come to the conclusion (correctly) that they wouldn't be too bothered about your own lack of integrity, honesty, decency etc.

Sorry I forgot Stevo’s occupation, low bar then and little wonder he can’t recognise the issues

Sports Direct could use his services right now..


Am looking at a company that collapsed long ago amidst shareholder discontent and the devastation of a community. The boss was an accountant. Essentially it was a very clever inside squirrel-it-away job and only his death brought it to light. Nevertheless, he'd done a good cover-up and his fellow board members got away scot-free with the loot less what they used to silence their critics. There's practically nothing on the internet about it, a complete and thorough "right to be forgotten" shut-down but the information is still out there. Smarter than Enron's guys!

tangled_metal

So Stevo has infiltrated labour's ranks to set in place a leader who will never get to number 10.

Alternatively Boris is in number ten and has policies labour would appreciate.

Which is a more successful infiltration?

ugo.santalucia

I don't think politics can affect the economy in the way we believe...

Yes, a no deal Brexit could send the country into recession for one year, but then things will follow their course... folks will trade and travel if and when they need and solutions will be found.

I always bear in mind that the last crisis had zero effects on my finances or lifestyle and only really hit those who were already in trouble (who happen to be Brexit voters, for the most)

pblakeney

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I always bear in mind that the last crisis had zero effects on my finances or lifestyle and only really hit those who were already in trouble (who happen to be Brexit voters, for the most)

While the above may be accurate on a personal level, it is patently untrue nationwide. Lots of people lost jobs through no fault of theirs.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Reading through BoJo’s spending and borrowing plans he really should fvck off and join the Labour Party

Surely a bit of stimulus during Brexit is advisable?

Granted it’s not well targeted, but in principle.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Reading through BoJo’s spending and borrowing plans he really should fvck off and join the Labour Party

Surely a bit of stimulus during Brexit is advisable?

Granted it’s not well targeted, but in principle.

Do you really believe it is a pre-Brexit stimulus?

IMHO a massive cry for “please like me”

and when the next recession hits the cupboard will be bare.

Anyway if I understood your POV debt is fine so long as it is growing slower than the economy. Apparently that part of the manifesto does not apply to BoJo

slowmart

ugo.santalucia wrote:

I don't think politics can affect the economy in the way we believe...

Yes, a no deal Brexit could send the country into recession for one year, but then things will follow their course... folks will trade and travel if and when they need and solutions will be found.

I always bear in mind that the last crisis had zero effects on my finances or lifestyle and only really hit those who were already in trouble (who happen to be Brexit voters, for the most)

Wow, you really believe by tearing up trade agreements with our largest trading partner “could” send the UK into recession?

The mechanisms for exporting and importing goods just won’t be there and it will last more than a year

Compound this with Boris and his plans for spending, while the economy is shrinking and financial organisations migrating abroad due to the uncertainties meaning reduced tax receipts for the treasury means a lot of pain for most. Boris and Rees Mogg will be fine

Stevo_666

Slowmart wrote:

The mechanisms for exporting and importing goods just won’t be there

That is simply not correct.

The mechanisms there - how do you think we import goods from and export goods to non-EU countries currently? There will likely be more paperwork/admin, and extra tariffs on certain classes of goods but to suggest that trade of goods will somehow just stop is wrong.

Stevo_666

Tangled Metal wrote:

So Stevo has infiltrated labour's ranks to set in place a leader who will never get to number 10.

Alternatively Boris is in number ten and has policies labour would appreciate.

Which is a more successful infiltration?

Should keep the lefties happy. Wonder if they'll vote Tory next time round

ugo.santalucia

Stevo 666 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

The mechanisms for exporting and importing goods just won’t be there

That is simply not correct.

The mechanisms there - how do you think we import goods from and export goods to non-EU countries currently? There will likely be more paperwork/admin, and extra tariffs on certain classes of goods but to suggest that trade of goods will somehow just stop is wrong.

Unusually, I tend to agree with Stevo... the regulatory system acts pretty swiftly when demand and offer do match... there will be a demand for wine from France and I can't see it being stuck at Calais for more than a few hours.
I don't think the flow of goods will be severely affected for more than a few weeks.

It might be a different story for services, where the competition is fierce for the same product and EU providers might seize the opportunity to lock the UK providers out of their market... but then again, everyone has shares into everybody else's these days and I am not sure Barclays doing badly is in the German Banks' interests

rolf_f

The real damage of Brexit probably won't be dramatic other than in the very short term. Prices will go up, companies will go bust, roads will fall into even more disrepair, more people will die in hospital where before they wouldn't.

None of this will be blamed on Brexit by those who voted for it. "Project Fear" will carry on being ridiculed even by those who have lost their jobs because of Brexit. The connection won't be made.

Stevo_666

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

The mechanisms for exporting and importing goods just won’t be there

That is simply not correct.

The mechanisms there - how do you think we import goods from and export goods to non-EU countries currently? There will likely be more paperwork/admin, and extra tariffs on certain classes of goods but to suggest that trade of goods will somehow just stop is wrong.

Unusually, I tend to agree with Stevo... the regulatory system acts pretty swiftly when demand and offer do match... there will be a demand for wine from France and I can't see it being stuck at Calais for more than a few hours.
I don't think the flow of goods will be severely affected for more than a few weeks.

It might be a different story for services, where the competition is fierce for the same product and EU providers might seize the opportunity to lock the UK providers out of their market... but then again, everyone has shares into everybody else's these days and I am not sure Barclays doing badly is in the German Banks' interests

Ugo, just to add to what you said above, the UK previously said that in the event of a no-deal Brexit they would proritise goods flow over revenue collection in order to keep things moving in the short term immediately post Brexit when things would be disrupted. Also the reports I have seen from the logistics sector estimate that the period of disruption would of the order of magnitude you mention - not more than a year as Slowmart thinks.