Hazel Blears' resignation leaves Gordon Brown's premiership in crisis

[Palisadoes]

Yeah I heard a little about this. Something about ETA?

No, Al-Qaeda.

Haha!

Someone said to me earlier about ETA failing to get a seat in the Basque country, or something, though?? I don't really follow Spanish politics, mind.

Glad to see Europe is going the centre-right route, though, even if I do despise being part of the EU.

[Neil]

Glad to see Europe is going the centre-right route, though, even if I do despise being part of the EU.

I actually enjoyed the EU.  I spent a few weeks in Europe last summer, and the whining of American tourists wondering why nobody took the US dollar was sweet music to me.  The Euro has proven to be a positive for me.

Sure, the EU does terrible things, like protecting Greek and French agriculture, making airplanes that crash and preventing the murder of Martinus, but it's not all bad.

[Palisadoes]

I actually enjoyed the EU.  I spent a few weeks in Europe last summer, and the whining of American tourists wondering why nobody took the US dollar was sweet music to me.  The Euro has proven to be a positive for me.

Sure, the EU does terrible things, like protecting Greek and French agriculture, making airplanes that crash and preventing the murder of Martinus, but it's not all bad.

I like the idea of the Euro for a currency to use when on holiday, but not at home haha! The Euro also creates a lot of problems currently as many of the smaller economies (such as Greece) don't have control over their interest rates, and so when their economy is going under there is next to nothing they can do with this respect. This is why I think keeping the GBP Stirling (and getting rid of those stupid Scottish and Northern Irish beer tokens) is beneficial - we have greater control over our economy. So long as the EU is a collection of seperate economies, a single currency will not be beneficial, IMO.

I also like the standardisation of the EU too. It greatly helps, particularly in my line of work (Civil Engineering). I can basically be qualified in any EU country when I finish my degree, which enhances my employment opportunities (of course).

The things I don't like are generally the things with regard to greater political integration. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't to do with the economy then it shouldn't be anything to do with the EU. Simple.

Regardless of all of this, I'd rather throw our lot in with our American cousins (even if they can't distinguish between British and Australian accents!?).

[Sheilbh]

The things I don't like are generally the things with regard to greater political integration. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't to do with the economy then it shouldn't be anything to do with the EU. Simple.

That's rather broad.  With the exception of electoral reform and the House of Lords what issue doesn't have something to do with the economy?

[Palisadoes]

The things I don't like are generally the things with regard to greater political integration. As far as I'm concerned, if it isn't to do with the economy then it shouldn't be anything to do with the EU. Simple.

That's rather broad.  With the exception of electoral reform and the House of Lords what issue doesn't have something to do with the economy?

Other examples would be a shared foreign policy, shared armed forces, shared immigration policy, etc...

However, I'm on about directly related, as in jobs, the training for said jobs, as well as trade, obviously. IMO the EU should be an organisation that co-ordinates (not dictates) free trade in member countries, and only interferes when it is directly related to the economy.

[Sheilbh]

Other examples would be a shared foreign policy, shared armed forces, shared immigration policy, etc...

However, I'm on about directly related, as in jobs, the training for said jobs, as well as trade, obviously.

I'm not so sure about foreign or defence policy.  I think both are linked in to economic issues pretty intimately.  How else does Russia have any power over Europe but through the economic leverage she has because of oil and gas.  To what extent is trade policy to do with economic policy or foreign policy?  Similarly development aid?  Now I don't think economics is enough to explain or develop a coherent foreign policy but it's certainly part of foreign policy.

I'd argue immigration is above all an economic issue and, for my money, the creation of a common citizenship in the EU is up there with the single market in terms of very good policy achievements.  The right to study, live and work anywhere in the EU is a great achievement.

Though one Martinus will never take advantage of, instead he'll stew in bigoted Poland

[Palisadoes]

Of course the economy is pivotal on any number of issues (ultimately all, as we compete for resources for our own survival), though it isn't always directly (as I interpret the direct relationship: resource -> workers -> output). However, we conduct trade fine with other countries around the world without getting ourselves into this jam of selling our sovereignty to Brussels, so why do we need all of this expensive bureaucracy for trading in Europe? We've been a net contributor to the EU since joining the EU, and we've experienced very little (if any) *real* benefit from it.

As for the immigration policy - yes it is economic, usually, though as I said before, the EU isn't a unified market. As such there are many different economies, all of which with different strengths and different weaknesses, all of which with varying needs and desires. If, say, Poland wanted more immigrants to work for it, yet we were at capacity in the UK, then why would we want to allow that backdoor for people from elsewhere to be able to get into the UK where living standards are higher and where (in this example) we haven't enough jobs? Put simply, the market isn't unified to constitute a single manpower pool, and therefore it doesn't constitute a shared immigration policy.

The immigration aspect also doesn't even touch upon the idea of cultural identity - identity being one of the most disregarded aspects, despite it's importance.

[Alatriste]

Of course the economy is pivotal on any number of issues (ultimately all, as we compete for resources for our own survival), though it isn't always directly (as I interpret the direct relationship: resource -> workers -> output). However, we conduct trade fine with other countries around the world without getting ourselves into this jam of selling our sovereignty to Brussels, so why do we need all of this expensive bureaucracy for trading in Europe? We've been a net contributor to the EU since joining the EU, and we've experienced very little (if any) *real* benefit from it.

As for the immigration policy - yes it is economic, usually, though as I said before, the EU isn't a unified market. As such there are many different economies, all of which with different strengths and different weaknesses, all of which with varying needs and desires. If, say, Poland wanted more immigrants to work for it, yet we were at capacity in the UK, then why would we want to allow that backdoor for people from elsewhere to be able to get into the UK where living standards are higher and where (in this example) we haven't enough jobs? Put simply, the market isn't unified to constitute a single manpower pool, and therefore it doesn't constitute a shared immigration policy.

The immigration aspect also doesn't even touch upon the idea of cultural identity - identity being one of the most disregarded aspects, despite it's importance.

Oh, please... pretty much all of the myths about the UE, condensed in one post.

a) No, you don't need the Union to trade in Europe. But without the Union, British goods and services will be at an instant disadvantage. The Union means no tariffs, no quotas, and no discrimination of any kind based on nationality. Not belonging means the opposite...

b) The 'expensive bureaucracy'. The worst of all the myths. Actually London (the city council) alone employes more people and costs much more money than all the European institutions combined... and those costs are shared between 27 countries. European bureaucrats cost us a couple of peanuts

c) What would constitute "a *real* benefit" for you? I think you are asking the impossible here.

d) Regarding inmigration (or anything else, actually) you have London, and you have the Highlands, and Wales, and Cornualles, and the Scilly islands, and Smallton-on-Thames... you name it. Do they constitute a "unified market" according to your definition? I don't think so...

* * * * *

Regarding Spain, the worst economic crisis since 1945 has made the Socialist lose barely 5%... of which PP managed to net only 1%, the rest going to radical leftists and a new party whose only point is being anti-devolution (the want many powers devolved to the regions to be 'redevolved' to the central government). Of course, PP is claiming victory, but they know this result means they would lose again in a general election. Just compare Spanish results with British ones. PP was expecting a landslide of the same size and got... almost nothing. Rajoy has got 23 MEPs, Zapatero and his allies 24, other parties 2.

If the results were carried over to a general election (and they aren't really the same, because participation in the general elections usually goes from 70% to 80%, in the Europeans goes from 40% to 50%) Rajoy would get a better result than in 2004 or 2008, but he would still be unable to get a majority in the Parliament. Zapatero would be in a much weaker position than now, but he very probably could still get a majority, if only because small parties have always feared a hung parliament and new elections would mean a disaster for them, with most voters deserting to PP and PSOE.

The so-called 'ETA lovers' (extremely radical independentists, probably accepting money and taking orders from ETA) have got very bad results, with only 165,000 votes - 115,000 in the Basque Country,  the rest scattered all over Spain - when they would have needed 400,000 to get one seat. I wonder how could they think they had a chance to enter the European Parliament, even with low participation... of course rational, objective thinking ranks low in their priorities!

[jimmy olsen]

Another one bites the dust.

Apparently this was the worst result for Labor since 1910. :pinchL
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/jun/08/gordon-brown-leadership-crisis-live-blog

10.14am: Sky quotes Jane Kennedy as saying: "I could not give a pledge of loyalty."

10.10am: The BBC are reporting that Jane Kennedy, the environment minister, is leaving the government. We don't know why yet.

[Neil]

Apparently this was the worst result for Labor since 1910. :pinchL

Just say 'worst result ever'.  Labour wasn't even a real party in 1910.  It was what the BNP is today, only with a bit more support.

[Sheilbh]

My favourtite MP and Labour's most impressive/terrifying backbencher, Frank Field joins the fray:

Trust rather than trick voters

Labour supporters claiming that the European results were not a catastrophe for the party can only do so by inventing a new meaning for the word catastrophe. Whether one looks at them on a national, regional or local level the picture is pitiful.

The results reflect the collapse of support for the Government in the country. They also ring a clear verdict on the EU.

Take the Wirral results, which cover four Labour Westminster constituencies. The Tories romped home with almost 21,000 votes. Labour was in a poor second place with 16,000.

In Wirral there is considerable resentment against the current EU. It may be that all of these natural voters deserted their natural party to support one of the clearer anti-European tickets, but I doubt it.

Even so the two parties standing in the election who hold the strongest views against our present relationship with Europe far out stretched the Labour vote, and almost toppled the Tory vote.

The BNP came in with 4,666 votes and UKIP's vote totalled more than 13,000.

Don't let anyone kid themselves that this was an unimportant election where voters felt they could make a clear protest vote. Unless something changes significantly on a national level these results would be reproduced at a general election.

Labour cannot win with the present Prime Minister. I was one of the seven who would not support his coronation after Tony Blair was shoehorned out of Number 10. But even I didn't think a Brown administration would be as inept as this one.

The Brownites are attempting to terrorise Labour MPs into inaction. If they succeed then we deserve our fate.

It is simply absurd to argue, as does No. 10, that the next leader must call an immediate general election. A new leader, when being invited by the Queen to form a government, should inform the Monarch that he or she intends to return in April of next year to call for a General Election on May 6.

The new Prime Minister would make that a part of a message brought back from the Palace.

Similarly, the failure to deal with immigration and Europe is poisoning our political system. I have set out in the Balanced Migration campaign how we should counter positively the BNP. Similarly, we need to cut loose European politics from our domestic politics. Voters have no party to represent their worries on this score, only the BNP with their evil interests.

[Palisadoes]

Oh, please... pretty much all of the myths about the UE, condensed in one post.

I'm glad I'm thorough.

a) No, you don't need the Union to trade in Europe. But without the Union, British goods and services will be at an instant disadvantage. The Union means no tariffs, no quotas, and no discrimination of any kind based on nationality. Not belonging means the opposite...

Rubbish. Look how Norway gets it, free-trade agreement and all of that. That's how it should be.

b) The 'expensive bureaucracy'. The worst of all the myths. Actually London (the city council) alone employes more people and costs much more money than all the European institutions combined... and those costs are shared between 27 countries. European bureaucrats cost us a couple of peanuts

It's not just MEPs, but also all of the agencies to do with the MEPs, as well as the EU as a whole, which make it expensive. They spend £180 million moving from Brussels to Strasbourg every year! WTF!?

c) What would constitute "a *real* benefit" for you? I think you are asking the impossible here.

So you concede that any real benefit is impossible? What constitutes a real benefit to me, well the good points of the EU without the bad.

d) Regarding inmigration (or anything else, actually) you have London, and you have the Highlands, and Wales, and Cornualles, and the Scilly islands, and Smallton-on-Thames... you name it. Do they constitute a "unified market" according to your definition? I don't think so...

Of course not, though they are part of the same economy. An average taken over a smaller area will be more accurate than an average taken over a larger area. To some extent if you continued breaking down the currency to suit each region, etc... it would become impractical. However, it is much better than a large market with hugely varying economies whereby an average is taken over such a large market - working on this average some economies may be well below, with some well above, so that it doesn't work out in their favour with respect to rates, etc...

[Sheilbh]

Rubbish. Look how Norway gets it, free-trade agreement and all of that. That's how it should be.

Norway has to follow almost all EU laws, because they regulate the common market.  They don't have a say on those laws.

It's not just MEPs, but also all of the agencies to do with the MEPs, as well as the EU as a whole, which make it expensive. They spend £180 million moving from Brussels to Strasbourg every year! WTF!?

I believe the running costs of the EU bureaucracy are lower than the costs of London's government or of, say Copenhagen's.  It's pretty cost-efficient given the range of work it does.

Of course not, though they are part of the same economy. An average taken over a smaller area will be more accurate than an average taken over a larger area. To some extent if you continued breaking down the currency to suit each region, etc... it would become impractical. However, it is much better than a large market with hugely varying economies whereby an average is taken over such a large market - working on this average some economies may be well below, with some well above, so that it doesn't work out in their favour with respect to rates, etc...

Which is why the ECB has been relatively cautious.  What's actually important isn't the range of local economies.  The US seems to do fine with Michigan and Nevada, Florida and Nebraska all in one currency despite the different economic winds in those four states.

What's difficult for the EU is that there are a range of central bank histories.  The Germans have spent the post-war era haunted by hyper-inflation and so their central bank was incredibly hawkish at the merest sign of inflation.  At the same time the French and Italians didn't have such historical concerns so one of their routine tricks to get out of economic trouble was to devalue the currency.  The Germans prevailed in the debate about what the shape and style of the ECB should be.  It is a bank that inherits the Bundesbank tradition and is designed to be hawkish on inflation.  This has caused a bit of a wrench for France and Italy but has generally not been that bad.  It's also worth remembering that without the Euro, which is a large currency on which it's difficult to imagine a run, Ireland would be bankrupt right now.

[garbon]

And the News of the World have a terrifying story, if true:

One of the first people he called was Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who also feared a move. Miliband even called in a favour from US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who telephoned Brown and pleaded with him not to dump his Foreign Secretary.

Hillary pleading at Brown's feet sounds like vicious slander.

Or is this the 3am call Hillary advertised in her campaign?

[The Minsky Moment]

I understand that Cameron is pulling the Tories out of the EPP and cobbling together some ersatz coalition that includes the Kaczyński twins, of all people.

Just when Brown is busy making the Titanic look like a hovercraft in comparison, the Tories demonstrate why the British people have wisely kept them out of government for 12 years.