Election!!!!!Well that will be JC out of a job pretty soon!
Election!!!!!That's the tories out in 2022. You can only get Corbyn out once.
I'm surprised she is legally allowed to do it.
I'm surprised she is legally allowed to do it.
I wonder if she is looking for an out, a way of cancelling Article 50?
If NS is right and she is ill maybe she has no choice.
The Fixed Term Parliament Act allows for early elections if there's a vote of confidence or two thirds of MPs vote for one. In effect Labour would have to vote against a GE to block it. If that were to happen (& its almost unimaginable that they would), May would just spend the next three years ramming it down Labour's throat that they ran away from facing her at the polls.
The illness was only speculation about what she might announce. She isn't given this. You don't go for a GE if you are I'll. And given she has announced she is fighting this on a pro Brexit stance, really doesn't look like any chance of cancelling Article 50. This is taking her chance and despite saying people shouldn't be playing games, this is exactly playing the game.
What new magic does the Prime Minister believe she has?
2010 Country split.
2015 Narrow tory majority.
2016 Country split down the middle,
Basically, she has a really small majority which makes it difficult to do certain things like ride roughshod over the constitution. She's aiming to get a much larger majority.
I shall be voting Lib Dem in the futile hope they'll get in and reverse Brexit.
What's the likelihood of it having an effect in your constituency?Tories had a 13% majority last time out. Lib Dems came fourth, so probably very little except I live in an urban area that probably voted majority to Remain so there is a smidgeon of hope.
There's another consideration. Things are probably going to be a bit rough for the government over the next two years, so if you have a general election now, you have time to turn it around in the ensuing three years.and no matter what happens in Scotland, if they win well in UK they can claim a newer mandate. The Lib Dems will be pleased I suspect.
With Corbyn at the helm of Labour, I doubt they have a cat's chance in hell of winning the election.
On listening to her announcement again her 'the country is coming together' assertion is simply unbelievable.
And farewell Tom Blenkinsop.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-mp-general-election-tom-blenkinsop-not-stand-theresa-may-middlesborough-south-a7688501.html
One would hope so sririam but I fear, because of Corbyn's unfortunate unpopularity as Labour leader, that May will be returned victorious and we'll be in status quo.
But surely you can't have the Brexit process getting diluted at this stage when it has been filed with the EU etc. That would be disastrous!
Why is she taking a chance?
We haven't even started the negotiation, so how 'diluted' brexit will be (presumably meaning soft or hard) it completely up for grabs. What would be disastrous would be for the UK to hurtle headlong into a massively damaging hard brexit. Presumably one of the points about this election is to attempt to gain a mandate for a particular flavour of brexit or even (whisper it quietly) no brexit, were the result to provide a government elected on a mandate or reversing brexit.
But surely you can't have the Brexit process getting diluted at this stage when it has been filed with the EU etc. That would be disastrous!
Why is she taking a chance?
Could it be in her heart of hearts May has doubts about it?I think you may be right. I suspect that May is hoping that the election gives her the authority to go for a soft brexit.
Fucking Hell!!! It never rains but it pours.Which means she will need to be clear what her position is.
I predicted one in 2018. This has surprised me but it makes sense. Do it before the negotiations get going and whilst France, Germany etc. have theirs, and try and gain a good majority to back up her position against the EU.
I seem to recall predicting this, my winnings on Betfair confirm. :)I do not share your optimism. I think the Conservatives will win with an increased majority.
Bold move could easily end in another coalition and LibDems will get Brexit vote 2 as part of any deal.
Labour look as if they will be officially dead after this.The problem with Labour is that all their best people (as in with the best qualifications to run as a credible candidate for PM) were associated with Blair and Brown and thus culled after the 2010 general election. Then all the second best people went after the Milliband fiasco in 2015 (was it really only two years ago?). Then the dregs were put out of their misery during the leadership challenge. Corbyn is useless and his team is practically the Labour D team.
Increases the chance of a soft(er) Brexit though.How?
What new magic does the Prime Minister believe she has?That's out of date now, the polls show the Tories with a 15-20 point lead.
2010 Country split.
2015 Narrow tory majority.
2016 Country split down the middle,
On listening to her announcement again her 'the country is coming together' assertion is simply unbelievable.I believe that about 60% just want the government to get on with Brexit so I guess she is implying that the people just want the job done, whereas parliament is just fighting with itself with many trying to reverse the referendum.
This is a huge gamble.I agree.
If it turns into a referendum on the referendum, which it has every possibility of doing, the vote could be much more unpredictable than it appears in the polls currently.
How?According to an analyst on the R4 news this evening, with a larger majority, May will be able to tell the extreme Eurosceptics to shove it.
Yes, given she told Nicola Sturgeon she couldn't have an independance vote as it was " the wrong time."That's not the same thing. Indyref2 was/is linked to the Brexit issue directly whereas this GE isn't.
How come it's suddenly " the right time" to rush to hold this election in June? Polititicians live on another planet.
Say one thing, do the opposite.
I thought the idea was the country needed stability?
>:(
None of it encourages " the country coming together" imo.
It just makes me feel none of them know what they are doing.
I don't want to vote for any of them! 😝
That's not the same thing. Indyref2 was/is linked to the Brexit issue directly whereas this GE isn't.Theresa May has linked the general election to Brexit.
I do not share your optimism. I think the Conservatives will win with an increased majority.Well in electoral terms I suppose we're either at 1983 or 1987.
The problem with Labour is that all their best people (as in with the best qualifications to run as a credible candidate for PM) were associated with Blair and Brown and thus culled after the 2010 general election. Then all the second best people went after the Milliband fiasco in 2015 (was it really only two years ago?). Then the dregs were put out of their misery during the leadership challenge. Corbyn is useless and his team is practically the Labour D team.
Interestingly, they are still more competent than the UKIP leadership.
Theresa May has linked the general election to Brexit.not just linked it, made it about.
Which means she will need to be clear what her position is.But as the Labour lot are trying there are other issues in a GE and many have seen how she has handled things like the NHS, schools and so on. These are iffy times and I predict a mess.
And here's the danger for May - she is currently riding on a wave of 'all-things-to-all-people' brexit. That isn't going to wash in a general election campaign, particularly one that she has specifically called. She runs the risk of support pealing away whichever approach she adopts.
And of course her position must be credible or again it won't wash. My gut feeling here is that she will actually put forward a more pragmatic and consensual proposal - in other words a pretty soft brexit, with a focus on protecting the economy. And in doing so I think she will win pretty comfortably. If she goes all hard brexit, extremism, she will suffer, simply because there aren't enough people on that extreme end.
Theresa May has linked the general election to Brexit.Not directly. It's a GE that she has called not a referendum.
Well in electoral terms I suppose we're either at 1983 or 1987.No, I think the situation is much worse than either of those two occasions. In '83 the Labour leader was painted as too radically left wing and, of course, there was the Falklands factor. There wasn't really any issue over Foot's competence (not that I remember anyway). '87 was the first general election I voted in. I think again, there was nothing wrong with the leader's competence. I think they lost because a lot of people felt they had done pretty well in the preceding four years under the Tories. In neither '83 nor '87 was there a wholesale clearing out of the top party members. In fact, in '87 even Kinnock survived in spite of losing.
I'm pretty confident May has no Falklands factorAt the moment, it looks like she doesn't need one. Her lead in the opinion polls is 12-13% which is massive compared to any party leader in recent history, probably since pre-Iraq Blair.
or 2nd election momentum for a huge landslide as Blair or Thatcher did.
A snap election after a Corbyn successor would have been a better prospect I would have thought.Had she not called the election now, Corbyn would still have been the Labour leader in 2020. Whatever course of action she had chosen, May would always be fighting against Corbyn. The 2020 election would probably have come down to how well the Brexit negotiations will have gone and I think May has calculated she can do a better job of the negotiations with a larger majority.
Dear Team GB, ( HaHa HaHa )'Twas Scotland who put the Tories into second place.
Tory smoke and mirrors, the poor get the smoke and the rich get the carnival mirrors to flaunt their wealth.
Mr Corbyn is dead in the water, a no hoper, very true, why? because of voters like me, Scottish voters who will turn their backs on the things we once held in the highest esteem, injustice, fighting for the poor, greed and that greatest of Scottish traditions fighting for the down trodden.
Dear Mr Corbyn,
Forgive this coward, but I have to vote SNP, England has set it stall, I hope that one day you can forgive this coward as I had no choice.
Gonnagle.
Not directly.Sorry, wrong:
She accused Britain's other political parties of "game playing", adding that this risks "our ability to make a success of Brexit and it will cause damaging uncertainty and instability to the country"
It's a GE that she has called not a referendum.Yes, a general election that Theresa May has directly linked to Brexit.
Sorry, wrong:The SNP linked Brexit to their Indyref2 before the referendum on it. May is saying that a strong government is needed to make Brexit outcome better and so comes after the fact.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39629603
Yes, a general election that Theresa May has directly linked to Brexit.
No, I think the situation is much worse than either of those two occasions. In '83 the Labour leader was painted as too radically left wing and, of course, there was the Falklands factor. There wasn't really any issue over Foot's competence (not that I remember anyway). '87 was the first general election I voted in. I think again, there was nothing wrong with the leader's competence. I think they lost because a lot of people felt they had done pretty well in the preceding four years under the Tories. In neither '83 nor '87 was there a wholesale clearing out of the top party members. In fact, in '87 even Kinnock survived in spite of losing.There is no credible golden future free of strikes and power cuts to preserve to appeal to and certainly no economic competence to appeal to.
The problem that Labour has today is rooted in the fact that anybody associated with Blair/Brown was too tainted to be considered as a future leader and yet all the best candidates for future leader were associated with Blair/Brown because, of course, the bet people would have been in their cabinets.
At the moment, it looks like she doesn't need one. Her lead in the opinion polls is 12-13% which is massive compared to any party leader in recent history, probably since pre-Iraq Blair.
That will come down to what happens with Brexit.
Had she not called the election now, Corbyn would still have been the Labour leader in 2020. Whatever course of action she had chosen, May would always be fighting against Corbyn. The 2020 election would probably have come down to how well the Brexit negotiations will have gone and I think May has calculated she can do a better job of the negotiations with a larger majority.
'Twas Scotland who put the Tories into second place.
There is no credible golden future free of strikes and power cuts to preserve to appeal to and certainly no economic competence to appeal to.Winning the miners' strike certainly helped in '87. However, May has got her equivalent to the miners' strike and The Falklands War all rolled into one. All she has to do is not fuck it up.
As John Curtice has pointed out parties get less seats per percentage lead. I understand she's after a hundred lead that is nearly eight times the number of seats they got at the last election.No. You mean, it is eight times the majority they got at the last election which is not nearly so difficult. Before the last election, opinion polls predicted a hung parliament. They don't now, and if the error goes in the same direction...
If you are right and they get that then that can only be fear of Corbyn. Once he's gone watch support for May fall when shit Brexit takes hold. Were at tory highwater mark as the SNP were at their highwater mark a couple of years ago.I don't find anything to disagree with in this, except that Labour have nobody to replace Corbyn with. I remember even Foot's Labour party giving Thatcher a pretty rough ride but Corbyn's mob have barely registered.
Dear Vlad,Alas Mr G one Conservative MP will become 2 and then a nasty rash.
Sorry no, Twas the Labour party sitting back on its fat arse and thinking that we Scots would gladly go on voting them into power, they thought, once a Labour supporter always a Labour supporter.
So my choice is easy, I could have a backbone and stand behind Mr Corbyn or I can take the cowards route and walkaway, hoping that one day Scotland once again proves that it is a world leader in the fight against injustice and poverty, I choose the cowards route and live in hope.
Gonnagle.
Dear Team GB, ( HaHa HaHa )
Tory smoke and mirrors, the poor get the smoke and the rich get the carnival mirrors to flaunt their wealth.
Mr Corbyn is dead in the water, a no hoper, very true, why? because of voters like me, Scottish voters who will turn their backs on the things we once held in the highest esteem, injustice, fighting for the poor, greed and that greatest of Scottish traditions fighting for the down trodden.
Dear Mr Corbyn,
Forgive this coward, but I have to vote SNP, England has set it stall, I hope that one day you can forgive this coward as I had no choice.
Gonnagle.
Point of information:No, they aren't due until 2018.
Have the boundary commission changes come into effect yet?
What exactly is it that you don't like/don't understand about his policies or are you just regurgitating what you read in the Tory run MSM?
I note the DM portraying elected representatives carrying out their manifesto commitments are 'Saboteurs' that need to be 'Crushed'. Mmmmm
Yes struck me as well.
Do you think they have perhaps forgotten how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work?
Still at least I can consider myself a saboteur now rather than a remoaner!
Point of information:No.
Have the boundary commission changes come into effect yet?
That's out of date now, the polls show the Tories with a 15-20 point lead.Just because the Tories have a poll lead doesn't mean that the country isn't split down the middle. Don't forget that even in the recent polls the Tories are polling in the low 40%s so just on that basis the country is split.
How?Because a 'softer' brexit is acceptable to more people than a hard one. I think this may well be the agenda here - effectively to shift the focus of brexit toward protection of the economy (clearly core Tory territory) and thereby use a general election victory as a mandate to negotiate a brexit that retains membership of the single market.
Because a 'softer' brexit is acceptable to more people than a hard one. I think this may well be the agenda here - effectively to shift the focus of brexit toward protection of the economy (clearly core Tory territory) and thereby use a general election victory as a mandate to negotiate a brexit that retains membership of the single market.it could, though, lead to a larger grouping in the Tory party who are for Hard Brexit, since we don't know the opinions of those who might gain seats. A larger % block, even if May gets more numbers of soft Brexiteers, could cause more problems than might be imagined. I also wonder what the phrasing in the manifesto will be because there will be pressure from some to have hard Brexit explicit in it. Even with a fudge, which is the most likely thing, I would expect the language to at least acknowledge that hard Brexit is in some ways more than acceptable.
it could, though, lead to a larger grouping in the Tory party who are for Hard Brexit, since we don't know the opinions of those who might gain seats. A larger % block, even if May gets more numbers of soft Brexiteers, could cause more problems than might be imagined. I also wonder what the phrasing in the manifesto will be because there will be pressure from some to have hard Brexit explicit in it. Even with a fudge, which is the most likely thing, I would expect the language to at least acknowledge that hard Brexit is in some ways more than acceptable.The issue isn't necessarily the size of the blocks but their impact on a working majority. The current crop of Tory MPs were largely in favour of remain, but there is a hard core minority that are brexit including hard brexit. With a tiny working majority those small minority have a disproportionate effect as they can defeat the government.
I think there is a substantial number of hard Brexiteers already there. If the % goes up substantially it effectively forms an opposition of its own and would be far greater than the number of rebels against Blair who benefitted from the opposite of May in having time to build loyalty and get people selected. I think you underestimate the ease of getting 'suitable' candidates in for suitable seats, and quite how complex working out what the correct seats will be in this unusual election. It's a bigger gamble than it might first appear.I don't doubt it is a gamble.
I don't disagree given that it creates a further risk for hard brexiteers but I also think the opportunity to get a big majority for other reasons attracted get, and the chance to have 5 more years.Indeed
It jyst feels like a lot more of a gamble than it might have been as I think this is going to be an odd election.I agree.
They could lose some soft Brexiteers to the Lud Dems but gain more hard Brexiteers.I think that is misunderstanding the issue. Firstly I doubt there is much correlation between the stance of existing Tory MPs and the leave/remain proportions of their constituency electorate. For example my own MP is a leaver, yet my constituency voted solidly to remain. Perhaps the most ardent Tory remainer (Anna Soubry) represents a constituency that voted solidly out. Voters won't get a choice of Tory in their constituency, just one.
Goof points but I think given that the Tories will be standing on a manifesto to leave ...I don't doubt that the Tories will stand on a manifesto to leave, the question is whether they stand on a soft or hard brexit manifesto. I suspect they won't be overt, but will place emphasis on the economy, and once elected construe that as a mandate to protect single market membership.
, unless the sitting MP is willing to say that they are going to rebel, their previous stance will be useless. So where there was a Remain Tory and a Remain Lib Dem in a marginal seat that is pro Remain , the Remain Tory may well lose because they will be committed to Brexit.But a remain tory in a remain constituency is going to be better placed to see off a lib-dem challenge than a leave tory in a remain constituency.
Interesting to see what if any effect the possibility of people campaigning while being subject to investigation for election fraud might have. There is a perfectly sensible theory that this was called to avoid a slow bleed of the majority to by elections being called because of the CPS.One reporter on C4 claims that May has had a term on a snap election viability since last autumn. This means she has been lying about it to try to keep the other parties off their guard. So this scandal of expenses has probably just nudge it a bit.
Point of information:No.
Have the boundary commission changes come into effect yet?
Except I am also a long time Labour supporter who has at various points felt let down by the party - but I have never before felt that they are completely incompetent, and that in my opinion is the issue.I think many Labour MPs are relatively ok with his ideas or policies etc. but they, like you, don't think much of him as a leader. What they should have done was to have agreed with him that he should be replaced by a similarly Left positioned person but who could actually leader and run the party, and who has some charisma. This would satisfy his core supporters and allow many of the MPs get behind the leader and help run the shadow cabinet, and, thereby, provide a decent opposition party.
Corbyn's policies for the most part are fine. But (and it's a bloody humungous but) he doesn't convince me that he can carry them out - and if he doesn't convince the likes of me then they don't stand a chance. And please don't accuse me of being in thrall to MSM because I am not, I am fully aware of the depths they will stoop to in order to further their narrative and agenda.
I think many Labour MPs are relatively ok with his ideas or policies etc. but they, like you, don't think much of him as a leader. What they should have done was to have agreed with him that he should be replaced by a similarly Left positioned person but who could actually leader and run the party, and who has some charisma. This would satisfy his core supporters and allow many of the MPs get behind the leader and help run the shadow cabinet, and, thereby, provide a decent opposition party.I'm not sure that is entirely true. Sure Corbyn has absolutely no leadership skills, but there is another issue which wouldn't be altered merely by a change to someone with greater leadership abilities, but of a similar political persuasion.
Just because the Tories have a poll lead doesn't mean that the country isn't split down the middle. Don't forget that even in the recent polls the Tories are polling in the low 40%s so just on that basis the country is split.I heard that the % of people saying just get on with Brexit is around 60%.
But of course the main reason why the country is more split and fractured that at any time I can remember is because of Brexit - 10 months on from the referendum and the country is just as split as it was last June. Polling has shown no significant shift from the virtually 50:50 split in the vote - indeed if anything the difference has narrowed from the 51.9%:48.1% split in the actual referendum. Usually, once a decision is made there is a shift in favour of that decision, but there is no evidence of that in relation to Brexit - we remain as split as we were last year.
Because a 'softer' brexit is acceptable to more people than a hard one. I think this may well be the agenda here - effectively to shift the focus of brexit toward protection of the economy (clearly core Tory territory) and thereby use a general election victory as a mandate to negotiate a brexit that retains membership of the single market.And what does soft mean in this context?
I heard that the % of people saying just get on with Brexit is around 60%.There has been polling every couple of weeks (at least) by yougov asking:
it could, though, lead to a larger grouping in the Tory party who are for Hard Brexit, since we don't know the opinions of those who might gain seats. A larger % block, even if May gets more numbers of soft Brexiteers, could cause more problems than might be imagined. I also wonder what the phrasing in the manifesto will be because there will be pressure from some to have hard Brexit explicit in it. Even with a fudge, which is the most likely thing, I would expect the language to at least acknowledge that hard Brexit is in some ways more than acceptable.The manifestos of each of the parties are going to be interesting. In recent years they have taken on an almost biblical significances than in past elections where they were almost seen as a joke and not worth the paper they were written on.
And what does soft mean in this context?Leaving the EU but remaining in the single market and customs union.
I don't doubt it is a gamble.You may have a point. I wonder what May told Nissan? (was it Nissan, some car manufacturer).
Clearly May wants the outcome of the election to strengthen her brexit position - point is that I don't think we know what that position is yet. My gut suggests that she is a very reluctant hard brexiteer, and therefore that she feels that the election will strengthen her ability to shift to a softer brexit position. I may, of course, be completely wrong on this, but I would have thought that going to the country on a hard brexit manifesto is a very risky strategy, given that the last thing that 48% wanted was hard brexit and there is a big chunk of the 52% that aren't obsessed by immigration and see the economy as more important.
I think that is misunderstanding the issue. Firstly I doubt there is much correlation between the stance of existing Tory MPs and the leave/remain proportions of their constituency electorate. For example my own MP is a leaver, yet my constituency voted solidly to remain. Perhaps the most ardent Tory remainer (Anna Soubry) represents a constituency that voted solidly out. Voters won't get a choice of Tory in their constituency, just one.That conflict of issues is going to be interesting. Where will the voters loyalty lie? With the party or their wishes on where they want the UK to be with respect to the EU.
Secondly the LibDems are likely to have the best chance of taking Tory seats in pro-remain areas where the sitting MP is a Leaver. We've already seen that in Richmond. And there are a good number of seats of that nature. So the effect of a LibDem recovery is likely to be a reduction in pro-brexit tories, not an increase.
Good points but I think given that the Tories will be standing on a manifesto to leave, unless the sitting MP is willing to say that they are going to rebel, their previous stance will be useless. So where there was a Remain Tory and a Remain Lib Dem in a marginal seat that is pro Remain , the Remain Tory may well lose because they will be committed to Brexit.Which is why I think that the LibDums will do particularly well in this because they have a made a firm stance of where they are in the Brexit issue. Could it mean more than 50 seats for them?
Which is why I think that the LibDums will do particularly well in this because they have a made a firm stance of where they are in the Brexit issue. Could it mean more than 50 seats for them?I think that needs swings of by election proportions and while this is certainly going to be odd, I don't see that hapoening, though will be interested in how the polls start moving. Think spread more like 20 - 25.
I'm not sure that is entirely true. Sure Corbyn has absolutely no leadership skills, but there is another issue which wouldn't be altered merely by a change to someone with greater leadership abilities, but of a similar political persuasion.So they expect others to implement their ideas and policies, because they are too scared to do it themselves, people who do not hold to their convictions and ideologies?? ::) What a load of spineless wankers!!!
That issue is fundamentally one of principle vs pragmatism. One of the most frustrating aspects to me about the current Labour party (and I've seen this amongst loads of hard left colleagues in the past) is that actually winning elections seems to be largely irrelevant, as that always involves compromise and pragmatism which means sacrificing a level of principle. The current Labour leadership are clearly of the view that being true to their principles is more important than winning elections. And that puts them at odds with plenty in the parliamentary party (even on the left) who believe that politics is about making a difference and you can only make a difference with power, so winning elections is key.
And don't forget that plenty in the party become used to being in power, through 1997 to 2010, and for them being reduced to an idealogical campaign group (and one that isn't even well led as an idealogical campaign group) must be really painful.
There has been polling every couple of weeks (at least) by yougov asking:Isn't that more of an issue of how it has been handled than Brexit itself?
'In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU?'
The proportions opting for 'right' and 'wrong' have barely moved since June and have remained pretty well identical to the actual result.
So for example just a couple of weeks (excluding don't knows) 50.6% said 'right', 49.4% said 'wrong'
We remain completely split - there is no evidence that remainers are coming around to thinking that brexit is a good idea - or indeed significant 'buyers regret' from brexiteers.
Leaving the EU but remaining in the single market and customs union.That wouldn't be Brexit as set out by the Vote Leave group of taking control. And both sides said that a vote to leave was a vote to cease being a member of the single market. And both the Leave teams talked about making our own trade deals which mean not being part of the customs union.
That would be a pragmatic solution that would be the least unacceptable to the greater number of people.
I don't doubt that the Tories will stand on a manifesto to leave, the question is whether they stand on a soft or hard brexit manifesto. I suspect they won't be overt, but will place emphasis on the economy, and once elected construe that as a mandate to protect single market membership.
That wouldn't be Brexit as set out by the Vote Leave group of taking control.Wrong - it would be absolutely in line with the official leave campaign's official manifesto which said (I quote):
And both sides said that a vote to leave was a vote to cease being a member of the single market. And both the Leave teams talked about making our own trade deals which mean not being part of the customs union.In which case surely leaving the single market and customs union would have been clearly stated in their manifesto. But it wasn't.
Wrong - it would be absolutely in line with the official leave campaign's official manifesto which said (I quote):They said more than that!!!
'There is a free trade zone stretching all the way from Iceland to the Russian border. We will still be part of it after we Vote Leave.'
The only free trade zone that fits that description is the single market/customs union - so the manifesto was clear that we would still be part of the single market/customs union.
In which case surely leaving the single market and customs union would have been clearly stated in their manifesto. But it wasn't.That's a fake.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
Go on - show me where in their manifesto it says we would leave the single market or customs union. It doesn't, quite the reverse - there is a very clear implication that we will remain part of both.
That's a fake.In what way is it a fake - that is the official manifesto of Vote Leave, the official leave campaign in the referendum.
What they said in their talks etc. are what count.No they aren't - a campaign is based on their manifesto, which turned out to be a pack of lies from start to end.
They said more than that!!!That's what they said in their official manifesto.
Dear Glimmer of Hope,
I see some Labour supporters on here looking for a Leader, so what would that Leader be, a Winston, a Wilson, a Thatcher, a Blair.
Not me, I don't care who leads, as long as they are as one voice, that Corbyn fellow cares not a jot, as long as you fight for injustice, against poverty and the fellowship of man.
So carrying on looking for a strong leader, me, I would rather look for a party that has the good of the country at heart.
Gonnagle.
Maybe Putin's hackers will do it for him? ;)
As a leader Corbyn does not convince me, and I agree with him on most issues - how the hell is he going to convince others in the population who are less inclined towards his position.
Maybe Putin's hackers will do it for him? ;)
I would rather look for a party that has the good of the country at heart.You can have a party that has 'the good of the country at heart' all your like (albeit there are of course different opinions on what is good for the country). However if that party cannot get elected what good are they - a party of good intentions in opposition helps no-one - indeed by definition another party will be implementing different policies by the very fact of their failure to get elected.
but I hope you will not be to offended when I remind you that it was you who voted in the most unChristian, unBritish party we have ever had.
Dear Trent,
A political protest group! I am trying to convince myself that there is something wrong with that, nope! sounds about right, a protest against all that is Tory, well my vote for the SNP is going to be exactly that, I don't want to break the Union but England is set on a spiraling downward trend, a race to the bottom.
I have been reading most of the links so far on this thread and the one that struck me most was Jim's Wee Ginger dug link, the Labour party since day dot ( and they are still continuing ) have shot themselves in the foot by not backing Corbyn, instead of challenging the Tories they have spent their time infighting, looking for the great hope that would lead their party to new and wonderful future.
I have read statements that say Corbyn has no charisma, well that has me thinking, and I am now rethinking my own thinking, because yes!! I was looking for someone with charisma, and I am now thinking :o :o would you vote for May on charisma alone.
Most of the posts from Labour supporters on this thread, have by and large, agreed with the mans policies but they don't see him as a leader, strange again, if we choose someone else, who!! Would it be someone who has the same policies as Corbyn or someone who is more Tory thinking, a Torylite Labour leader :o
What I have noticed from Corbyn is he not a man to tell people to shut up and tow the party line, maybe that is the kind of leader the Labour party need, shut up and do what I tell you, never mind what your conscience tells you, I see this most vividly in our Scottish Conservative leader ( I did at one time have a lot of time for this lady ) but she now seems to be Mays lap dog.
To end, it is my conscience that is telling me to vote SNP, goodbye to all that rubbish that I clung to, goodbye Union Jack, goodbye your Majesty, goodbye to being British and proud of it, goodbye to all my Mancunian,Brummie, Cockney, Liverpudlian, Geordie, Taffy, Paddy ( Taffy and Paddy :o :o ) brother and sisters, I hope we can still meet at the border ( whatever that border looks like ) and have a laugh at our silly British way of life, well I will reminisce, but I hope you will not be to offended when I remind you that it was you who voted in the most unChristian, unBritish party we have ever had.
Gonnagle.
Dear Trent,
My apologies, it was not directed at your good self, it was just me being me and putting my thoughts out there.
Gonnagle.
Farewell, Douglas Carswell
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39655704
In what way is it a fake - that is the official manifesto of Vote Leave, the official leave campaign in the referendum.They weren't running for power or to do the negotiations, they were only setting out an argument, therefore, no manifesto was even imaginable as it would have been pointless. People voted based on that argument.
No they aren't - a campaign is based on their manifesto, which turned out to be a pack of lies from start to end.
How about this one (again direct quote from their manifesto):
'we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave' (my emphasis).
How's that going then - triggering article 50 was the start of the legal process to leave, so where is the new deal that has clearly been negotiated? Must have missed that one. Oh, my mistake, just another outright lie.
That's what they said in their official manifesto.Part of isn't official language. You can make it mean what you like. We can still be part of something without all the silly rules, if that is what is agreed.
So JK, what exactly is this free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border that we will still be part of - note not have access to, but still be part of - i.e. we were part of when members of the EU and remain part of when we leave.
Principles are all well and good Gonners - but if you are not in a position to change things that is all you will have.They had similar thoughts about Trump and now look.....pigs may fly....?
As a leader Corbyn does not convince me, and I agree with him on most issues - how the hell is he going to convince others in the population who are less inclined towards his position.
No, as others have said he is leading a political protest group - not a party. It is sad, disheartening and ultimately tragic that the Labour party is not the opposition it should be and needs to be.
Maybe Putin's hackers will do it for him? ;)It worked for Trump. ;D
I see Tim Farron has refused so far to rule out a coalition with the Tories (currently highly unlikely as a possibility). I know he's trying to gain votes from Remain Tories but it will be problematic for any non Remain Tories.So what?
Part of isn't official language. You can make it mean what you like. We can still be part of something without all the silly rules, if that is what is agreed.No you can't - we will either still be part of the single market (i.e. be a member) or we won't. The leave campaign said we would still be a part of (i.e. a member of) that free trade block - seems we won't be. They lied (as they did on so many other matters).
So what?Just that it's difficult riding two horses and facing both ways.
What exactly is it that you don't like/don't understand about his policies or are you just regurgitating what you read in the Tory run MSM?
I don't doubt it is a gamble.She's actually a remainer. I think her calculation is that, soft Brexit is the most sane option still available and the result of the election will strengthen her position to push that through. If 10% of her MPs would revel against a soft Brexit proposal now, she loses the vote. If she has a 100 seat majority and 10% rebel, she still wins.
Clearly May wants the outcome of the election to strengthen her brexit position - point is that I don't think we know what that position is yet. My gut suggests that she is a very reluctant hard brexiteer, and therefore that she feels that the election will strengthen her ability to shift to a softer brexit position. I may, of course, be completely wrong on this, but I would have thought that going to the country on a hard brexit manifesto is a very risky strategy, given that the last thing that 48% wanted was hard brexit and there is a big chunk of the 52% that aren't obsessed by immigration and see the economy as more important.
She's actually a remainer. I think her calculation is that, soft Brexit is the most sane option still available and the result of the election will strengthen her position to push that through. If 10% of her MPs would revel against a soft Brexit proposal now, she loses the vote. If she has a 100 seat majority and 10% rebel, she still wins.Theresa really the good guy coming good in the final reel? Is that credible?
Of course, it's a gamble, but, frankly, as things stand, it's hard Brexit. The election can't make it any worse.
She's actually a remainer. I think her calculation is that, soft Brexit is the most sane option still available and the result of the election will strengthen her position to push that through. If 10% of her MPs would revel against a soft Brexit proposal now, she loses the vote. If she has a 100 seat majority and 10% rebel, she still wins.
Of course, it's a gamble, but, frankly, as things stand, it's hard Brexit. The election can't make it any worse.
Only 11% of newspaper articles about Jeremy Corbyn fairly represent a single one of his actual policies. In the hard-right Daily Mail and Express that figure falls to 0%.
Here's an article outlining some of Corbyn's headline policies, so that you can judge for yourself whether you agree with them.
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/04/how-many-of-jeremy-corbyns-policies-do.html?m=1
When you say soft Brexit what do you mean? Staying in single market or free trade deal, there are degrees of soft.Jeremy can speak for himself, but to me soft brexit means staying in the single market.
No you can't - we will either still be part of the single market (i.e. be a member) or we won't. The leave campaign said we would still be a part of (i.e. a member of) that free trade block - seems we won't be. They lied (as they did on so many other matters).You can be part of it via a free trade deal as Canada is/will be. I.e. not be subject to all the political project crap. We will be part of it via our bespoke trade deal with the EU.
Now Theresa May has called a snap general election, we on the left have a fantastic opportunity ahead of us: to go forward, united as one, and finally expose who has been a secret Tory this whole time.
For there should be no doubt. If you’re unsure about Jeremy Corbyn, you are a Tory. You can say you still support Labour all you want, but if you don’t think he can beat Theresa May in June, the writing's on the wall, and it says: you are a paid-up member of the Conservative party.
So come forward, red Tories, and show yourselves. Prepare to be justly trolled. For it is time to be re-educated on why you’re wrong, and why Corbyn will triumph in June. For the traitors among you who don’t support him, feel free to disagree. It’s a free country, after all – unless you get your way, you Blairite scum.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-labour-criticism-general-election-2017-dont-support-him-you-are-a-tory-conservatives-a7692431.html
You can be part of it via a free trade deal as Canada is/will be. I.e. not be subject to all the political project crap. We will be part of it via our bespoke trade deal with the EU.Which will still involve very significant non tariff barriers, as is the case for Canada. We will be subject to all the regulations of the EU but won't be able to influence them, as is the case for Canada and every other country that has a free trade deal with the EU but isn't in the single market.
Just that it's difficult riding two horses and facing both ways.What I meant was so what about it being a problem for the non remain Tories. What are they going to do about it? They can't stop Farron from trying!
What I meant was so what about it being a problem for the non remain Tories. What are they going to do about it? They can't stop Farron from trying!I doubt that there are many Leave voting Tories who would contemplate voting LibDem anyway, given their clear and obvious stance on Europe.
Theresa really the good guy coming good in the final reel? Is that credible?I think Jeremy has a point. She's out to please as many voters for 2022 as she can.
Jeremy can speak for himself, but to me soft brexit means staying in the single market.Doesn't matter as much as you imply as we can have trade deals, on our terms not the EU's, with the rest of the world. So our deal with the EU is a little less but we gain by engaging with the world - swings and roundabouts.
The notion of a trade deal is a red herring, as is the nonsense statement os 'access to the single market' - pretty well every country on the planet has access to the single market, the issue is on what terms and how unfavourable is that access compared to being a member.
I think Jeremy has a point. She's out to please as many voters for 2022 as she can.Frankly I am at a loss to know what she thinks.
Doesn't matter as much as you imply as we can have trade deals, on our terms not the EU's, with the rest of the world. So our deal with the EU is a little less but we gain by engaging with the world - swings and roundabouts.Of course it matters.
Which will still involve very significant non tariff barriers, as is the case for Canada. We will be subject to all the regulations of the EU but won't be able to influence them, as is the case for Canada and every other country that has a free trade deal with the EU but isn't in the single market.What's a non tariff barriers? If there is no tariff then there is no barrier!
And we don't need to be part of the 'political project crap' (as you so charmingly call it) - last time I looked Switzerland, Norway and Iceland (all members of the single market) aren't subject to the political project of the EU. They do,. of course, need to sign up to the conditions of membership of the single market, but that goes without saying. If you are a member of a club, you need to abide by the club rule.
Problem for the UK is that if we exit the single market we won't be a member of the club (and won't get the benefits) but will still have to abide by most of the club rule in order to trade with the single market.
What's a non tariff barriers? If there is no tariff then there is no barrier!Frankly if you don't understand what a 'non tariff' barrier is then there really isn't much point in discussing the matter with you seeing as you are woefully ignorant on the matter.
Frankly I am at a loss to know what she thinks.Yeah, pretty much. She's a soft remainer and a soft brexit (as defined by "you lot") would be an acceptable deal for her; but she needs the hardliners side-lined.
My gut instinct, largely based on the fact that she actually supported remain (albeit was virtually invisible) is that hard brexit is anathema to her. Also going for soft brexit makes political sense, as she can begin to attract the 48% (providing the least worst brexit option) as well as hoovering up large swathes of the 52% (albeit losing a few hard brexit ideological extremist nutters, but she doesn't need those anyhow).
But so far she seems hell-bent on either hard brexit (out of single market customs union) or bonkers brexit (the former plus no deal).
There may, off course be a cute game going on here - in that she talks hard brexit, well knowing that achieving a deal in the time frame is completely impossible and therefore interim arrangements will be necessary. Clearly those interim arrangements will need to be 'off the peg' rather than 'bespoke' and the most obvious will be a Norway-type model. This will be sold as just a transitional arrangement, but no-one will ever get around to moving beyond it. And voters will ave lost the appetite to fight on the basis that in 2019 brexit will be delivered (i.e. we will no longer be a member of the EU, and there won't be another election until 2022 by which point we will have got used to being like Norway and the agenda will have moved on to other matters.
Of course it matters.All that is trumped by 1) the political project is a mill around everybody's neck, 2) the EU is dying (even those at the centre of the monster have aired grave concerns over it) and 3) though it will be choppy for us in the short term in the long term we will be better off, as the EU sinks to the bottom of the ocean.
Firstly because the EU represent roughly half of our foreign trade.
Secondly because the moment we leave the EU (unless we remain in the single market) we instantly lose the benefit of all the trade deals the EU has signed with other countries (more than any other trading block), so straight away we are playing catch up.
Thirdly trade deals take years to negotiate, even if there is a willingness to do so, leading to ...
Fourthly, outside the EU the UK is a far less attractive trade partner than inside the EU. This means we won't be at the front of the queue as countries will be looking to the biggest economies to do deals with - e.g. EU, USA, China etc, not the UK. And as a less attractive trade partner we will almost certainly get a worse deal that we already do in the EU (for those many countries that already have deals with the EU) or that we would have done in the EU (for countries that are looking at trade deals with the EU and also may consider one with the UK outside of the EU).
Wake up and smell the coffee, or perhaps we should call you PollyAnna rather than Jack Knave.
Frankly if you don't understand what a 'non tariff' barrier is then there really isn't much point in discussing the matter with you seeing as you are woefully ignorant on the matter.But that is true for everyone, even the EU. So what is your point?
But let me give a couple of examples:
If I have to demonstrate that my product has to meet certain environmental standard or it may not be sold in a country that is a non tariff barrier.
If when bidding for a contract to provide a service I must demonstrate that my organisation adheres to certain employment rights and practices, that is a non tariff barrier.
If I have to provide labelling on packaging that are defined by the country where I want to sell my produce, that is a non tariff barrier to trade.
All that is trumped by 1) the political project is a mill around everybody's neck, 2) the EU is dying (even those at the centre of the monster have aired grave concerns over it) and 3) though it will be choppy for us in the short term in the long term we will be better off, as the EU sinks to the bottom of the ocean.Swivel-eyed blinkered assertions.
With regards to 2) the EU's share of the world's GDP is dropping year on year. It's a dead parrot. It only looks alive because it has been nailed to its perch.
But that is true for everyone, even the EU. So what is your point?Non trade barriers are barriers imposed on us that we don't have a say in.
The EU has to keep to US rules etc. if it wants to trade with the US.
Jeremy can speak for himself, but to me soft brexit means staying in the single market.
The notion of a trade deal is a red herring,
The EU has negotiated free trade deals with all sorts of non EU countries, and has more in place than any other country (or group of countries on the planet I gather),
yet none come close to being as good as being a member of the single market. There is often a focus on tariffs on goods, but actually these are fairly limited in effect, particularly for a service driven economy such as the UK. The key is the non tariff barriers, including those on services. And even with trade deals those non tariff barriers remain in place and will for the UK. Are you really claiming that the UK will be allowed to trade with the EU but ignore the EU regulations, for example being able to sell products in the EU without the CE mark. They won't, if they want to trade the UK will have to abide by EU regulation just as every other country does.
Nope there isSorry - I disagree.
Softest Brexit - Member Single Market
Soft Brexit - Free Trade Deal
Harder Brexit - Trade Deal better then WTO rules.
Hardest Brexit - WTO rules.
Sorry - I disagree.
Although it isn't totally defined is is broadly accepted that the distinction between soft and hard brexit is whether we remain members of the single market, e.g. via EEA. If we leave the single market that is hard brexit - sure there are degrees of hardness, but all are hard brexit. Soft brexit means staying in the single market and/or customs union.
This distinction has been well accepted by those on both the remain and leave sides.
Stop playing mission creep and lowering expectations.
No David Cameron, George Osborne, Boris, Micheal Gove all said Brexit means leaving the single market, two leading figures from both leave and remain. There are various versions of Brexit, it is not binary.I'm not talking about whether or not we would leave the single market but the definitions of hard and soft brexit - I've yet to come across a definition that doesn't suggest the distinction is based on whether we remain a member of the single market. If we leave the single market that is a hard brexit.
Also apple pie and mother love!Also £350 million p/w for the NHS
How is he going to fund these?
Now listen here you chaps, this is the way the election should be handled ...... http://film.britishcouncil.org/general-election
Brilliant website!Ah, those were the days!
Lots of goodies to explore, so ta muchly.
I'm not talking about whether or not we would leave the single market but the definitions of hard and soft brexit - I've yet to come across a definition that doesn't suggest the distinction is based on whether we remain a member of the single market. If we leave the single market that is a hard brexit.
Swivel-eyed blinkered assertions.And yet you yourself is full of assertions. That makes you duplicitous.
You show a worrying lack of understanding of history. The EU has been astonishingly successful in driving economic prosperity, and that includes the UK. Don't forget that prior to joining the EU the UK was the 'sick man of europe' a country slowly falling apart as it was no longer able to benefit from its colonial past.
The EU isn't dying - it will survive, grow and prosper with or without the UK. If it was such a basket case why are so many countries desperate to join.That's an assertion!!! They are joining because they are bigger basket cases and are looking for free hand-outs.
And your comment about declining share of world GDP is true but not really relevant - as the greatest GDP growth is always in developing countries the proportional share from the developed countries always shrinks. So sure the EU proportion has shrunk, but so has that of the USA, Canada, Australia etc etc.The share is going down for all because the corporations etc. have got cheaper labour elsewhere - rust belts!!! This is the rich elites sucking these developed nations dry.
So for example in the past 60 years or so the proportion of the the world economy represented by the USA has dropped from 30% to 18%.
Non trade barriers are barriers imposed on us that we don't have a say in.It's a two way street, dumbass! Crikey, you're talking as though the EU are the masters of the universe. "King Charles I" divine right and all that bollocks. Brussels isn't manned by gods, they are fallible idiots.
We currently don't have those with the EU - we will if we leave the single market, regardless of any trade deal we negotiate.
Dear Jack,
But I thought the EU was run by the bankers and the elite who hold guns to our heads ::)
Gonnagle.
Dear Jack,What are you replying to? What's your point?
But I thought the EU was run by the bankers and the elite who hold guns to our heads ::)
Gonnagle.
It's a two way street, dumbass! Crikey, you're talking as though the EU are the masters of the universe. "King Charles I" divine right and all that bollocks. Brussels isn't manned by gods, they are fallible idiots.What on earth are you talking about.
Dear Forum,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39670703
Well overseas aid is to remain but it may be paid for by increasing your income tax, the Tories increasing income tax, a brave new world, or just more smoke and mirrors.
Gonnagle.
What on earth are you talking about.I'm talking to you, hadn't you noticed? Probably not, hence your incoherent replies and the level of your understanding.
Slapping a whole load of barriers to trade with just about the largest economic block on the planet that is right on our doorstep. That's really going to help the UK economy. If we try to play a game of trade war with the EU we will lose.The rest of the world is bigger - hadn't you noticed! ;D
Point being that if we want to trade with the EU (and it isn't a case of want but of imperative and necessity) we have to play by their rules. And actually more than that we have to adopt their rules as our rules because UK industry isn't going to take kindly to a doubling of red tape if we have our own UK rules for UK only trade and another set for trade with the EU.We buy more off them than they do off us, and as our trade with them is high end goods that will only affect the more successful economies in the EU like Germany who have the upper hand in Brussels, such that, their industries will put a gun against the likes of Merkel and tell her to give us; and them, a good deal. And she, or whoever, will do the same to the weaker, parasitical, members to do as she says if they want to get all those goodies from Brussels.
Dear Sweetpea,They control the money. They get it free from the central banks as QE. They don't need trade, they don't need industries, they don't need jobs or the people and so they don't need the taxes. And they don't need the people to buy anything. They don't need nations or governments. Look at the way Greece has been treated - that's the fate for the whole world i.e. people and nations destroyed. They are one big fish sucking up all the wealth, all the assets, all the globe. To them we are dead meat. The people at the top are psychopaths - you can't bargain with them, you can't reason with them, they feel no pain and they will not stop until everything is theirs; including your lives.
No thanks!
Dear Jack,
On another thread, my Corbyn one, you told me all about the bankers and elite holding guns to our heads, oh and trashing our economy, which seems a bit pointless, why trash the economy, if we are skint we can't buy their goods.
Gonnagle.
Dear Forum,It's more money for the b
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39670703
Well overseas aid is to remain but it may be paid for by increasing your income tax, the Tories increasing income tax, a brave new world, or just more smoke and mirrors.
Gonnagle.
Theresa really the good guy coming good in the final reel? Is that credible?That's not what I said. I think she wants a softer Brexit, but the political reality is that it is going to happen as things stand. The only way I could see it not happening is if the Lib Dems win on a no Brexit platform.
When you say soft Brexit what do you mean? Staying in single market or free trade deal, there are degrees of soft.Staying in the single market of EFTA.
If you don’t think Jeremy Corbyn can win this election then you’re a Tory.That's not really a very helpful sentiment. It's blatantly not true for a start.
And yet you yourself is full of assertions. That makes you duplicitous.The EU is not the same as the USSR.
That is in the past tense. The USSR grew in its early years but was built on utopian madness and so died, and the EU is the same.
The EU is not the same as the USSR.The ever closer union of the EU is.
The USSR was much more tightly integrated than the EU, was communist and most of the countries in it were not there by choice.
That's not what I said. I think she wants a softer Brexit, but the political reality is that it is going to happen as things stand. The only way I could see it not happening is if the Lib Dems win on a no Brexit platform.
The ever closer union of the EU is.No, it isn't.
Whether by choice or not is besides the point as people are often lied to.Who has been lied to about the EU?
Do you think Greece chose to be where they are now.Greeks were lied to by their own government as was the Eurozone. Greece would not have been in the Eurozone if they had been honest about their own economy.
With fear running high in establishment circles that Jeremy Corbyn might soon be running the country, Labour’s reactionary-in-chief Tony Blair was trotted out this afternoon to spew yet more unwanted advice.
Speaking in an interview on the BBC’s World This Weekend, Blair mounted yet another attack on Corbyn’s electability by claiming that Tory government would “steam roller” into power on June 9. Apparently, the polls have told him so.
Such comments are hardly helpful to Labour’s election campaign.
Adopting this utterly defeatist position, Blair argued that the public must vote solely on the basis of Brexit – even if this means voting for the Tories!
http://evolvepolitics.com/tony-blair-literally-just-told-people-vote-tory/
That cunt Blair should be expelled at once.
That cunt Blair should be expelled at once.What just like Blair expelled Corbyn when he serially voted against Labour as an MP.
Blair is breaking Labour Party rules, by advocating voting for other parties. However, it may not be politic to expel him. Grin and bear it, I suppose.How is this any different to the 'tactical voting' approaches espoused by many parties, including Labour, over the past couple of decades.
It really shows the depth Labour has dunk to ...
Blair is breaking Labour Party rules, by advocating voting for other parties. However, it may not be politic to expel him. Grin and bear it, I suppose.
That cunt Blair should be expelled at once.
Blair is breaking Labour Party rules, by advocating voting for other parties. However, it may not be politic to expel him. Grin and bear it, I suppose.Corbyn is breaking the Labour Party by being a useless twat.
And Lib Dems rule out coalition with either Tory or Labour, while using a bit of poetic licence as regards Labour.Have they signed a pledge so we all can trust what they have said?
http://www.libdems.org.uk/coalition
No, it isn't.The Euro is a fundamental part of the EU political project. They go hand in hand. If the Euro crashes so does the EU project.
Who has been lied to about the EU?
Greeks were lied to by their own government as was the Eurozone. Greece would not have been in the Eurozone if they had been honest about their own economy.
Note that Greece's problems stem from its membership of the Eurozone , not its membership of the EU. You have been told this repeatedly and yet you continue to lie about it. Everybody knows you are lying, so your continued repetition of the lie just makes you like like a prejudiced nut job. You really do not do yourself any favours.
Corbyn is breaking the Labour Party by being a useless twat.
Given Blair's popularity, him advocating voting for other parties should be good for Labour. The only reason why this is exercising anybody is because Labour is in dire straits already.
There has been polling every couple of weeks (at least) by yougov asking:We have cross-over.
'In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU?'
The proportions opting for 'right' and 'wrong' have barely moved since June and have remained pretty well identical to the actual result.
So for example just a couple of weeks (excluding don't knows) 50.6% said 'right', 49.4% said 'wrong'
We remain completely split - there is no evidence that remainers are coming around to thinking that brexit is a good idea - or indeed significant 'buyers regret' from brexiteers.
The Euro is a fundamental part of the EU political project. They go hand in hand. If the Euro crashes so does the EU project.The Eurozone is fundamentally distinct from the EU as proven by our membership of the latter but not the former. The EU was fine before the Euro, it will be fine if it fails - which it won't.
The Eurozone is fundamentally distinct from the EU as proven by our membership of the latter but not the former. The EU was fine before the Euro, it will be fine if it fails - which it won't.It is a fundamental part of the Maastricht treaty and this is born out by the fact that all new members have to work towards joining it. What you mention is a product of the fact of how the EU has evolved which meant some older members had the clout to not to be subject to this rule. But the fact is the daemons in the commission and all their fallen angels would have this for everyone if they could.
some older members had the clout to not to be subject to this rule.So not fundamental
So not fundamentalYes it is, just that the daemons had to accommodate existing members, against their desired wishes because the Euro wasn't written in as being a fundamental requirement in 1957.
We have cross-over.
Over the past few weeks there has been a consistent reduction in those saying 'right' and increase in those saying 'wrong' to the question:
'In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the EU?'
For the first time since this question was asked last summer we have a majority saying 'wrong'.
So on the 26th April (excluding don't knows) 48.9% said 'right', 51.1% said 'wrong'
'What is your name?'
Strong and Stable Govt
'What is your favourite colour?'
Strong and stable Govt
'What is the air speed velocity of a swallow?'
Strong and stable Govt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39740582
;D hilarious!
Forgot to ask what is favourite TV prog.
Theresa May would fire UK’s nuclear weapons as a ‘first strike’, says Defence Secretary Michael Fallon.
Theresa May would fire Britain’s nuclear weapons as a ‘first strike’ if necessary, the Defence Secretary has said.
Michael Fallon said the Prime Minister was prepared to launch Trident in “the most extreme circumstances”, even if Britain itself was not under nuclear attack....
... he went further, marking out a clear divide between the parties when asked if Ms May was ready to use Trident as a “pre-emptive initial strike”.
“In the most extreme circumstances, we have made it very clear that you can’t rule out the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike,” Mr Fallon said.
Asked in what circumstances, he replied: “They are better not specified or described, which would only give comfort to our enemies and make the deterrent less credible.
“The whole point about the deterrent is that you have got to leave uncertainty in the mind of anyone who might be thinking of using weapons against this country.”
Mr Fallon also insisted that critics of Trident – including senior military figures who have ridiculed the idea that it is an effective deterrent – were “absolutely wrong”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nuclear-weapons-first-strike-michael-fallon-general-election-jeremy-corbyn-trident-a7698621.html
'What is your name?'
Strong and Stable Govt
'What is your favourite colour?'
Strong and stable Govt
'What is the airspeed velocity of a swallow?'
Strong and stable Govt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39740582
Have you seen David Schneiders tweet on Wednesdays PNQ's?
https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/857345301220397056
I know.. weird innit!!
Up here the Tory and Labour party seem obsessed with Scottish Independence, they should really go to a consultant and see if they can get some cream for this fetish!!
Hope they soon realise that it is an Election that is happening in June and not an ominous sort of referendum which they seem to have fixated on!!
'What is your name?'How did Stalin rule? Strong and stable leader........works both ways.
Strong and Stable Govt
'What is your favourite colour?'
Strong and stable Govt
'What is the air speed velocity of a swallow?'
Strong and stable Govt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39740582
Yes it is,No it isn't.
'What is your name?'What do you mean? African or European?
Strong and Stable Govt
'What is your favourite colour?'
Strong and stable Govt
'What is the air speed velocity of a swallow?'
Strong and stable Govt
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39740582
No it isn't.Why?
Should the UK decide to rejoin the EU in a few years time, but we said "No Euro", the EU would accommodate our wishes.
What do you mean? African or European?;D ;D ;D
Why?
If we were asking to re-join then it would be from desperate need not from sober choice.No we might rejoin because we actually want to be good neighbours. At some point all the people who want to live in the 50's when |Auld England was Merrie will be dead and the people left will be able to build a hopeful future in which our neighbours are our friends, not our enemies.
You said in a few years time. Those people won't all be dead.
No we might rejoin because we actually want to be good neighbours. At some point all the people who want to live in the 50's when |Auld England was Merrie will be dead and the people left will be able to build a hopeful future in which our neighbours are our friends, not our enemies.
I doubt your scenario. If we were doing well and prospering then we would have no need to join - it's not in the Britain temperament for these kind of things (utopian projects), which has been evident since we joined.Speak for yourself. The referendum showed that 48% of the voters do have the vision to build a better Europe instead of kicking it apart.
We are independent types. So the only reason we would be knocking on their door would be because as I said. We would be begging to join as we basically did in 1972.Maybe we will be begging to join after the Brexiteers have driven us on the rocks.
Speak for yourself. The referendum showed that 48% of the voters do have the vision to build a better Europe instead of kicking it apart.I love your misuse of the phrase 'build a future'
Maybe we will be begging to join after the Brexiteers have driven us on the rocks.
I'm sorry but our day is passing. Younger people without the baggage of nostalgia for the days of empire will be taking over and they will build a future inside Europe where we belong building alliances with our neighbours not kicking them in the teeth.
I love your misuse of the phrase 'build a future'Actually, they are not kicking each other in the teeth. Excepting Greece, the EU is doing pretty nicely at the moment.
I think you'll find they are kicking each other in the teeth. At the moment it is being kept under raps but soon it will show its ugly face.
.....
**ETA** - Have you set up a rule that stops certain words from being posted?
Tim Farron has been forced to deny he believes g*y sex is a sin after days of intense questioning but not one "journalist" has turned round and asked that other committed Christian in government what her views are. Theresa May track record against the LGBT community is downright nastier than that of the Lib Dem leader but not one peep of that in the Con run MSM.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/856950316742344704
I wish a Journo would ask her directly if she thinks G*y sex is a sin, it would be interesting to see how she shoehorns her standard response of "Strong and Stable" into the answer....
**ETA** - Have you set up a rule that stops certain words from being posted?
May is a serial abuser of the democratic process
POSTED BY IAIN MACWHIRTER ⋅ APRIL 29, 2017
ELECTIVE dictatorship is an ever present danger in Westminster’s antiquated system of government, where the Prime Minister still exercises the pre-democratic powers of the monarchy. The Fixed-term Parliament Act of 2011 (FTPA) was one attempt to modernise our system by denying political leaders the undemocratic right to call an election at a moment of their own choosing: ie whenever the opposition party was weakest.
David Cameron enacted the FTPA, which is the norm in most democratic countries, and Theresa May voted for it in 2011. So much for all that. She wasn’t going to let the law get in the way of exploiting Labour’s internal divisions to win a quick and dirty 100-seat majority. Labour went along with her coup, as Nicola Sturgeon pointed out, with all the enthusiasm of turkeys voting for an early Christmas.
There really is no justification for this snap election. Theresa May said repeatedly that Britain needed “a period of stability” following Brexit, and she was right. The world needs a period of stability following Donald Trump, Syria and heightened international tensions in South East Asia. Voters have no idea of what kind of EU relationship they’re voting for – and neither does the Government Theresa May is a serial abuser of the democratic process.
Last year she tried to use royal prerogative to push through Article 50, triggering Brexit without MPs being allowed a vote. It was left to the Supreme Court judges to remind her that Britain is supposed to be a parliamentary democracy. Then Queen May opposed Parliament’s right to have a meaningful say on the final deal with Brussels on the grounds that this might “weaken her hand” in negotiations with Brussels. She dismissed the Scottish Parliament vote for a referendum in 2019, saying “now is not the time”, then called her own snap election. This she justified on the dubious grounds that political parties are opposing her in Parliament – which is exactly what they are supposed to do.
Theresa May is behaving like a Home Counties version of Turkey’s president, Recep Erdogan. She’s even refused to submit to a televised debate, which is now an essential element of the democratic process. Presumably, she senses that all her early promises to govern for “working-class families” and not “the privileged few” will disintegrate, if exposed to view. For it is becoming clearer by the day that Brexit was not just about Europe – it was something akin to a right-wing coup.
The most conservative elements of the British Establishment saw the narrow and ambiguous 52 per cent Leave vote in June as an opportunity finally to push through the kind of reforms many have dreamed of since the days of Margaret Thatcher. Leading Brexit ministers like Liam Fox have made no secret of their desire for a “small state” solution. The International Trade Secretary, who has close links with right-wing think tanks here and in America, wants to roll back the remnants of the welfare state and turn Britain into a low-tax, low-regulation haven for the most exploitative form of global capitalism. Fox even claimed that David Cameron had collaborated with “a great socialist coup”.
https://iainmacwhirter.wordpress.com/2017/04/29/may-is-a-serial-abuser-of-the-democratic-process/
String and stable food bank use by nursesTheresa May's stance for today....a strong and stable orange.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-skewered-live-tv-refusing-10326568
The hard left reduced to sneering all over this thread, very sad.
Any comment on policy?
Triple lock becoming a double lock
'I am sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that'
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/30/kim-jong-may-awkward-and-incredulous-as-journalist-asks-question?CMP=share_btn_tw
Has been fairly clear for ages that May is hopeless in interviews and thinking on her feet, she relies on committees to come up with policies and arguments. That is why she won't participate in any TV leaders debates. Luckily for her, Labours leader has no intention of becoming a PM ;)Corbyn not going for the debates is just bizarre
The hard left reduced to sneering all over this thread, very sad.Who, in your opinion, represents the hard left on this forum?
The hard left reduced to sneering all over this thread, very sad.
Any comment on policy?
Triple lock becoming a double lock
You don"t think nurses using food banks is about policy?
No that is an issue what is the policy to address the issue and what will it cost?Didn't ask if it was a policy. May's answer on it was policy and idea free though.
Corbyn not going for the debates is just bizarreNo. Without Theresa May, a debate for him is a no win situation. Best case scenario: he doesn't screw up against the also rans. Worst case scenario: the Lib Dems eat his lunch.
Didn't ask if it was a policy. May's answer on it was policy and idea free though.No. It was your response to Jakswan's request for a comment on policy. I think it's reasonable for him to infer that any response to his question would involve a comment on policy and therefore he is fine to call you out for just mentioning an issue.
No. Without Theresa May, a debate for him is a no win situation. Best case scenario: he doesn't screw up against the also rans. Worst case scenario: the Lib Dems eat his lunch.good points, but in not going for them he looks like her lapdog. Hr should have gone for them and ignored everyone else, just said 'not leading but hiding' every ten seconds, and 'weak and lying ng' every 5. He needed to take risks her and seize the chance.
Without the party in power and front runner, the debates are a pointless waste of time for Corbyn.
No. It was your response to Jakswan's request for a comment on policy. I think it's reasonable for him to infer that any response to his question would involve a comment on policy and therefore he is fine to call you out for just mentioning an issue.Jakswan's post that there was no comments on policy. Not that there wasn't a statement of policy. And no, that's not the policy I was looking for. Anyway off to gig now, have a nice night.
The policy you were looking for was Labour's pledge to abolish the 1% cap on NHS pay rises.
The hard left reduced to sneering all over this thread, very sad.
Any comment on policy?
Triple lock becoming a double lock.
Didn't ask if it was a policy. May's answer on it was policy and idea free though.
Channelling your inner Trump?
Which one, she keeps changing them when they are sneered at.
A bad idea. Who does it benefit exactly?
No I hate Trump, how is your inner Stalin?Still waiting for you to answer the question I posed upthread, which was:
As I recall you listed 20 things about labour I questioned you on them and you never came back.
The tax payer.
Still waiting for you to answer the question I posed upthread, which was:
Who, in your opinion, represents the hard left on this forum?
Hard to say since mostly posters seem to sneer, Ricky is a fan of Corbyn, Gonzo likes Corbyn.Not sure that either appear to me to be 'hard left' - perhaps you've never met any of the people I know and would consider to be hard left, i.e. those for whom the Labour party is far to centrist and align themselves with the SWP or various forms of communism.
Blimey its like listening to the SNP, anytime I see them being asked about policy it starts 'The Tories....'.a bit of sneering and a generalization with a hint of confirnation bias. You know if you want to complain about what happens on her as discourse it might help if your default wasn't what you charge others with. I think it is important for the party that was in govt, that chose to hold an unnecessary election to at least be capable of presenting policies rather than argue that nurses using foodbanks is not some sort of a problem.
So the Tories don't have a policy to address the issue, who has a policy that you like that does?Had May been capable of saying 'Yes, that is a problem, and we will have to address it, we will have further information in the manifesro', then it might have been acceptable but she wasn't because she's unable to even admit it as a real issue as it points out a basic failing in the govt she had been a member of for 7 years.
No I hate Trump, how is your inner Stalin?
As I recall you listed 20 things about labour I questioned you on them and you never came back.
The tax payer.
a bit of sneering and a generalization with a hint of confirnation bias. You know if you want to complain about what happens on her as discourse it might help if your default wasn't what you charge others with. I think it is important for the party that was in govt, that chose to hold an unnecessary election to at least be capable of presenting policies rather than argue that nurses using foodbanks is not some sort of a problem.
Had May been capable of saying 'Yes, that is a problem, and we will have to address it, we will have further information in the manifesro', then it might have been acceptable but she wasn't because she's unable to even admit it as a real issue as it points out a basic failing in the govt she had been a member of for 7 years.
As to other parties, I don't think the Labour party policies so far will address the fundamentals though the removal if the pay freeze is either going to be part of it, or an extension of tax credits in some way. I think any attempt to address it has to look at fundamental reform of welfare and taxation as a whole, rather than playing with bits here and there. I see no reason why sneering at bad policy, bad presentation of non existent policy and an inability to show leadership should be ignored when someone is running for election, and neither from your posting do you.
In what way?
The triple lock is all about keeping pensioner incomes in line with the rest of the population. Any measures to curb this lock could rapidly push more pensioners back into poverty. Thatcher decided to scrap the earnings link for the state pension in 1980 which was, in reality, seen as an attack on pensioners. The triple lock has at least partly restored some of the value that was lost during that particular period.
This government is currently committed to maintaining this triple-lock until 2020, which means it will raise the basic state pension by average earnings, inflation or 2.5%, whichever is higher. Do you think May will keep these same protections for the state pension if they win this snap general election?
If all you do is sneer then there is little to debate. We will have to see what is in the manifesto.
btw "argue that nurses using foodbanks is not some sort of a problem" not sure what you are referring to here as when I watched May on Marr she skipped the question which is not the same as what you claim.
Diane Abbott, random number generator
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/diane-abbotts-agonising-interview-over-policy-cost/
I just listened!!! Ouch!!Painful.
Diane Abbott, random number generatorOh dear. This is basic stuff. How can they be so terrible.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/nick-ferrari/diane-abbotts-agonising-interview-over-policy-cost/
I note you used then the May tactic about your own sneering. And I
think evasion is a lie of omission about something being a problem.
Given this is the situation after 7 years of the Tories being in govt, and given that this was an unnecessary election, I won't hold my breath on a policy to address this being in the manifesto. Worse, it's unclear from the statements made so far that any such manifesto is intended to have any substantive policies in it.
Which I don't necessarily disagree with still doesn't excuse misrepresentation.What misrepresentation?
Yes I think the Tories feel safe given the decline of Labour which has been aided by rise of the SNP.
I do feel that I have little options in this election I'm naturally inclined towards LibDems but at odds with them over Brexit, Labour is a big mess.
Are we surprised?
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-rogue-bank-failing-company-and-tory.html
Not in the least.I had been following the issue via Twitter from Roger Mullin, but thought it needed a summary!
(one of my favourite political blogs btw)
May going on the warpath about the EU - will probably work well with the Brexit faithful. I suppose EU will say that they were flabbergasted about how little she knew about the EU, and well, anything really. The main thing for her is for the Tories to win.While I agree this will be red meat to the mouthy frothing brexit minority, I'm not sure it plays well more generally.
While I agree this will be red meat to the mouthy frothing brexit minority, I'm not sure it plays well more generally.
Firstly there will be alarm bells ringing in the minds of a load of people (remain and leave) over actually what deals we might get in reality (rather than in the fantasy mind of the brexit crew). Plus it doesn't ring true to the strong and stable leadership mantra - May is looking neither strong nor stable right now.
Why is she campaigning from outside Downing St?
Droit du seigneur.ex seigneur as of today
She never wanted Brexit, did she, and it shows. Her heart isn't in it.
Heart - hmm, not an organ I associate with her.
If Labour were half-way competent, they could give her a run for her money. Alas, and alack. We are fucked.
She still cannot stand at the Downing Street lectern without doing the Coco the Clown routine with her hair.
Much as I have little time for May, is her appearance important?
I pick up false persona in her gurning. I suppose yes, in that sense, appearance is important to me, although not stuff like clothes.it was more that following on from Vlad's comment about her hair.
Seems like Mother Theresa might be losing the plot (not that she had much of one anyway).While this is fake news, it will play well amongst some. Deliberate and lying attempt to woo UKIP voters. Wasn't the last time we saw this the Zinoviev letter?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39787353
While this is fake news, it will play well amongst some. Deliberate and lying attempt to woo UKIP voters. Wasn't the last time we saw this the Zinoviev letter?She seems to want to have her cake and eat it (again).
May ...she thinks it only appropriate for one side of those negotiations to input into that debate.
On what basis?On the basis that she considers it inappropriate and interfering in our election if the EU negotiating side comment on the process. She was very clear about that yesterday.
It sounds as if she is eliding EU negotiators commenting on Brexit, and giving advice about the election. I'm not aware that anyone of them have done the latter, but then it won't matter to the Mail and the Express, and many Leave voters. May is posing as Britannia defeating the alien hordes, or something, and presumably it will hoover up UKIP votes and others. In a funny way, it's a rather dull election so far, so maybe some bright young Tory spads have suggested gingering it up.I think that's pretty well spot on.
they were being held anyway. I doubt they are much affected by the GE decision.
The local elections seem to be going to the Conservatives! Maybe Theresa May did take a right decision after all.
they were being held anyway. I doubt they are much affected by the GE decisio.
So what is right for the Tories is right overall? I think you need to be careful with your use of the term 'right'.
Yeah...I know. That's not what I meant. I meant that maybe May was right in going for a GE in June. The sentiment seems to be just right in favor of her party!
Yeah...I know. That's not what I meant. I meant that maybe May was right in going for a GE in June. The sentiment seems to be just right in favor of her party!
Her little foot stomp outside Downing street yesterday may have won her approval from the pro-Brexit fanatics in the populist UK press, but it shows an absolute disregard for the need to keep friends abroad. Whether by intention or misunderstanding, she has chosen to demonise the politicians and bureaucrats of the European Union as the leading policy in her election campaign.
It may have the jingoistic MSM and supporters whooping and cheering but left the rest of us shaking our heads in sorrow and consternation at the isolationist stance of the Brexit "British".
Surely she must realise that the dominant federation of centre-right parties in the European Parliament, the EEP; [European People’s Party], which includes Angela Merkel, Mariano Rajoy, Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk among its leading members, are united on its Brexit policy?
There is an advert in this week's Brussels Politico which sets out the EEP's demands – so far unreported in the UK media. These include:
- EU citizens will not pay the bill for the British
- The right order of negotiation must be respected
- Peace settlements cannot be put in danger
- EU citizens will not accept British blockades
http://www.eppgroup.eu/news/Our-red-lines-on-Brexit
Or you can find it here: http://www.politico.eu/section/brexit/ whichever is easier!! (Actually, Politico is my goto site for Brexit news!!)
The point about "EU citizens will not accept British blockades" will make life interesting for those in Northern Ireland. If the UK quits the customs union (as Mayhem has threatened), there would have to be customs control posts on the 310-mile frontier between Northern Ireland in the UK and Eire in the EU. It would be an external EU border creating customs control border posts with the Union flag flying above them on all roads crossing between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Can you imagine the reaction of any Irish nationalist brought up on the Sinn Fein-IRA culture of hatred of the “Brits”? But I digress.
You can have a customs border without an actual hard border.How?
I am glad the awful UKIP is doing so badly.Bit late - there's a general election in a few weeks!
As Labour is losing out to the Tories I reckon the calls for Corbyn to resign will get ever louder.
I am glad the awful UKIP is doing so badly.UKIP just assimilated by the Tories.
As Labour is losing out to the Tories I reckon the calls for Corbyn to resign will get ever louder.
Bit late - there's a general election in a few weeks!
It is now, but it was talked about by some Labour MPs when the election was first announced. I reckon, when if as expected the Tories win, Corbyn will almost certainly get his marching orders.You'd have thought so, but he is fixated with his 'members' - he doesn't seem to give a damned about either his MPs nor the electorate. I hope I'm wrong but I could see a scenario where he claims he still has a mandate from Labour members and thats all that counts. Unless he resigns the only people who can actually kick him out are those members and I'm not convinced they would.
So what is right for the Tories is right overall? I think you need to be careful with your use of the term 'right'.
not really, indeed, it was the obvious reason that it wasn't really a risk that points out that her lie about not calling an election was predicated purely on self interest. Remaining in govt while there was a possibility of losing seats because of fraud was a much bigger risk.
I am talking from May's point of view. I thought she may have perhaps taken a risk by announcing the GE.
UKIP just assimilated by the Tories.They were always Tories.
Surely she must realise that the dominant federation of centre-right parties in the European Parliament, the EEP; [European People’s Party], which includes Angela Merkel, Mariano Rajoy, Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk among its leading members, are united on its Brexit policy?And that's the point. They can have as many ''changes of face'' as they like.
It is now, but it was talked about by some Labour MPs when the election was first announced. I reckon, when if as expected the Tories win, Corbyn will almost certainly get his marching orders.So that'll just leave May to take the blame for Brexit. I can't see Brexiteers or Strong leadership types blaming themselves.
It is now, but it was talked about by some Labour MPs when the election was first announced. I reckon, when if as expected the Tories win, Corbyn will almost certainly get his marching orders.Which would be the one good thing to come out of this election.
Which would be the one good thing to come out of this election.Well the tories have put all the chips on Theresa May who will never be more than a brexit disaster away from going back to being ''Not Andrea Leadsom''. Labour on the other hand could go younger and a bit nimbler....something Dianne Abbott has not shown herself to be. I hope Labour do a better job than the attempted post Brexit coup it would be hard not to.
The EU pushed and she pushed back, I'm a cynic so I think the timing of this was very convenient.She has a stance?
Maybe we should have an election see if the public will support her stance, oh wait that is exactly what is happening.
.
She has a stance?
Once the 'Brexit fears' come out of the closet after Theresa is set though Jack and the Dear leader cannot allay them we shall see what support she has. Don't you think people are voting tory locally for political favours and to avoid vindictive treatment rather than out of any great love for that party?
It's shit or bust time soon for the Right.
I think people are voting Conservative because the best deal can only be negotiated by that party. Hard line remainers will vote for LibDem, other remainers will also go Tory, a lot of people I know voted remain but they just want to get on with it now.Dianne Abbott has absolutely no chance of getting near Downing Street.
Unless you think Dianne Abbot might be the best person for the job?
I think people are voting Conservative because the best deal can only be negotiated by that party. Hard line remainers will vote for LibDem, other remainers will also go Tory, a lot of people I know voted remain but they just want to get on with it now.What is interesting is looking at the projected national vote share using the voting on Thursday as a guide. This is commonly done from local elections, which are never held throughout the country.
Unless you think Dianne Abbot might be the best person for the job?
Dianne Abbott has absolutely no chance of getting near Downing Street.
That is not true for May.
What is the best deal Jack? And is the best deal also possibly a shit deal. Is it awful or will it be fucking dreadful?
And are we going to be fobbed of by a shite deal and a ''well imagine what it would have been like under Dianne Abbott?''
Whatever deal Labour could get it would be fairer. May is angling after a blitz spirit but without coupons or emergency coalition or even the economic equivalent of an Anderson shelter. People will be expected to run outside and catch doodlebugs.
What is it we are supposed getting on with Jack? You have never answered that because you don't know.
''For God's sake just get on with it'' sounds like something a Turkey might say as it puts it's neck on the block before Christmas...coming from you.
Deal will be free trade agreement and freedom of movement of labour.
She would not have got that through will a small minority because of a number of hard right tories. These will be irrelevant if she gets 70+ majority.c8
Deal will be free trade agreement and freedom of movement of labour.Not if that majority are hard right tories, Jak.
She would not have got that through will a small minority because of a number of hard right tories. These will be irrelevant if she gets 70+ majority.c8
Not if that majority are hard right tories, Jak.I hope that Jakswan is right, but I fear not.
I hope that Jakswan is right, but I fear not.Yes but Brexit has the air of an aimless disgruntled revolution about it ( and the more mired we are in it the more aimless it becomes. I'm just wondering whether a la the French revolution we will have a grand fear, a great terror, a Napolean and then a louis Phillipe eventually reaching some type of prosperity and social regeneration at the Fin de seicle. Such a situation would suit the Conservatives I would have thought because as a clock rewinding mechanism to the days of laisse faire it fits the bill.
I think the sneaky way to achieve this is via a 'transitional agreement' which actually becomes permanent, in part because everyone loses the will to engage is ongoing, protracted and hugely difficult agreements. So we become like Norway in the transitional arrangement (because it will have to be something pretty well 'off the shelf') perhaps with a nominal 5 year horizon for a further final agreement. But by 2024 when the transitional deal should end we will have a new government, the country will have moved on and priorities will be elsewhere.
Watched John McDonnell's speech at Docklands yesterday and thought it was a very good speech covering lots of important areas. It will probably be missed in all the othering of 'is he a Marxist'.
Citation please.
Watched John McDonnell's speech at Docklands yesterday and thought it was a very good speech covering lots of important areas. It will probably be missed in all the othering of 'is he a Marxist'.
Yes that a potential future chancellor was a Marxist and wanted to bring down capitalism isn't really at all relevant. What a sorry state Labour are in, the sooner the centre-left get a grip and come back the better, until then the worse it is for all of us.So because you use a label to mean what you want it to mean we can ignore what McDonnell says he would do? What in his speech at the Docklands did you disagree with and why?
The EU pushed and she pushed back, I'm a cynic so I think the timing of this was very convenient.
Maybe we should have an election see if the public will support her stance, oh wait that is exactly what is happening.
Eh? That issue on the website you linked to.
"Leave means to leave. We will not let the UK block the future of the EU27 (security union) or even change it (Turkish EU membership)."
You can have a customs border without an actual hard border.
Despite the huge attention paid to the performance of Jeremy Corbyn’s party, the Conservatives actually suffered a net loss of more than twice as many council seats as Labour, the final local election results have revealed.
With all but one of 124 contested councils having finally declared their results, it can be revealed that the Tories are down 47 seats compared to 18 for Labour.... Nationally, with results from 123 out of 124 contested councils now in, the Conservatives have 828 seats, down 47 from before Thursday’s local government elections.
Labour, by contrast, have 1,289 seats and are down only 18.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-elections-2016-results-in-full-council-seats-conservative-tory-labour-jeremy-corbyn-a7019041.html
...
Where did that come from??
Last years results?
I've just realised why I don't respond to your diatribes... They are like watching a hot air balloon collapse, most of them are self-deflating!!
Back in the real world though I hear that Labour actually lost half as many seats in the locals as the Selfservatives... What?
And all the the Theresas went 'Kill the foxes, kill the foxes!'
I think Labour have been wrecked by globalization. I mean, Old Labour had a kind of 'capitalism with benefits' menu, which sort of worked, until Callaghan pronounced doom on Keynes. After that, it was chaos, until Blair moved to the right, and embraced globalization. This seemed to work for a bit, until the Big Squelch (capitalism always bites you on the bum). And now, what narrative? I will be interested in Macron, as he seems to be Blair-like.
In both countries, it seems that globalization has hollowed out industrial towns, leading to a kind of populist revolt. Gordon Brown used to talk about taming globalization, not sure how.
Damn, I had better read Varoufakis' new book, too long!
It's all beyond parody really. A PM who simpers on the One Show and hides away from ordinary people, and a leader of the Opposition who talks of a reckoning with the rich, which is way too militant for English people.
I try to ignore it, but bits of it keep filtering through, as if in a mad nightmare. Drink required!
LONDON — Prime Minister Theresa May will be blocked from negotiating Brexit with fellow European leaders once talks officially get underway, senior figures from the European Union warned on Wednesday.
May will not be invited to meetings of the heads of government of other member states and will only be allowed to discuss the terms of Brexit with Michel Barnier, European Commission’s chief negotiator, the Times newspaper reported.
This latest development is yet another blow to May's Brexit plan.
http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-threatens-to-ban-theresa-may-from-taking-part-in-brexit-talks-2017-5
Remind me.. what are the excuses for voting Tory?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-39886810/moment-bbc-cameraman-injured-by-corbyn-carindeed, the cameraman was an idiot.
WHOOPS!
Yeah, but floo wants to blame Corbyn, because, err, well, she blames Corbyn.
Remind me.. what are the excuses for voting Tory?
OK, sorry.
I don't see it Corbyn's way, but having said that I think he is a decent bloke.That he is.
Was May stupid or lying?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-election-spending-rules-latest-theresa-may-nicola-sturgeon-snp-a7729256.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39892281
Corbyn claiming he is not a pacifist might surprise, if not distress, some Labour voters.
Don't see why. I can't think of any Labour leaders, save perhaps Michael Foot, who were out and out pacifists. If anything it may well reassure some Labour waverers.It's odd that a political leader gives a reasonable and nuanced explanation of his political position that he has held consistently and he is apparently then just 'claiming' not to be something that he has never stated he was.
It's odd that a political leader gives a reasonable and nuanced explanation of his political position that he has held consistently and he is apparently then just 'claiming' not to be something that he has never stated he was.
The phrase "reasonable & nuanced explanation" goes to the heart of political discourse in this country. We have been discouraged, perhaps even conditioned, to reject reason and nuance. Depressing in the extreme.Nuance is such a weak and unstable word. Like a fox, it should be hunted down lest it give rise to a coalition of chaos.
Don't see why. I can't think of any Labour leaders, save perhaps Michael Foot, who were out and out pacifists. If anything it may well reassure some Labour waverers.
I think the biggest mistake we could make would be to get rid of Trident and our nuclear arsenal.
I live near a street called 'Workhouse Lane'. Come on, snowflakes, that would make the poor sit up and stop their sniveling!
Let's face it, the poor have had it easy for too long, sitting around watching Sky, drinking Special Brew or smoking weed, producing umpteen children by different fathers, who we are then supposed to support. What exactly is the point of the poor? None whatsoever, so I hope that Kim Jong May will rapidly find a way to get rid of them. I suggest after Brexit, that we export them to the EU. Then there is compost, of course.Eat the NEETs
I live near a street called 'Workhouse Lane'. Come on, snowflakes, that would make the poor sit up and stop their sniveling!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39897999
Apparently the Lib Dems are going to legalise cannabis for personal use if they win the election!!!! Don't they realise it can cause people to become psychotic, and may encourage some to try even more harmful drugs like cocaine and heroin! >:(
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39897999
Apparently the Lib Dems are going to legalise cannabis for personal use if they win the election!!!! Don't they realise it can cause people to become psychotic, and may encourage some to try even more harmful drugs like cocaine and heroin! >:(
If cannabis is legalised iat will be decent stuff, not like what is now sprayed andgrown with chemicals which cause psychosis. '`Ordinary' cannabis does not cause any harmful long term effects.
If cannabis is legalised iat will be decent stuff, not like what is now sprayed andgrown with chemicals which cause psychosis. '`Ordinary' cannabis does not cause any harmful long term effects.Chemicals, eh? Dihydrogen monoxide can cause death if breathed in.
Chemicals, eh? Dihydrogen monoxide can cause death if breathed in.and yet they pump it in to schools!!!
Chemicals, eh? Dihydrogen monoxide can cause death if breathed in.Crikey! Water-way to go!!!
I think the biggest mistake we could make would be to get rid of Trident and our nuclear arsenal.
Tories no stronger or stabler than anyone else.
This misses that Davidson in the interview implied the rapeclause was passed by vote in the HoC rather than a Statutory Instrument that avoided debate
http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2017/05/11/ruth-meets-a-journalist/
Michael Fallon, marginally better than Jeremy Hunt
http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/the-tory-defence-minister-michael.html
Daily Mail socialist style.What's wrong with the analysis of Fallon?
Getting my popcorn ready for the post election Labour bloodbath, suspect JC isn't going to resign, the centre-left will be openly hostile
We need opposition not this, I think the LibDem fightback isn't going to happen either. Hopefully we can see centre left make some sort of comeback.
What's wrong with the analysis of Fallon?
He evaded the question, it does break a manifesto promise but they are recruiting.No, he lied. And I care about lying. As I presume you do too.
Didn't realise you cared about the size of the British Army so much?
No, he lied. And I care about lying. As I presume you do too.
So you want the army to be bigger or smaller? Or are just trying to score a political point, don't see how that gets us anywhere. It occurs to me that the left have given up, at least in Blairs time people tried to persuade floating voters and came up with arguments.
I thought he evaded, not an impressive performance however what is the alternative?
I'm not a fan of May just can't get my head around her supporting fox hunting, can't go with LibDems because of their position on Brexit and Labour are inept.
Why is pointing that someone is lying just a political point? And what does 'a political point' mean here? Surely all points about politics, including your posts here are 'political points'?
And as to your lazy generalisation about the 'left' whatever the 'left' actually meand surely that's the point if the manifesto which propose things?
Maybe I'm guilty, ok I'll start I think Labours Corp Tax plans are not wise, receipts from corporation tax are at an all time high.
https://www.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7e-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7
We are yet to find out how much more tax the >£80k earners will have to pay I suspect its going to be a lot, and when they don't pay or generate what Labour thought they will come after the middle earners.
I am guessing now that Corbyn knows he can't win, but he is aiming for the vote that Miliband got. I think this was 30%. Presumably, if he gets this or above, he will say to the right wing, OK, big shots, what have you got, not in so many words. It's all a bit pathetic, but part of the general nervous breakdown that Labour are going through.On the assumption that Corbyn is not going to win, for everybody's sake, he needs to lose really badly. We have got to get rid of him and any loss not so bad that he doesn't need to resign is a disaster for Britain.
Whilst I wish to see Corbyn gone as he is hopeless as the leader of the Labour Party, it would not be a good idea for the Tories to have too huge a majority, imo. I think the Government of the day should never get too cock a hoop, and should have to watch its back.
On the assumption that Corbyn is not going to win, for everybody's sake, he needs to lose really badly. We have got to get rid of him and any loss not so bad that he doesn't need to resign is a disaster for Britain.
He won't go.He might if the make up of the MPs, or the rules on nomination changed, was such that a candidate that he could approve of could get nominated
He might if the make up of the MPs, or the rules on nomination changed, was such that a candidate that he could approve of could get nominated
I know it's awful when a leader consistently says what he will do and doesn't change his mind when a result/public opinion goes another way. Absolutely spineless.
As I sundaerstand it to stand again following a vote of no confidence he needs no nominations. If he does go a replacement will need 15%, come September this will be lowered to 5%, so another hard left candidate would not get in now but would post September.All I was pointing out that as well as the rule change, if the party was reduced to a size where Corbyn supporters ade up 15% of the MPs, he might go before then. If the rule change does come in in September, I think he may well go if there had been a bad lies. If so, I doubt there will be a challenge completed before then though it may force someone to run.
Every reason for JC to hold on, every reason for centre left to get him out now. There will be blood.
In the unlikely event Labour wins the election, I suspect Corbyn will change his mind when he discovers he can't keep his election pledges.
All I was pointing out that as well as the rule change, if the party was reduced to a size where Corbyn supporters ade up 15% of the MPs, he might go before then. If the rule change does come in in September, I think he may well go if there had been a bad lies. If so, I doubt there will be a challenge completed before then though it may force someone to run.
I will bet they (centre-left) will be after him the second BBC announces its exit poll. If he does refuse to go I think a split will be inevitable, maybe they will go in with LibDems and start "Real Labour" or a variation of New Labour.The problem surely being is that there is no indication that a 'centre left' candidate would win even after a loss. Further if the loss is catastrophic it may mean that there would be the possibility of a Corbyn supported candidate dependent on what the make up of MPs is, and they would then win.
I will bet they (centre-left) will be after him the second BBC announces its exit poll. If he does refuse to go I think a split will be inevitable, maybe they will go in with LibDems and start "Real Labour" or a variation of New Labour.As Kuntsberg said on the BBC Milliband went a couple of inches to the left and lost.
But she has carried out a brilliant coup, by absorbing UKIP, which gives her an extra number of votes.What happened to Mark Reckless was the writing on the wall for UKIP it was a dividend waiting for the Tories whoever the leader. May has made pie crust promises and with shit Brexit can only disappoint.
The problem surely being is that there is no indication that a 'centre left' candidate would win even after a loss. Further if the loss is catastrophic it may mean that there would be the possibility of a Corbyn supported candidate dependent on what the make up of MPs is, and they would then win.
A split is indeed possible but without union money risky.
It seems to me that the excuse not to vote Labour is that the Richest will hide some of the money instead of just storing it in a place where it will not help the wider economy.
Trickle down has proved to create less and less trickle.
The many under the present system have had to produce more for less.
But she has carried out a brilliant coup, by absorbing UKIP, which gives her an extra number of votes.
If Corbyn goes and a hard left candidate can't get 15% of nominations then only centre left will be on the ballot. This is the centre left's last chance to get the party back.Which is why he won't go unless he is confident someone he agrees with can get in. That is why i was raising the possibility that after the election there migt be sufficient Corbyn supporters to make up 15%.
It not about excuses but about reasons not to vote. Anecdotally chatting with non-partisan work colleagues today, they would consider LibDems but don't fancy Fallon all that much, Labour doesn't come across as capable, not overly impressed with Tories either.I fancy neither Farron or Fallon but I think that we aren't voting for a PM
Many UKIP voters were Labour, possibly went that way when Labour were either sneering, ignoring them or calling them racists.
UKIP was like a gateway drug.
Many UKIP voters were Labour, possibly went that way when Labour were either sneering, ignoring them or calling them racists.
UKIP was like a gateway drug.
Which is why he won't go unless he is confident someone he agrees with can get in. That is why i was raising the possibility that after the election there migt be sufficient Corbyn supporters to make up 15%.
BTW i find the use of hard left here merely a pejorative attempt at labelling rather than anything useful.
So none of them were racists?
I know it's awful when a leader consistently says what he will do and doesn't change his mind when a result/public opinion goes another way. Absolutely spineless.No, it's the opposite of spineless.
No, it's the opposite of spineless.Think that was Trent's point
The problem surely being is that there is no indication that a 'centre left' candidate would win even after a loss. Further if the loss is catastrophic it may mean that there would be the possibility of a Corbyn supported candidate dependent on what the make up of MPs is, and they would then win.
A split is indeed possible but without union money risky.
Think that was Trent's pointBefore the Brexit vote, the Labour official policy (as far as I could divine) was Remain. Now Corbyn bleats "the people have decided". Margaret Becket said in the debate that it Brexit would be a catastrophe but she would vote with the party i.e. for Brexit. Current Labour policy on Brexitseems to be "remove spines at any opportunity" and it flows from the top.
The issue though is surely that it may not be something that any leader might be competent in leading? The question is whether Labour in its current form can continue.If it can't continue, it will only be because it can't elect an effective leader.
If it can't continue, it will only be because it can't elect an effective leader.That works on the assumption that it can be led surely?
That works on the assumption that it can be led surely?
Of course it can be led. Throughout most of its history, the Labour Party has been led well (in my opinion).Which tells you nothing about the current issues it has. What is it for?
Which tells you nothing about the current issues it has. What is it for?
No, it's the opposite of spineless.
And meanwhile Labour suspend the entirety of its elected councillors in Aberdeen
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-39940006
Against Tory austerity but ok with SNP austerity perhaps?That is a non sequitur to the story.
Dear Make up yer Bloody Mind :o :o
I will now be voting for that Spineless MP Mr Jeremy Corbyn, the Tories are going to win of that I have no doubt but at least I can walk around with my head held high and say, I voted for honesty, integrity and a man of compassion.
Oh and it will give me a little pleasure to point the finger when it all goes tits up to say, hey!! I told you so >:(
Gonnagle.
I hadn't realised you had moved to Islington.
Yep - me and Gonners have got a flatshare there. We're just off out to get our Che Guevara cushion covers.which will,given it is Islington, be made of ground up wasp nest.
Dear Trent,Didn't hear it but then since he isn't standing in my constituency i won't be voting for him.
I am making no jokes about choosing cushions :P :P you can but then I will accuse you of stereotyping ;D ;D
Dear Sane,
Did you catch the Jeremy Vine show that was broadcast from Islington yesterday, the man who used to sell Jeremy Corbyn his underwear is now a Uber driver, I still haven't a clue why he thought that should be mentioned :o
Dear Forum,
Jeremy Vine interviewed Jeremy Corbyn on his show today, it was very strange to listen to a honest MP.
Gonnagle.
Which tells you nothing about the current issues it has. What is it for?The main current issue it has is that there no effective leadership. The Labour Party has not had effective leadership since Tony Blair stepped down.
I voted for honesty, integrity and a man of compassion.I'll give you the last of those which might be enough considering May is 0 for 3 by my reckoning.
The main current issue it has is that there no effective leadership. The Labour Party has not had effective leadership since Tony Blair stepped down.if a party is merely there to be led, it has no point.
successful or achieving the results that you want:
Have you read the Election manifestos?
I'm ploughing my way through the Tory one at the moment after spending the past few days pondering over Labours. I know it's traditional that nobody actually reads party manifestos as by this time the vast majority of voters have already made up their minds which box they're going to tick.
Those who are undecided usually choose on the basis of leadership, not election pledges. But as far as I'm concerned manifestos matter as they are a guide to parties’ philosophy.
Shame they can be so turgid!!
I usually read the bits that for whatever reason I am most concerned about but I have to see they often are unreadable. It's often death by acronym and it's very hard to link much of the philosophic rhetoric to the details.
The highlight for me so far is that the Tories expect every 11 year old to know their times table off by heart.
The highlight for me so far is that the Tories expect every 11 year old to know their times table off by heart.
They may know their multiplication tables by heart - that is just rote learning - do they know what they mean, and can they apply them?Indeed, that and the phrasing that it would be 'expected' is odd.
if a party is merely there to be led, it has no point.Well nobody has claimed that. So that was a waste of electrons from you.
And control the internet really tightly
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html
Indeed, that and the phrasing that it would be 'expected' is odd.I would expect that an eleven year old would know their times tables (up to ten, at least). What's odd about that?
I am hopeless at maths but I knew all mine by the time I was 7/8, it was expected in those days.7/8 of what?! :-\
I think this election is done.
May will get in on a landslide with a book of brain dead policies. We will cast off from Europe in a ship full of holes and slowly sink under the waves.
I usually read the bits that for whatever reason I am most concerned about but I have to see they often are unreadable. It's often death by acronym and it's very hard to link much of the philosophic rhetoric to the details.
The highlight for me so far is that the Tories expect every 11 year old to know their times table off by heart.
Reports of anti labour/pro tory bias at GE. Wondering whether to restart keeping Bias watch on the BBC news website. Unless the BBC start wiping records it's all their for future research.Apparently the conspiracy wore off before it got to the theory.
They may know their multiplication tables by heart - that is just rote learning - do they know what they mean, and can they apply them?
NS. If I were you, I would return "Arithmetic Made Simple" by Diane Abbott to the library.
Stolen from another thread:
Have you read the Tory Manifesto? Did you not see the major gaff by that idiot chancellor, not thousands out but billions out?
This might come as a surprise to you: http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/2017/05/two-completely-different-visions-one.html
The most attention grabbing policy is their Dementia Tax policy of asset stripping elderly people for the "crime" of getting ill in their old age. Screw the fact these people worked hard and paid their National Insurance and Council Tax for decades in order to fund the NHS and social care. Their houses are low-hanging fruit for the Tories to harvest in order to fund their agenda of handing even more tax cuts to the corporations and the super-rich
I don't why I bother but I do try to debate some of the issues.I hear sphincters are twitching over at Tory HQ.
As opposed to the current status quo where people are asset stripped to £27k, which Labour don't have a policy to revoke this must assume they support the current system.
I hear sphincters are twitching over at Tory HQ.
As opposed to the current status quo where people are asset stripped to £27k, which Labour don't have a policy to revoke this must assume they support the current system.Die in debt - Vote Tory.
Die in debt - Vote Tory.
Die in debt - Vote Tory.
Maybe she should not ask Nicola how handle education though.
'Expected' is educationspeak. Every parent has come across it at parents' evening or whatever. . So it gets stuck in manifestoes - not just Tory ones - because it sounds educationish.But the subject matter, a politics of nostalgia meme, sucks the educationishness of it away. It isn't in a list, it is stuck in the middle of a discursive paragraph but pops out like an unruly pubic hair. Knowing one's time tables by heart has nothing to do with numeracy but is a dog whistle to the good old days when these things happened.
Not even wrong.'Not even wrong.' - what does that even mean?
'Not even wrong.' - what does that even mean?
Presumably, right.
Glad you agree with me that a vote for the Tories is a vote to die in debt.
'Not even wrong.' - what does that even mean?
Presumably, right.
Glad you agree with me that a vote for the Tories is a vote to die in debt.
2) Pay to go in a home not having to sell your home and only pay when you have more than £100k left.Not sure this is correct on the basis that I believed this was for people having care in their own homes, but this doesn't affect my point, which you are now confirming.
There are two systems on offer at this electionLooks like the Tories have just cottoned on to how toxic their proposals are - and have therefore U-turned. Albeit the basic point of 'dying in debt' remains, all they have done is capped the amount of debt (although they aren't actually telling us what that cap will be).
1) Pay to go in a home by having to sell your home until you only have £27k left.
2) Pay to go in a home not having to sell your home and only pay when you have more than £100k left.
As far as I'm aware all other parties position is to support the current system.
So if 'vote for the Tories is a vote to die in debt' then it follows that 'vote for anyone else and die bankrupt'.
Plenty in the Labour manifesto about raising taxes that will damage the economy, nationalisation, nothing about benefit cuts, and a leader who seems unable to condemn IRA bombings.
Vote Tory it might save the Labour Party because Corbyn is killing it.
Looks like the Tories have just cottoned on to how toxic their proposals are - and have therefore U-turned. Albeit the basic point of 'dying in debt' remains, all they have done is capped the amount of debt (although they aren't actually telling us what that cap will be).
So much for strong and stable leadership - come up with a policy on the back of a fag packet, fail to consult even the most senior ministers - announce in the manifesto - receive a storm of negative coverage - see poll lead drop by 10 points - U turn.
Its the same policy with a revision, no u-turn, one up for democracy.Of course it is a U-turn.
I think people will like to leave at least £100k to their families as opposed to £27k.Disingenuous in the extreme - the point about these proposals is that they incorporate the home as an asset for people who stay in their home and need care. And that is huge numbers of people. So they now have an asset floor of £100k including their home where previously they had an asset floor of £23k excluding their home. And given that for many people their home is far and away their largest asset that difference is huge.
Disingenuous in the extreme - the point about these proposals is that they incorporate the home as an asset for people who stay in their home and need care. And that is huge numbers of people. So they now have an asset floor of £100k including their home where previously they had an asset floor of £23k excluding their home. And given that for many people their home is far and away their largest asset that difference is huge.And there are far, far more elderly people still living in their own homes than those who are in residential care homes. Recent data suggests that just 16% of over 85-year olds are living in care homes, where the value of their home is currently considered. For the remaining 84% who are living in their own homes, or perhaps with children etc the proposals bring their home into consideration as an asset, when previously it wasn't.
Disingenuous in the extreme - the point about these proposals is that they incorporate the home as an asset for people who stay in their home and need care. And that is huge numbers of people. So they now have an asset floor of £100k including their home where previously they had an asset floor of £23k excluding their home. And given that for many people their home is far and away their largest asset that difference is huge.
But the debt issue is also critical. Under the current system no-one dies in debt due to the cost of their care. Under the proposals many people will do exactly that - die in debt, caused specifically by these proposals. And in some cases that debt will be passed on from one spouse to another. So if one half of a couple needs significant social care while one (or both) of the couple still live in their family home they will build up significant debt which will be passed on to the surviving member of the couple.
For many people it is a huge effort, and massively significant, to finally end up debt free after decades of mortgage payments. To reverse that position in the final few years of life will be simply horrifying to loads of people, many of whom would consider themselves to be, at least, small-c conservatives.
Now if you have to go in a home you would have to sell your home and be leaving your family with just £23k.But as I have pointed out the vast majority of the very elderly (over 85) aren't in care homes, but in their own home and often requiring care. It isn't the effect on those in homes that is so toxic, but those not in homes and who would want to stay in their own home even if they needed care. That's why it is so toxic - most elderly people are in their own homes, are likely to want to stay in their own home and recognise that they may need care in the future (even if they don't need it now).
I'd prefer to leave my children £100k than £23kAre you being deliberately dim - that isn't the option.
But as I have pointed out the vast majority of the very elderly (over 85) aren't in care homes, but in their own home and often requiring care. It isn't the effect on those in homes that is so toxic, but those not in homes and who would want to stay in their own home even if they needed care. That's why it is so toxic - most elderly people are in their own homes, are likely to want to stay in their own home and recognise that they may need care in the future (even if they don't need it now).
Are you being deliberately dim - that isn't the option.
The option (for the vast majority) is leaving £100k or £23k plus the value of their home. And with average house price currently at about £200k, that means leaving £100k or £223k.
Pretty big difference.
No you can't look at current populations in care homes and assume a small proportion end up in homes. How many of those that die from dementia end up in a home at the end of their lives?Again you are missing the point. Politically, this isn't just about what actually happens, but about perception. That why (for example) back in 2008 the Tories scared Brown out of a snap election by promising to raise inheritance tax threshold to £1M, which significantly shifted the polls. Not because loads of people would actually have benefited from a rise from £350k to £1M, but because people perceived that they might.
No you can't look at current populations in care homes and assume a small proportion end up in homes. How many of those that die from dementia end up in a home at the end of their lives?Very few I imagine - and very few overall.
No you can't look at current populations in care homes and assume a small proportion end up in homes. How many of those that die from dementia end up in a home at the end of their lives?Just found some data on this:
Its the same policy with a revision, no u-turn, one up for democracy. I think people will like to leave at least £100k to their families as opposed to £27k.why is it that you have a habit about asking what about something irrelevant? You need to control your use of the tu quoque.
Will Corbyn be condemning the IRA.
By the way what is the policy of Labour on Trident, they don't sound very convincing, maybe they are still waiting for Diane to do the Maths.
Its the same policy with a revision, no u-turn, one up for democracy. I think people will like to leave at least £100k to their families as opposed to £27k.
I'm sure they would, but when the the difference is being met by taxpayers, it's a bit hard to justify.In which case you can use the existing inheritance tax mechanism.
why is it that you have a habit about asking what about something irrelevant? You need to control your use of the tu quoque.Indeed - why on earth does he think it relevant to bring up Corbyn and the IRA when we are discussing the social care plans in the Tory manifesto.
Just found some data on this:
About 17% of people who die are in care homes at time of death - so the vast majority aren't.
But more tellingly from a political perspective when asked where people wanted to be when they died, 63% said 'at home', 28% wanted to die in a hospice, 8% in hospital and just 1% wanted to die in a care home. Yes, that's right, just 1%. People do not want to go into a home at the end of their lives - that's why this is so toxic - that desire to be able to stay in your own home at the end of your days in now dependent on that home, bit by bit, being given away. Currently that isn't the case. Surely you can see why this is a huge issue - people's desire's for the future are hugely important and any government that makes changes which makes it more difficult to attain that desire is going to find it politically tough.
Indeed - why on earth does he think it relevant to bring up Corbyn and the IRA when we are discussing the social care plans in the Tory manifesto.
We may well disagree with Corbyn on the IRA, but it is entirely irrelevant to the current discussion on social care.
If its not May we get Corbyn, I still don't know how to vote. It won't be Labour, I'm not actually that keen on May but what else is there.You are confused, you aren't voting for a PM.
If its not May we get Corbyn, I still don't know how to vote. It won't be Labour, I'm not actually that keen on May but what else is there.That is an entirely different point. We are discussing the Tories plans on social care.
I don't think that any of the teenage policy wonks that dreamt this one up have thought that far.
The practical way of doing it would be for the local authority to assume ownership of the house, sell it, and give the change to the dead person's beneficiaries,
I don't think that any of the teenage policy wonks that dreamt this one up have thought that far.
The practical way of doing it would be for the local authority to assume ownership of the house, sell it, and give the change to the dead person's beneficiaries,
Actually they had, they were going to use private companies to release the equity.
You are confused, you aren't voting for a PM.
On what basis you decide to vote is very much upto the voter.
In which case you can use the existing inheritance tax mechanism.I don't see what's wrong with asking people who can afford their upkeep to pay for their upkeep.
But the reality is that how much you are able to pass on is dependent on the nature of your ailments in later life and that seems inherently unfair.If you're actually ill, that's another matter. We have - or should have - the NHS for that.
Battle dementia for 15 years and you care will be considered social rather than medical care and you may end up only being able to pass on £100k, with the government taking the balancing half a million.So the issue is that dementia is a second class disease for some reason. Surely the right thing to do is recognise that dementia sufferers need healthcare from the NHS just as much as cancer sufferers - more so thinking about the few cases I've been close to.
This just seems unfair to me. At least with inheritance tax all are treated equally.Inheritance tax is a real problem. Apart from the fact that it is raised on income that has already been taxed once, it can cause real problems if the estate has a large portfolio of assets than cannot be easily liquidated.
Someone tweeted when these things happen the right get angry at the terrorists and the left get angry at the right.I know tweets are by their nature simplistic but that's a lot of stupid to pack into 140 characters. It also manages to disprove itself.
I don't really care about the idea that the actions of some murdering idiot in Manchester were somehow caused by a policy of murdering people we don't like. There's a sort of reverse You started It in it that seems just as childish. I don't want to stop people murdering in my name because it might cause someone to murder people here, I just want them to stop murdering people.
Someone tweeted when these things happen the right get angry at the terrorists and the left get angry at the right.Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the astonishing attacks on Corbyn and his ilk, linking his views on the IRC to the Manchester atrocities by a whole raft of right wing commentators in the media and on blogs. Don't forget that The Sun chose to retain a front page yesterday that focussed on attacking Corbyn for supporting terrorism (in their eyes) with the headline 'blood on his hands' well after they were aware of the events in Manchester.
Bizarre story about US intelligence leaking the name of the terrorist to the press. Who needs enemies, etc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/manchester-attack-us-leaks_us_592488f1e4b00c8df29f5622
It's a forlorn hope, but I really DO hope this obscenity in Manchester doesn't become a mini 'Falklands factor' for the governing party.
Not often I agree with Paul Nuttall but here I do. The 'suspension' of campaigning is a fiction anyway with the MSM coverage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40026416
Clearly you haven't been paying attention to the astonishing attacks on Corbyn and his ilk, linking his views on the IRC to the Manchester atrocities by a whole raft of right wing commentators in the media and on blogs. Don't forget that The Sun chose to retain a front page yesterday that focussed on attacking Corbyn for supporting terrorism (in their eyes) with the headline 'blood on his hands' well after they were aware of the events in Manchester.
And I'm no fan of Corbyn as you well know.
I think most people would feel very uncomfortable making political gain out of recent events.campaigning in the election is not making political gain out of Manchester.
I see the ghastly UKIP is to resume its election campaign today, no doubt they hope the dreadful events in Manchester will boost their chances. >:(As per the link already posted, it's tomorrow they are resuming campaigning. I see nothing wrong in that itself. The ongoing campaigning in the MSM with the narrative that Corbyn wants to blow up your children is making a mockery of any suspension.
What right wing commentators?When not here I spent some time on the political betting blog, which although not specifically a right wing blog has recently been predominantly so. Go check it out and see the level of anti left wing (and specifically anti Corbyn inner circle) posting linking him to Manchester.
The Mail & Sun are trash rags, don't tell me some on the left don't do the same thing.But you (in your usual someone told me way) were implying that it was the left predominantly blaming the right on this - I'm not saying that doesn't happen but I see no evidence that it is tipped that way, quite the reverse I'm seeing far more right wing comment linking Corbyn to Manchester (typically about comments made decades ago about the IRA) compared to left wing comments that might just be asking whether Home Secretary Amber Rudd and her predecessor (one T May) might need to answer some questions about failure of the security services to keep teenage girls safe when the bomber (at the least) was on their radar.
When not here I spent some time on the political betting blog, which although not specifically a right wing blog has recently been predominantly so. Go check it out and see the level of anti left wing (and specifically anti Corbyn inner circle) posting linking him to Manchester.
Then go check out Guido - probably the most high profile right wing blogger around at the moment.
But you (in your usual someone told me way) were implying that it was the left predominantly blaming the right on this - I'm not saying that doesn't happen but I see no evidence that it is tipped that way, quite the reverse I'm seeing far more right wing comment linking Corbyn to Manchester (typically about comments made decades ago about the IRA) compared to left wing comments that might just be asking whether Home Secretary Amber Rudd and her predecessor (one T May) might need to answer some questions about failure of the security services to keep teenage girls safe when the bomber (at the least) was on their radar.
I'm not aware of any senior left leaning politician being unequivocal in their condemnation of the terrorists.
"This is an appalling act of violence against people and it must be totally and unreservedly and completely condemned."
I'm not aware of any senior left leaning politician being unequivocal in their condemnation of the terrorists.What on earth are you on about.
Likewise Andy Burnham
Jeremy Corbyn on Manchester attack:
That sounds pretty unequivocal to me.
Likewise Andy Burnham
http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/23/manchester-bombing-was-evil-attack-targeting-children-andy-burnham-says-6654837/
Or Sadiq Khan
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/24/londoners-share-manchester-heartbreak-crush-home-grown-extremism
I stated I had seen a tweet which said with regard to acts of terrorism that the right get angry at the terrorists and the left get angry at the right.Why state that you'd seen it unless you think there is something in it. It is the oldest trick in the book - to say something but kind of claim that you were only saying what someone else had said.
Why state that you'd seen it unless you think there is something in it. It is the oldest trick in the book - to say something but kind of claim that you were only saying what someone else had said.The bizarre thing about both the tweet and jakswan's posting in relation to it disprove it. The tweet attempts to portray the 'left' as at fault, I.e. it is angry at them, and jakswan's provably wrong assertion about the equivocation from senior left figures is also an indication of misguided anger at the 'left'.
People who make capital out of the terrible event of Monday are beyond belief! >:(If you mean by that political capital, it seems to me impossible to avoid in some ways. If you honestly think that multiculturalism is a bad thing and see the attack as in part the result then in saying so, you are only putting your opinion forward.
What on earth are you on about.
I'm not aware of any senior left leaning politician being anything other than unequivocal in their condemnation.
So to start with - the first politician I heard making any statement was Andy Burnham - you know the left leaning Mayor of Greater Manchester. Can you point out where he was anything other than unequivocal in his condemnation of the attack?
The bizarre thing about both the tweet and jakswan's posting in relation to it disprove it. The tweet attempts to portray the 'left' as at fault, I.e. it is angry at them, and jakswan's provably wrong assertion about the equivocation from senior left figures is also an indication of misguided anger at the 'left'.
Nicola Sturgeon on the bombing
No it was merely badly phrased. The original tweet I thought was merely interesting.
Fair enough. Though i found the tweet groaningly tedious
Don't know how many times I've told you, she ain't left mate. :)
No it was merely badly phrased. The original tweet I thought was merely interesting.In what way was it interesting?
Bizarre story about US intelligence leaking the name of the terrorist to the press. Who needs enemies, etc.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/manchester-attack-us-leaks_us_592488f1e4b00c8df29f5622
Fair enough. Though i found the tweet groaningly tediousI found that tweet to be completely the reverse of what I am seeing.
I found that tweet to be completely the reverse of what I am seeing.
Unfortunate lack of use of double negative, I meant to say they have all been unequivocal, well apart from the one I linked to who isn't a senior anyway.Fair enough - but that's one hell of an error.
Fair enough - but that's one hell of an error.Errmm much as I disagree with jakswan, I don't think he comes across as a right wing troll.
And to note - increasingly recently you've been coming over as a bit of a right wing troll - which is probably why I and others thought you actually meant what you had written, rather than being perplexed and checking whether it was what you actually meant to say.
Was it May who cut police numbers by quite a large amount? Oops, sorry, playing politics with Manchester now.Yes, I don't see how you can have a useful discussion about what we should do without being open to the charge. I think sometimes people who say other's are playing politics, may actually be playing politics.
Errmm much as I disagree with jakswan, I don't think he comes across as a right wing troll.He's getting there - on the spectrum so to speak - hence 'increasingly recently you've been coming over as a bit of a right wing troll'.
He's getting there - on the spectrum so to speak - hence 'increasingly recently you've been coming over as a bit of a right wing troll'.Isn't that like coming across as a bit pregnant? I don't see any troll like posting from jakswan.
Isn't that like coming across as a bit pregnant? I don't see any troll like posting from jakswan.No I don't think so - you aren't just troll or not-troll, there are gradations.
No I don't think so - you aren't just troll or not-troll, there are gradations.
'The vice-chair of Stroud Labour Party has tweeted that the Manchester terror attack is “wonderful timing for Theresa May“.'
'Will Corbyn be condemning the IRA.' - in reply to a post about Tory social care proposals.
'By the way what is the policy of Labour on Trident, they don't sound very convincing, maybe they are still waiting for Diane to do the Maths.' - in reply to a post about Tory social care proposals.
'Plenty in the Labour manifesto about raising taxes that will damage the economy, nationalisation, nothing about benefit cuts, and a leader who seems unable to condemn IRA bombings.' - in reply to a post about Tory social care proposals.
'Getting my popcorn ready for the post election Labour bloodbath, suspect JC isn't going to resign, the centre-left will be openly hostile'
'It irks the sneering Labour fanboys.'
All rather right wing troll-ish.
Gradations of trollosity - who knew?Oh all flavours and varieties exist.
And to note - increasingly recently you've been coming over as a bit of a right wing troll - which is probably why I and others thought you actually meant what you had written, rather than being perplexed and checking whether it was what you actually meant to say.
I think there are people who turn it on and off - I mean, their trolling. I've met quite a few, I don't know about jakswan. I suppose you recognize trolling as the attempt to emotionally upset people, or wind them up, rather than communicate an idea? Is that it?I don't see any of the cited posts from jakswan as attempts to upset people emotionally. This seems similar to the idea of not making political capital out of Manchester, any opinion could be argued to be making political capital or trolling
Really a right wing troll?That is increasingly how you come across to me, and it does you no favours.
So I disagree with you I must be a troll right?Nope - there are plenty of people who disagree with me here - that doesn't mean they come across as a bit of a right wing troll.
I think you have been drinking the Corbyn kool aid and forgotten where the middle is.There you go again. And I think you are well aware that I was a Labour party member, that I voted for everyone else but him in the first leadership election, and I left the party because of his leadership.
The social care policy as it was I thought was extremely progressive, she has changed it to favour the richest.Then why were you unable to have a reasoned discussion about the Tory policy without resorting to completely irrelevant comments about Corbyn:
Her position on fox hunting makes me want to throw up.Good - but that doesn't absolve you from your other comments.
No once Brexit is done I'm rejoining the LibDems thanks.Really - perhaps they won't have you, given your views on Brexit.
I don't see any of the cited posts from jakswan as attempts to upset people emotionally. This seems similar to the idea of not making political capital out of Manchester, any opinion could be argued to be making political capital or trolling
I'm not all that sure about it. Sarcasm is a case in point, as I think you said, as it can wind people up, but it's not trolling. I recognize it when I see it, like I recognize a right-wing bitch! Ha ha ha.Where is the sarcasm in saying:
I'm not all that sure about it. Sarcasm is a case in point, as I think you said, as it can wind people up, but it's not trolling. I recognize it when I see it, like I recognize a right-wing bitch! Ha ha ha.While definitions are not prescriptive, it might be useful to look at what trolling is stated to be:
Where is the sarcasm in saying:it's an irrelevant tu quoque and a bad argument. Still don't see how it is trolling though.
'Will Corbyn be condemning the IRA.'
In response to points about Tory social care policy. There isn't any - merely an attempt to irritate by going off topic to make a point based on a perceived left wing political stance by the poster (which is of course misplace, if he thinks I'm a supporter of Corbyn).
That is increasingly how you come across to me, and it does you no favours.
Nope - there are plenty of people who disagree with me here - that doesn't mean they come across as a bit of a right wing troll.
There you go again. And I think you are well aware that I was a Labour party member, that I voted for everyone else but him in the first leadership election, and I left the party because of his leadership.
Then why were you unable to have a reasoned discussion about the Tory policy without resorting to completely irrelevant comments about Corbyn:
'Will Corbyn be condemning the IRA.'
'By the way what is the policy of Labour on Trident, they don't sound very convincing, maybe they are still waiting for Diane to do the Maths.'
'Plenty in the Labour manifesto about raising taxes that will damage the economy, nationalisation, nothing about benefit cuts, and a leader who seems unable to condemn IRA bombings.'
Classic troll-ism.
Really - perhaps they won't have you, given your views on Brexit.
Good - but that doesn't absolve you from your other comments.
I see the ghastly UKIP is to resume its election campaign today, no doubt they hope the dreadful events in Manchester will boost their chances. >:(
Inheritance tax is a real problem. Apart from the fact that it is raised on income that has already been taxed once ...That's simply not the case - it is a myth that inheritance tax is somehow double taxation.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40053427What do you think was wrong about his speech?
Corbyn hasn't done himself, or his party, any favours with his latest speech!
What do you think was wrong about his speech?
In the light of the atrocity Manchester it is crass to say the very least.in what way? Seems to me knowing what we should do about Manchester and why it happened would be important to talk about in the midst of a general election. Again I ask what do you think was wrong about what he actually said?
Farron is being a fool because his candle might go out or something.;D
I think in the report Johnson is lying to avoid the possible issues of govt policy and Farron is being a fool because his candle might go out or something. Disagreeing with Corbyn would be good, telling the voters what you think should happen, hurrah, but this 'Don't talk to me about Manchester' is drivel. I just suspect that in Johnson's case it is deliberate lying whereas Farron is trying not to do hard politics.
If you can't discuss terrorism - possible causes and solutions - when a terrorist atrocity has occurred - eh? How does that work? We are supposed to pretend that it hasn't happened.Well Farron just wants us all to be sad, while Johnson and Wallace don't want any questions asked, questions affect strongosity and the stableness.
Yes, Mrs May is now regally in charge, and looking very imposing in Downing St. And you must not ask about cuts to the police, as that is actually unpatriotic, and characteristic of terrorist lovers. And any more mention of dementia taxes will be treated with the disdain that is deserves. We have spoken, we have decided, and we do not have a grandchild.You mentioned police cuts, you are wigginhall, the terrorist apologist, no, sympathesiser, no, just terrorist! Get him, get him everyone for being an evil! We cannot allow discussion otherwise babies will all be feed to the nasty brown peoples spiraliser and served up as bacon bits!
I think Corbyn has every right to talk about Manchester. As the Guardian reporter said on daily politics there isn't any policy emerging from what he said just more hand wringing.
As Andy Burnham more or less said 'I don't want this to be about Islam' sums up Labour.
Does it sum up Labour? In what way? And surely the reversal of police cuts is a policy? And what did he actually say?
Former MP and Labour minister Tom Harris has criticised the speech today by Jeremy Corbyn - linking Britain's involvement in wars overseas with terror attacks at home - saying that that he had "grave reservations" both on the tone and content of what Mr Corbyn was saying.
Mr Harris said: "He has spoken a great deal about the culpability of the West which is a theme which he has pursued for the last 30 years and he has said nothing at all about Islamism which is actually the root cause of domestic and international terrorism.
"I think he is buying into the Islamist agenda entirely."
He doesn't want it to be about Islam yet in part it is, an extreme interpretation of it. It sums up Labour in my view as idealism / realism, e.g. you can try to tax the rich more but they will end up leaving, you can raise corporation tax but receipts will fall.
Source BBC
He doesn't want it to be about Islam yet in part it is, an extreme interpretation of it. It sums up Labour in my view as idealism / realism, e.g. you can try to tax the rich more but they will end up leaving, you can raise corporation tax but receipts will fall.The economy needs rebalanced. You can't have the majority continually working more for less and a minority getting more for less and stashing. The rich will always be with us since your belief that the rich are specially gifted or even specially virtuous. They will leave an economic niche.
Source BBC
Is it? I mean I could think that things are slightly more complex than something happening in a vacuum. Also surely the paraphrase of whatever he did say, implies that he doesn't want it only to be about Islam, I.e. he might think it is more complex, something which by your 'In part' you show you actually agree with.
As to you point on taxation, you seem to be implying that the Laffer curve is actually a straight line (as well as being a simplistic piece of nonsense) so that the maximum tax raised will be at the lowest if all tax rates. I doubt you meant to imply that so I'm not sure what your point is.
And dear old Tom Harris, did you mean to use a quote from a particular Labour politician to show that something which you claim is what Labour is all about is obviously then untrue.
And to note also it's a misrepresentation of Corbyn's actual condemnation.
BTW did you miss the question on police cuts, and what Burnham actually said?
It was the impression I took from what he said, that impression sums up Labour, I see them currently as overly idealistic.Your post implies that it isn't complex, the IFS make an estimate, they are more accepting of the Laffer curve than I am but I still don't know how they are sure where they are in it.
No its complex, the IFS said there is a £9billion gap in Labours plans based on their using their own optimistic analysis.
https://www.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7e-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7
More police is foreign policy?
The economy needs rebalanced. You can't have the majority continually working more for less and a minority getting more for less and stashing. The rich will always be with us since your belief that the rich are specially gifted or even specially virtuous.
They will leave an economic niche.
having a big cake is OK, augmenting one proportionate to talent with other peoples cake not OK.
You asked about policy not foreign policy specifically. However I would think that not selling arms and not supporting SA would be such.
It would, is that Labour policy?I think it is certainly what is implies and a further emphasis on that is what is being pushed by Corbyn in the speech, which the Foreign Secretary of the Govt that was touting its wares to the Saudi's thought was somehow disgusting even to be talking about.
I think it is certainly what is implies and a further emphasis on that is what is being pushed by Corbyn in the speech, which the Foreign Secretary of the Govt that was touting its wares to the Saudi's thought was somehow disgusting even to be talking about.
I checked its in the manifesto.It's sort of like a guessing game, first we started at policy, and that was reversing the police cuts, then it was foreign policy and that was covered by Arms and support for SA, so now it's about terrorism. Isn't what you do about terrorism a mix of home and foreign policy?
We are talking about this as I posted:-
As the Guardian reporter said on daily politics there isn't any policy emerging from what he said just more hand wringing.
In full context the reporter was talking about how Labour would deal with the issue of terrorism.
It's sort of like a guessing game, first we started at policy, and that was reversing the police cuts, then it was foreign policy and that was covered by Arms and support for SA, so now it's about terrorism. Isn't what you do about terrorism a mix of home and foreign policy?
My husband and I have voted, we have a postal vote, the forms arrived yesterday and were posted this morning.
SO have you gone for the war-mongering, feather nesting, dementia taxing, austerity loving, weak & wobbly candidate?
UKIP of course, HA! HA!
Oh so you have voted Conservative then?
I don't see how ... increasing the police deals with terrorism.Err because police are at the front line of community policing which is key in detecting radicalisation and in uncovering terrorist plots. The less police you have the more likely one plot will slip through the net.
My husband and I have voted, we have a postal vote, the forms arrived yesterday and were posted this morning.That must have been what the drumroll and fanfare were all about then.
Really?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40069110
Err because police are at the front line of community policing which is key in detecting radicalisation and in uncovering terrorist plots. The less police you have the more likely one plot will slip through the net.
I think that is handled by counter intelligence, there are already too many radicals for them to track.The police play an absolutely critical role too - less police, less opportunities to foil a plot.
The police play an absolutely critical role too - less police, less opportunities to foil a plot.
I don't agree since all plots foiled have been done by counter terrorism units afaik, but think the police have been cut too much so its a good policy to increase numbers.Don't be ridiculous - the police play a critical and vital role from beginning to end in terms of prevention of terrorism. Right from their engagement with local communities where they may be the first to become aware of an issue of radicalisation, through to literally being present as an incident unfolds to prevent or reduce its impact. Don't forget that in the Westminster bridge incident it was police officers, not counter terrorism, that prevented the terrorist getting any further than he did.
Don't be ridiculous - the police play a critical and vital role from beginning to end in terms of prevention of terrorism. Right from their engagement with local communities where they may be the first to become aware of an issue of radicalisation, through to literally being present as an incident unfolds to prevent or reduce its impact. Don't forget that in the Westminster bridge incident it was police officers, not counter terrorism, that prevented the terrorist getting any further than he did.
Yes she did but should we judge her on things she said many years ago or on her record as a very good MP?
I don't feel the same way about many issues as I did when I was a teenager in the 1970s but no-one's gonna quote me.
The stupid woman should have said categorically she was wrong back then, where the Irish situation is concerned. But she gave the impression she still felt the same about the issue. She certainly isn't doing Labour any favours as this is the second botched interview she has given. They should lock her in the cupboard until the election is over so she doesn't do them anymore damage.
The stupid woman should have said categorically she was wrong back then, where the Irish situation is concerned. But she gave the impression she still felt the same about the issue. She certainly isn't doing Labour any favours as this is the second botched interview she has given. They should lock her in the cupboard until the election is over so she doesn't do them anymore damage.
I thought the social care policy was a very progressive system but now will favour the richest keeping their wealth.I don't think it was progressive, because a progressive tax and welfare system takes account not just the ability to pay tax but the need for support. The whole notion of a progressive tax and welfare system is that we all pay for the costs of welfare via the taxation system according to out ability to pay (i.e. wealth), but we receive benefit on the basis of need, regardless of our wealth.
I don't think it was progressive, because a progressive tax and welfare system takes account not just the ability to pay tax but the need for support. The whole notion of a progressive tax and welfare system is that we all pay for the costs of welfare via the taxation system according to out ability to pay (i.e. wealth), but we receive benefit on the basis of need, regardless of our wealth.
The proposed system didn't do that as whether or not you retained your wealth was based on the lottery of need of social care, rather than purely on wealth. So if you are unlucky enough to have significant need due to dementia you lose all your wealth - if you are lucky enough not to need the care, you retain your wealth.
Equate that to medical need - effectively what the proposals were suggesting was the equivalent of being diagnosed with cancer and being told that because you are wealthy, you'll have to pay for all your medical need until most of your wealth has gone, then and only then would you get it for free on the NHS. I sure we'd all be horrified at that notion, but that's what was being proposed (and actually is the case already).
We do need a debate about social care, but I didn't think the proposals were the right answer. I think we need to accept the basic principles of a progressive tax and welfare system and therefore accept that we all pay in according to our wealth (regardless of whether or not we will need the social care), in other words we are all sharing the risk. And then ensure that the social care is provided on the basis of need.
And the best way to raise the additional money needed would be on a significant increase in inheritance tax, which is currently way too low. For many people who inherit they can get a un-earned windfall of up to £650k completely tax free. How much tax would you pay on that income if you actually earned it - probably about £150k.
Rich people pay a lot of tax! I've no objection to anyone keeping what they have earned or own. I AM NOT RICH but amnot resentful of the rich & if I suddenly found myself to be rich I'd be happy to pay tax up to a point, as do now, but would fiercely protect any excess! So would most of us. Especially when we know the government doesn't spend taxes as we would like.
Except the rich have ways of hiding their wealth. Really trust me on this.
The people who look like being squeezed are the already squeezed middle - and I think they are perhaps just waking up to the fact that they are being played and have been for many a long year.
Incidentally I have a real problem when people say that rich people have earned their money. How exactly. They've been paid it yes, but earned it, how?
How do footballers earn the sums they earn, or some pop musicians or indeed husbands of PM's. We have to really define what we mean when we use the term earn. Because sometimes it looks much more akin to extortion than to anything as honest as 'earning'.
Some people say Theresa May has lost some support since after the bomb blast. Is this true do you think?
We can live in hope but I don't see how the Manchester bombing will affect Theresa May's popularity. Whether people like her or not they can't blame her for that act of terrorism, it would have happened whoever was PM.
(Btw I looked up Theresa May's husband, Philip, he has a well established career in finance& is independently wealthy so needs no support from her in his role as husband of the Prime Minister.)
We can live in hope but I don't see how the Manchester bombing will affect Theresa May's popularity. Whether people like her or not they can't blame her for that act of terrorism, it would have happened whoever was PM.I think that is being somewhat simplistic.
I think that is being somewhat simplistic.
The security services clearly missed the bomber - they were warned on at least 3 separate occasions by members of his community about him 5 years ago and again a year ago. Yet it would appear that little was done to monitor him, certainly not enough to prevent successfully developing and using a bomb.
MI5 have recognised that there were failures and have announced a review of their procedures. The operation of MI5 is ultimately the responsibility of the Home Secretary, and eventually the PM. And guess what, one person has been in one or other of those role through the entire period where there were failures to act on warnings received from the public - that person is one T May.
The public aren't stupid - they recognise that just about the primary responsibility of government is to keep them safe and they failed to do so in this case. And this is different to some previous cases where the perpetrator was a 'lone wolf' type, under the radar and not noticed by him community as a thread, and therefore security services were never warned and aware.
Some people say Theresa May has lost some support since after the bomb blast. Is this true do you think?
First of all, the real question is about Tory popularity. While there was an attempt to make this some form of Presidential election by the Tories to start with, it isn't though some such as jakswan and gonnagle on here seem confused enough to think it is. It would be an incorrect but at least arguable notion with some form of proportional electoral system but under FPTP, it's simply wrong.
Further evidence of this lack of thinking and planning comes from the calling of the election, already being done for purely party reasons and on the basis of a lie,
reducing the Labour Party to a rump.
A well thought out post, few issues though.
On what basis you vote is up to the voter. I might not like Corbyn but think actually on balance more Labour MPs might be a good result for the country, you love Corbyn and base your vote on that basis.
Disagree could see the Lords blocking progress of Brexit now won't be able to due to the fact it is in Manifesto.
No I don't think so, they might have changed their mind but the Tories were delighted with Corbyn as they saw him as an easy target. If Labour get very low seats then Corbyn has to go, he has run a great campaign so far and will now likely stay.
Will reply in more detail later but on the vote issue...
Votes can be used for many things. How much air time you get on the media, in debates, if you stay on as leader, etc.
Sorry, this reads as a non sequitur as it reads as if your single vote determines these things which it obviously doesn't.
Possibly though that would be easily remedied and they hadn't lost a vote. It also doesn't stop it being on the basis of a lie, I.e. that of May saying she wouldn't. Though that lie may have occurred due to the possible threat of having to hold by elections because of electoral spending fraud.
Except that makes no logical sense. If you think Corbyn is awful, and you have a twenty point lead in the polls, you are calling an election, you aren't thinking that the Labour Party are going to do OK.
So when Sturgeon said 'one in a generation' she was lying, blumin heck I said I didn't want a coffee to the missus earlier then changed my mind, I was lying?What has anything that Sturgeon, Trump or King Dial the best dressed man in Barbados got to do with May's lie?
The Tories thought Corbyn was awful and had a vested interest in him staying on, given the way he has performed I have no doubt they no longer think that.
No single vote determines anything, it counts for many things not just electing one MP.
I think that is being somewhat simplistic.Since 7/7 there have been three successful terrorist attacks which, to me suggests that the security services have been pretty successful. There's no such thing as perfect protection from terrorism - suicide bombers in particular - you have to accept that occasionally you will fail. Then you must learn from your mistakes and start again. What you shouldn't do is go round claiming our security services are not fit for purpose. That kind of panic is useless and even counter productive.
The security services clearly missed the bomber - they were warned on at least 3 separate occasions by members of his community about him 5 years ago and again a year ago. Yet it would appear that little was done to monitor him, certainly not enough to prevent successfully developing and using a bomb.
MI5 have recognised that there were failures and have announced a review of their procedures. The operation of MI5 is ultimately the responsibility of the Home Secretary, and eventually the PM. And guess what, one person has been in one or other of those role through the entire period where there were failures to act on warnings received from the public - that person is one T May.
The public aren't stupid - they recognise that just about the primary responsibility of government is to keep them safe and they failed to do so in this case. And this is different to some previous cases where the perpetrator was a 'lone wolf' type, under the radar and not noticed by him community as a thread, and therefore security services were never warned and aware.
I think most of the public will be laying the blame for Manchester solely on the terrorist.I think you are being overly simplistic and I think most of the public recognise this to be more complex than you imply.
Its the responsibility of the government to fund MI5 and Parliament to pass legalisation to keep us all safe.So you are accepting that there is a role (and therefore a responsibility) of MI5 to prevent crime of this sort. In which case you seem to be agreeing with my point above. And if there have been failures on the part of the security services (and I think most people accept there have, as the bomber was known to the security services) then it is perfectly reasonable to ask questions (which is being done as there is a review announced). And that review shouldn't focus solely on the security services and police, but also on their ultimate 'masters' - the government, specifically as to whether the inability to track the terrorist following warnings from the public was linked to lack of resources.
Since 7/7 there have been three successful terrorist attacks which, to me suggests that the security services have been pretty successful. There's no such thing as perfect protection from terrorism - suicide bombers in particular - you have to accept that occasionally you will fail. Then you must learn from your mistakes and start again. What you shouldn't do is go round claiming our security services are not fit for purpose. That kind of panic is useless and even counter productive.I have never said they aren't fit for purpose. But we have to ask questions.
Since 7/7 there have been three successful terrorist attacks which, to me suggests that the security services have been pretty successful. There's no such thing as perfect protection from terrorism - suicide bombers in particular - you have to accept that occasionally you will fail. Then you must learn from your mistakes and start again. What you shouldn't do is go round claiming our security services are not fit for purpose. That kind of panic is useless and even counter productive.
Not just legitimate but required.
I think it is perfectly legitimate to ask why the security services failed to prevent this attack,
and to do so does not spread panic,That depends on how you ask the question. If you start by saying the security services are not fit for purpose, you might induce panic.
but recognises that sometimes challenging questions have to be asked and unless they are we won't be able to keep people in Britain as safe as they could be.There's a trade off between personal freedom and personal safety. If I want to live in a society where I don't have to account for my every movement or every post I make on line, or every web page I download, I have to accept it comes with a slight cost to my personal safety.
What has anything that Sturgeon, Trump or King Dial the best dressed man in Barbados got to do with May's lie?
In the same sense as a butterfly's wing wave contributes to a hurricane. In a FPTP election, your voting for the PM in most constituencies is a factual error.
A lie is to say something that you know to be untrue, changing your mind is something else. The social policy u-turn was a lie, changing her mind on an election I do not think was.Then she was incompetent, as well as acting for purely party political reasons, in calling an election that is a waste of time and money.
When there are millions of voters that applies to every election. Again I was basing my vote on the fact that I used to think May would be the better leader, I'm now basing it on who I think has the best policies, Labour.Except there aren't millions of votes in each constituency in FPTP and the total number of votes is not generally even known by people or used by people in arguing for anything. As I asked earlier if I wanted Corbyn to be PM but was in a constituency that was between the Lib Dems and the Tories, who should I vote for?
So you are accepting that there is a role (and therefore a responsibility) of MI5 to prevent crime of this sort. In which case you seem to be agreeing with my point above. And if there have been failures on the part of the security services (and I think most people accept there have, as the bomber was known to the security services) then it is perfectly reasonable to ask questions (which is being done as there is a review announced). And that review shouldn't focus solely on the security services and police, but also on their ultimate 'masters' - the government, specifically as to whether the inability to track the terrorist following warnings from the public was linked to lack of resources.
Then she was incompetent, as well as acting for purely party political reasons, in calling an election that is a waste of time and money.
BTW how is that an answer to the question in the post you replied to?
Except there aren't millions of votes in each constituency in FPTP and the total number of votes is not generally even known by people or used by people in arguing for anything. As I asked earlier if I wanted Corbyn to be PM but was in a constituency that was between the Lib Dems and the Tories, who should I vote for?
You were claiming May lied with regard to election, I think she changed her mind. There were 13 votes against the snap election.And none of that is an answer to the question in the post you were replying to either.
It is your vote you decide.It's a hypothetical vote using the generic you/one, which reminds me you didn't answer the earlier question about your use of you in your post where you used the phrase 'you love Corbyn...', would it be possible for to pick that up?
I think a review is fine. With regard to lack of resources for MI5, I've not heard that raised, curious why other parties have not raised it either, I presume because they do not think it is an issue.Prevention of terrorism required coordinated action by a range of agencies, crucially including the police. There has been concern raised that cuts to police numbers was making their job in preventing terrorism more difficult. Indeed this point was raised at the Police Federation’s annual conference in 2015, directly to Theresa May - then Home Secretary:
Pointing out failings seems less panic-ky to me, then arguing we shouldn't point out failings. Worse to me here is not so much any issues with the reporting as they may be mistakes as you note but rather that we have a habitual policy for the last few years of supporting the enemy of our enemy in the naive and foolish assumption that they are or might remain our friend. It would appear in the case of the murderer in Manchester that we may have been supportive of the radicalization because it would make him the enemy of our enemy. This sort of realpolitik would be bad enough ethically if we were good at it.
I note that jakswan talked earlier of 9/11 happening without intervention in Afghanistan, which is odd given our one onetime support of Osama Bin Laden.
And none of that is an answer to the question in the post you were replying to either.
It's a hypothetical vote using the generic you/one, which reminds me you didn't answer the earlier question about your use of you in your post where you used the phrase 'you love Corbyn...', would it be possible for to pick that up?
Prevention of terrorism required coordinated action by a range of agencies, crucially including the police. There has been concern raised that cuts to police numbers was making their job in preventing terrorism more difficult. Indeed this point was raised at the Police Federation’s annual conference in 2015, directly to Theresa May - then Home Secretary:
http://metro.co.uk/2017/05/25/theresa-may-accused-police-of-scaremongering-over-spending-cuts-6660878/
Scroll down and watch the video of an officer from the Greater Manchester police stating that the loss of community policing meant that on the ground intelligence necessary for prevention of terrorism was become almost non-existent due to police cuts.
The police are not a political party, I've checked Labour manifesto, no mention of terrorism with regard to increase in Police numbers.And there was me thinking that Labour had committed in their manifesto to increase police numbers by 10,000 with a focus on community policing, exactly the type of policing that is critical to countering radicalisation and gaining the intelligence necessary to counter terrorism.
Again, it isn't a Presidential election. What would happen next would be dependent on the numbers of MPs. Currently it is both Tory AND Labour policy to proceed with Brexit though the negotiations would likely take a different path if Labour were to form a govt.
So...if May loses this election...what are the options for Brexit? Withdraw the application? Another referendum?!!!
Note it could well be possible for the Tories to lose their majority and still be by far the largest party in which case they would be asked to form a govt.Indeed - the Tories would have to do catastrophically to fail to be the largest party. Prior to dissolution the Tories held 331 seats, compared to 229 for Labour.
Indeed - the Tories would have to do catastrophically to fail to be the largest party. Prior to dissolution the Tories held 331 seats, compared to 229 for Labour.Indeed, the only way for that not to happen in that case would be for some Tories to resign the whip and function as independents in a bizarre rainbow coalition. I would suspect that the Tories would need to lose at least 35 seats directly to Labour for there to be any real chance, and even then a slim one, of an alternative govt.
Yet, in a deeply dishonest manner the Tories have a (gone viral) video out claiming that 'This man (i.e. Corbyn) is only 6 seats away from being Prime Minister'.
If Corbyn gained 6 seats from the Tories Labour would be on 235 seats and the Tories 325 - under those circumstance it is almost certain that the Tories would form the next government.
Indeed, the only way for that not to happen in that case would be for some Tories to resign the whip and function as independents in a bizarre rainbow coalition. I would suspect that the Tories would need to lose at least 35 seats directly to Labour for there to be any real chance, and even then a slim one, of an alternative govt.We're fucked then.
We're fucked then.If the Tories lose any seats though there is a greater chance that some of the worst aspects might get watered down. They need to lose about 15 for there to be much chance of any significant changes to policy getting through e g. A reversal to the rapeclause. So to some extent there are gradations of fucked.
Indeed, the only way for that not to happen in that case would be for some Tories to resign the whip and function as independents in a bizarre rainbow coalition. I would suspect that the Tories would need to lose at least 35 seats directly to Labour for there to be any real chance, and even then a slim one, of an alternative govt.I'm still struggling to see how the Tories could achieve anything other than an increase in the size of their majority.
Oh dear, I thought he did great on Sky as well.Yep, certainly not his finest hour. Still he didn't lie, make up figures, or talk about a policy that didn't have any figures.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40090520
I'm still struggling to see how the Tories could achieve anything other than an increase in the size of their majority.
I know they have seen their lead shrink over the course of the campaign, but all that is really doing is moving from overwhelming landslide territory, to solid comfortable majority territory.
Don't disagree. The one thing would be if the polls narrowed further there is still thought to be an advantage to Labour in the current electoral map, so a close result could where Labour get slightly less votes e.g. within about 2.5% could still see them with the most seats. At this time, I don't see it getting that close but even were the polls to slow down in terms of the move to Labour but continue with that trend, it could be interesting.I think the seat advantage to Labour on equal vote share that we used to accept is no longer the case. If fact the reverse os now true. This is in part due to the wipe out in Scotland, so Labour used to end up with a very efficient vote share/seats outcome in Scotland, but that is now completely reversed, where in 2015 they polled nearly 25% of the vote in Scotland, but won just a single seat.
My own suspicion is that the Tories will get about 370 seats, giving them a majority of pretty near 100 but it's a very weird election, and it would be easy to be very wrong.
I think the seat advantage to Labour on equal vote share that we used to accept is no longer the case. If fact the reverse os now true. This is in part due to the wipe out in Scotland, so Labour used to end up with a very efficient vote share/seats outcome in Scotland, but that is now completely reversed, where in 2015 they polled nearly 25% of the vote in Scotland, but won just a single seat.
So, for example if you put both Tories and Labour on 40% of the vote, electoral calculus predicts Tories winning 323 seats and Labour on 248.
Ah, thanks for that. I have to say that would be an interesting set of assumptions about where the extra 11% of votes would go.I put in
Having gone to the site I see they have added a tactical voting feature. Playing with it.
Corbyn couldn't say how much childcare policy would cost.Pretty incompetent, surely they should all have learned by now that when you make a spending commitment you need to be able to say:
Pretty incompetent, surely they should all have learned by now that when you make a spending commitment you need to be able to say:But Labour have been far better at being up front with costings than the tories. Obviously the majority will take the hypocritical line of not only forgiving the tories but switching on the blame for labour for a lesser failure.
1. How much it will cost
2. Where that extras money is going to come from
Pretty incompetent, surely they should all have learned by now that when you make a spending commitment you need to be able to say:
1. How much it will cost
2. Where that extras money is going to come from
..
Note this does give more credibility to jakswan's position that thr Tories coukd get a good majority and not fatally damage Corbyn.Yes I agree with that - and it is my nightmare scenario and one that I'm becoming more and more convinced will happen.
I don't think the policy lacked this in this case thougb you can argue that the second may not be correct. Rather Corbyn couldn't recall the figure.Yes and this will be trumpeted by the BBC and the media to gloss over May's performance on TV
Yes I agree with that - and it is my nightmare scenario and one that I'm becoming more and more convinced will happen.
Yes I agree with that - and it is my nightmare scenario and one that I'm becoming more and more convinced will happen.There is a dilemma here but surely not a nightmare. Corbyn I would imagine would not fight 2022. Labour could not reverse Corbyn's policies on the grounds of unpopularity and I would imagine that there would be a Corbynite successor. On the other hand the conservatives and the press have a record of neutralizing the labour right.
Surely though the only other likely alternative is a Tory landslide of such proportions that no Labour leader no matter how good would be able to recover from unless the economy tanked to the extent that we were all livng in caves?or all taking it up the cave?
I don't get involved in any political arguments on this forum. My vote is my own, and it will remain that way.
However,this appeared on Facebook and I strongly suggest that anyone interested in the 2017 election, should look at this:
https://www.facebook.com/181304265697578/photos/a.181472865680718.1073741828.181304265697578/181472849014053/?type=1&theater
Be interested in hearing your views.
Mmm really?What were we supposed to draw from this?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-general-election-christian-fundamentalism-gay-exorcism-homophobia-abortion-a7762561.html
What were we supposed to draw from this?That the vicar's daughter is content to appear to support homophobia
That the vicar's daughter is content to appear to support homophobiaYes but this is the great test for Conservative gays isn't it......... as well as any Conservative who holds other positions which don't chime with a self centred social Darwinian regressive Conservatism....do they vote to suit their wallets or their sexuality?
Yes but this is the great test for Conservative gays isn't it......... as well as any Conservative who holds other positions which don't chime with aSo the Jesus House and the vicar's daughter who thinks that what you call a chocolate egg hunt is more significant than selling arms to the Saudiis to murder people are social Darwinists?
self centred social Darwinian regressive Conservatism....do they vote to suit their wallets or their sexuality?
So the Jesus House and the vicar's daughter who thinks that what you call a chocolate egg hunt is more significant than selling arms to the Saudiis to murder people are social Darwinists?What the fuck are you on about?
What the fuck are you on about?You used the term social Darwinists to cover a discussion about the homophobic Jesus House and May, a vicar's daughter and Christian who in a visit to Saudi Arabia to sell them arms to murder people in Yemen took time out to denounce a chocolate egg hunt not being referred to as an Easter egg hunt.
You used the term social Darwinists to cover a discussion about the homophobic Jesus House and May, a vicar's daughter and Christian who in a visit to Saudi Arabia to sell them arms to murder people in Yemen took time out to denounce a chocolate egg hunt not being referred to as an Easter egg hunt.My point is
My point is
a) There are Conservative gays
b) Some will vote according to their adherence to hard tory values, which are IMHO social Darwinian
c) Some may be put off by Theresa May's connections with a church you have said is homophobic.
d) Some gay people contemplating voting tory will not because of other issues.
So you think comparing homosexuality to bestiality isn't homophobic, and that the Christian who is the vicar's daughter who leads the Tories is somehow divorced from hard Tory values, and that this vicar's daughter Christian selling arms to the Saudis to murder people while getting upset about what a chocolate egg is called in it not using a 'Christian' enough title is a good time to mention social Darwinism? In which case surely they are the social Darwinists you are talking about?You can be homophobic without being social Darwinian, or sell arms to anybody or get upset about what to call easter eggs...without being Social Darwinian. Mentioning them is a non sequitur.
You can be homophobic without being social Darwinian, or sell arms to anybody or get upset about what to call easter eggs...without being Social Darwinian. Mentioning them is a non sequitur.You were the one mentioning social Darwinian in a discussion about the Jesus House and the vicar's daughter who leads the Tory party. You seem now to be accusing yourself of making a non sequitur.
A Gay person who votes for the Conservatives is social Darwinian by definition...as of course, is a homophobic who votes Conservative.....or an Easter eggist etc, etc
You were the one mentioning social Darwinian in a discussion about the Jesus House and the vicar's daughter who leads the Tory party. You seem now to be accusing yourself of making a non sequitur.No, I'm saying your examples of what constitutes social Darwinism are inferior to mine.
No, I'm saying your examples of what constitutes social Darwinism are inferior to mine.I wasn't offering examples of social Darwinism, it was you that introduced that into a discussion of the Christian vicar's daughter who likes selling arms and visiting the Christian homophobic church so I assumed given you were talking about core hard Tory values the Christian Tory leader must be embodying these values.
Yes I agree with that - and it is my nightmare scenario and one that I'm becoming more and more convinced will happen.
So you think comparing homosexuality to bestiality isn't homophobicI haven't compared homosexuality to bestiality......The BBC to bestiality maybe...
I presume it is because Corbyn can remain, which I think is destined to happen anyway. Assuming May gets in civil war in Labour is next, listening to Liz Kendall on This Week a few episodes ago she was very carefully picking her words.Sorry not sure what you mean by 'Assuming May gets in civil war' means here?
I haven't compared homosexuality to bestiality......The BBC to bestiality maybe...I didn't say you had. But you implied that the Jesus House which does was only homophobic because I said so. I'm glad that you are now clarifying that the Christian organisation that the the Christian leader of the Tory party seemed to support are homophobic.
I didn't say you had. But you implied that the Jesus House which does was only homophobic because I said so. I'm glad that you are now clarifying that the Christian organisation that the the Christian leader of the Tory party seemed to support are homophobic.Nope.
Nope.No, to quote you 'a church you have said is homophobic'. So you imply the Christian Jesus House is only homophobic in my opinion and you think maybe not. And again I wasn't offering examples of social Darwinism that was your response to the Christian vicar's daughter leader of the Tory party appearing to give support to the Christian Jesus House that think that homosexuality is like bestiality.
My post merely questioned which way the Conservative gay vote was going to go and whether May appearing at this church would be a dealbreaker.
Nope.
My post merely questioned which way the Conservative gay vote was going to go and whether May appearing at this church would be a dealbreaker.
However I seem to recall you have had a singular view of homophobia and what constitutes it.....
I see you have added a sentence about my opinion of homophobia here. What do you think is singular about it? Do you believe that thinking that equating homosexuality with bestiality is homophobic is singular? Do you think that thinking the Christian Jesus House is homophobia is singular? Because that would be odd given the article I posted.The singularity I recall is what you think constitutes supporting the murder of gay people...do you recall that?
Pretty incompetent, surely they should all have learned by now that when you make a spending commitment you need to be able to say:
1. How much it will cost
2. Where that extras money is going to come from
That said, I can't help laughing on this issue (or maybe crying) given that I part own a nursery which would have to deliver the 'free' child-care. And by free what that actually means is that the nursery receives a set rate of funding per hour from government (via local authorities), which is dependent on the nursery offering that place to parents free.
So the Tories have played this game too - in their 2015 manifesto they committed to providing 30 hours 'free' - currently it is only 15 hours. Did they cost this up - did they heck. This is to be rolled out in September this year, and therefore it is critical that nurseries know how much they will receive for each 'free' hour (which by the way is way less than they would otherwise charge) as this makes the difference between running a viable or non viable business.
Ever since the election in 2015 we have been trying to get clarity on the rate, so we can model and plan for its effect. The rate (and therefore the cost of the manifesto pledge) was only confirmed in late March this year - some 2 years after it was put in their manifesto.
Point being that it is easy to throw some ill thought out plan into a manifesto - but not only do you need to cost it, you also need to assess its impact on businesses and individuals who will be affected by its implementation.
Something similar happened to care homes, making many unprofitable and out of business, and arguably contributing to the current social care crisis.I can't be the only one who finds the concept of if something is unprofitable it should be scrapped.
The singularity I recall is what you think constitutes supporting the murder of gay people...do you recall that?Not only do I not recall that, I have no idea what you mean.
Something similar happened to care homes, making many unprofitable and out of business, and arguably contributing to the current social care crisis.That's right and politicians tend not to think about it.
That's right and politicians tend not to think about it.It seems clear that the carcass of social service has been well and truly picked as far as the present model of private sector provision is concerned.
They focus on giving stuff to the electorate 'free', but fail to recognise that if you are going to do that via the private sector then those organisations have to remain viable, as they are businesses.
The key issue with nurseries (and probably care homes too, although that's not my are) is that they are tightly regulated with a required ratio of staff to children. Given that by far the greatest expense is staff costs, then there is pretty well no flexibility as you cannot become 'more efficient' by reducing costs, because you can't as that would mean increasing staff to children ratio which would be unlawful.
I gather with the increase in numbers of 'free hours' from 15 to 30 a week only about half of nurseries have signed up to provide it. If that continues the policy will fail as parents won't be able to access their 'free' entitlement in practice, rather than in theory.
It seems clear that the carcass of social service has been well and truly picked as far as the present model of private sector provision is concerned.
Is the model terribly good? Shouldn't bigger organisations be running it if one insists on having a private model?
It seems clear that the carcass of social service has been well and truly picked as far as the present model of private sector provision is concerned.Are you saying that the bigger a private company is the better? If so, why?
Is the model terribly good? Shouldn't bigger organisations be running it if one insists on having a private model?
I'd argue the for the opposite. Smaller businesses are generally able to offer a more personal service - there is more to what they offer than just the bottom line, or having to keep shareholders happy. And as with care homes, nurseries should be diverse in nature to offer a range of options for families to choose from - big business doesn't offer this.But I think Professor Davey's complaint was that they are unable to offer some or any service in the eventuality of becoming non profitable. This opens a range of choices No provision, subsidisation, larger companies or organisation, or nationalisation. In terms of care homes it could be argued that a social care version of Butlins, say, might do a better and more economical job than a 'Guest house type' small social care operation.
I'd argue the for the opposite. Smaller businesses are generally able to offer a more personal service - there is more to what they offer than just the bottom line, or having to keep shareholders happy. And as with care homes, nurseries should be diverse in nature to offer a range of options for families to choose from - big business doesn't offer this.I can't comment on the care home sector but the nursery sector is very diverse and there is an odd competition between public and private providers.
Are you saying that the bigger a private company is the better? If so, why?In response to a couple of posters stating there was a problem of provision by smallish concerns.
In response to a couple of posters stating there was a problem of provision by smallish concerns.Your last statement is a random non sequitur assertion. Why is it that you want Hunt like capitalism in the NHS?
If moneys are coming from the tax or community charge then it also makes sense to avoid duplication and multiplication with who you are dealing with.
The ideal private model and standards for social care has been set I believe in organisations such as Butlins, Pontins, Warners etc.
There should of course, given that organisations of private social care provide homes, be some kind of lock in which prevents eviction if business fails or boredom of an owner sets in. Large companies in social care would not suffer this...
Your last statement is a random non sequitur assertion. Why is it that you want Hunt like capitilism in the NHS?Don't you mean *unt like capitalism?
Your last statement is a random non sequitur assertion. Why is it that you want Hunt like capitalism in the NHS?I am not talking about the National Health Service I am talking about social care which is about providing accommodation, recreation and assistance with living.
I am not talking about the National Health Service I am talking about social care which is about providing accommodation, recreation and assistance with living.what does a principle matter on where it is used? Are you saying that in the NHS it would be important to have small groups?
Don't you mean *unt like capitalism?And why are you asking that of people who haven't said that?
I don't. I merely outline what might be better, given that apparently small owners cannot provide what is needed IF ONE INSISTS ON HAVING A PRIVATE MODEL.
If one follows the logic of larger means better and the less operators public money has to cater for then the logical choice is nationalisation.
what does a principle matter on where it is used? Are you saying that in the NHS it would be important to have small groups?I haven't been talking about the NHS.
I am not talking about the National Health Service I am talking about social care which is about providing accommodation, recreation and assistance with living.And
If one follows the logic of larger means better and the less operators public money has to cater for then the logical choice is nationalisation.
I haven't been talking about the NHS.Why did you edit the post to avoid the question about your apparent inconsistency in what you were suggesting was as principle? Your position between social care and health care seems to be in conflict. So is it a principle or not? And since it doesn't appear to be for you, why?
And
Why did you edit the post to avoid the question about your apparent inconsistency in what you were suggesting was as principle? Your position between social care and health care seems to be in conflict. So is it a principle or not? And since it doesn't appear to be for you, why?.
.and one more time principles are principles or they aren't. I have no issue if you are arguing from practicality but you didn't. You argued from principle. Pointing out that you don't apply it shows it isn't a principle for you.
One more time. I haven't given an opinion on health care.
But I think Professor Davey's complaint was that they are unable to offer some or any service in the eventuality of becoming non profitable. This opens a range of choices No provision, subsidisation, larger companies or organisation, or nationalisation. In terms of care homes it could be argued that a social care version of Butlins, say, might do a better and more economical job than a 'Guest house type' small social care operation.But as I have pointed out the issue of non viability has very little to do with size. I own a small, one-off nursery. Without doubt it is run exceptionally efficiently (and is of exceptional quality). I doubt very much that the big chains are as efficient as us (indeed I'm aware that they are often running under capacity and also rely heavily on costly agency staff, which will affect their efficiency).
The singularity I recall is what you think constitutes supporting the murder of gay people...do you recall that?Any chance as you have been posting frequently on the thread after my reply to this that you might try and justify and explain this?
Hung parliament that could be a great result all round!
Hung parliament that could be a great result all round!I wouldn't disagree but then given I am in favour of proportional representation, not a huge jump. I would warn though that this polling is on very small sampling, so handfuls of salt needed.
I wouldn't disagree but then given I am in favour of proportional representation, not a huge jump. I would warn though that this polling is on very small sampling, so handfuls of salt needed.
I think so, then both sides will need to work together for the good of the country.Let's assume the polling is correct. What it will mean is a minority Tory govt propped up by Ulster Unionists who might have as their condition teaching creationism in schools.
Let's assume the polling is correct. What it will mean is a minority Tory govt propped up by Ulster Unionists who might have as their condition teaching creationism in schools.
Fan as I am of PR, the idea that coalition govt means everyone working together is fantasy.
Well we shall see what happens a week tomorrow, until then it is all speculation.In what way is the point, that coalitions are not a panacea, speculation?
I would warn though that this polling is on very small sampling, so handfuls of salt needed.Actually that isn't true - the poll reported overnight involved polling about 50,000 people, which is hugely greater than the standard polls which typically involve just 1000 people.
Actually that isn't true - the poll reported overnight involved polling about 50,000 people, which is hugely greater than the standard polls which typically involve just 1000 people.Actually it is in terms of the seats themselves which is the point. BTW did YouGov predict Brexit?
The difference is in the way the data are modelled to predict the vote share and seat distribution. That is apparently a largely new approach, so might be right or could be way off. All we know really is that YouGov claim to have trialled this in the EU referendum and it got the result correct.
They have suggested a wide range of possible outcomes, involving a range of seats won. What was published was their 'central' prediction.
Actually it is in terms of the seats themselves which is the point.Sorry I don't understand.
BTW did YouGov predict Brexit?Of their last 4 published polls before the referendum two had remain ahead, and two had leave ahead.
Sorry I don't understand.So it's a new methodology which predicted something but they didn't show their working before the thing they predicted. Even if true, it's all a bit post hoc surely?
Of their last 4 published polls before the referendum two had remain ahead, and two had leave ahead.
But this is apparently an entirely different methodology - one that they tested, but didn't use for their published polls last year (which used their standard methodology). Apparently this new methodology predicted brexit.
Make of that what you will.
The model is designed to overcome some of the problems with normal polling, by taking demographic and other information into account in trying to predict vote outcomes for individual constituencies.And yet it seems to me to precisely inflate problems with polling. Note taking a larger sample with different considerations about who you poll should work better for the referendum. But here we have a smaller % sample for each constituency used to extrapolate across different constituencies to average an outcome. Now, it may work but it seems currently to me to have basic problems as to how it can.
More details here: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/31/how-yougov-model-2017-general-election-works/
Quite interesting.
So Corbyn will now take part in the debate. I can see the logic but given the circs would have sent McDonnell
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40105324
I think he has played a blinder.Certainly May has not. I half wanted him to say that McDonnell was appearing, then turn up at the last minute, after McDonnell was on stage with a pint of Guinness, hand it to McDonnell and say 'Enjoy that in the green room, John, I've got this'
My twopence: He definitely needs to show his face in competition/discussion with the other parties.So that's May out since she would appear not only to be unable to but hiding it.
Suspect he would do better against May rather than Rudd - best would have been in the ITV debate without the Tories at all.
Still, if he can't make a good case for himself and Labour policies then what use would he be as a PM?
May can win with a huge majority, just based on the conservative nature of older voters, even when they know they will end up worse off, they might trust her as a "strong and stable" incumbent.so you say Corbyn is bad if he cannot appear and be impressive, but May is good because she doesn't appear because she can't? Seems oddly contradictory.
She is fine at making planned speeches aimed at grabbing the centre ground but her actual policies don't support them. In a way the less she appears the better - she can send out Davis and Rudd.
I'm just suggesting, from my humble, inexperienced and insignificant role as spectator, what each could do to gain the best support. I think they will both be mostly useless if installed.Strong? Fallon? Johnson? Hammond? Fox, sorry the disgraced Luam Fox? What definition are you using in your insignificant opinion for strong?
May has a strong team she can send out to defend her and the Conservative policies, Corbyn needs to show he can lead from the front.
Er ... Fallon, Hammond, Davis, Rudd, Greening are all able to go on air and win support for Tory policies. Corbyn has McDonnell and Thornberry. He could use Starmer and Chakrbarti but doesn't seem to.Fallon is a disaster wandering about. See where he thought Johnson's quote was one of Corbyn's . Hammond got his figures out by 20 billion, now you think Abbott was bad but he's the chancellor. Davis doesn't understand the issue with the border between NI and Eire and he is in charge of Brexit. Keep drinking the Daily Mail
Most of the stronger Labour people seem to have been sidelined... Benn, Umunna.. others?
Fallon is a disaster wandering about. See where he thought Johnson's quote was one of Corbyn's . Hammond got his figures out by 20 billion, now you think Abbott was bad but he's the chancellor. Davis doesn't understand the issue with the border between NI and Eire and he is in charge of Brexit. Keep drinking the Daily Mail
Totally unjust accusation!Sorry , tad confused, you seemed to argue that May's 'team' was good. What was the issue with pointing out that they appear not to be?
Anyone can get figures mixed up, btw. wouldn't count it against them.
Just confirmed to me that these "debates" are a waste of time. Bunch of bickering kids each and every one of them.Not sure what else you expected. Do you think a different format would be better - one on one interviews or 2-2 traditional debate style?
Yet to hear from Labour what they will do if they are the wrong side of the Laffer curve and get less money than the expect, and more like the money the IFS predicts, more tax or more borrowing?Are you asking the same question of the Tories - both on their specific tax/spend proposals, but also on growth. This is a big issue for both parties - dampen growth and the public finances immediately look shaky.
Yet to hear from Labour what they will do if they are the wrong side of the Laffer curve and get less money than the expect, and more like the money the IFS predicts, more tax or more borrowing?Apart from the Laffer curve being a piece of simplistic nonsense, I have never heard any party have a plan for not raising the money they plan to raise. Surely if you did, you would then have to have a plan if that plan didn't work, and then a plan for what happened if that plan didn't work ad infinitum
Apart from the Laffer curve being a piece of simplistic nonsense, I have never heard any party have a plan for not raising the money they plan to raise. Surely if you did, you would then have to have a plan if that plan didn't work, and then a plan for what happened if that plan didn't work ad infinitum
Are you asking the same question of the Tories - both on their specific tax/spend proposals, but also on growth. This is a big issue for both parties - dampen growth and the public finances immediately look shaky.
The laffer curve is generally accepted, the debate is where the curve is.Unfortunately your FT article is behind the paywall so I cannot read it - you might want to summarise.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066
Corporation tax receipts are at record levels since the crash.
https://www.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7e-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7
It is a fair question to ask.
Unfortunately your FT article is behind the paywall so I cannot read it - you might want to summarise.
I presume this is the 2015-16 tax year. If so then you aren't really supporting your point about the Laffer curve. Why - well because the corporation tax rates for that year were identical to the previous year, so whatever the reason for the increase in receipts it isn't due to a change in rate.
There are a number of reasons why the 2015-16 receipts are particularly good (and some other tax receipts too) which you may be unaware of unless you own and run a company. The first (and most obvious) is growth in the economy. But there are other reasons less apparent. Probably the most significant being changes to dividend taxation rules making distribution of dividends much less attractive from a tax point of view from April 2016. The effect of this was that companies up and down the country - particularly the backbone of small and middle size - emptied out their balance sheets though distribution of dividends before the changes were brought in. Dividends cannot be accounted away in profitability terms as can other surplus elements, and therefore companies were forced to reveal that profit and therefore bare the corporation tax. It is a one off anomaly associated with a change in tax policy.
The tax year of my company is end August so we are liable to pay that tax by end of May - and guess what we had a whopping corporation tax bill that we paid yesterday, which is artificially high for the reason I stated - distribution of as much dividend as possible prior to 4th April 2016.
Yet to hear from Labour what they will do if they are the wrong side of the Laffer curve and get less money than the expect, and more like the money the IFS predicts, more tax or more borrowing?I have no idea - I'm not in charge of Labour's economic plans and I am sceptical of them to say the least.
The laffer curve is generally accepted, the debate is where the curve is.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7066
Corporation tax receipts are at record levels since the crash.
https://www.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7e-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7
It is a fair question to ask.
I have no idea - I'm not in charge of Labour's economic plans and I am sceptical of them to say the least.
Pure speculation, but if they failed to bring in the tax receipts they suggest then they'd probably ditch some of the more costly and less priority pledges, while additionally raising tax more generally on those earning below £80k. Plus they'd probably borrow a bit more too. None of these would make them popular.
So reverse question to you - yet to hear from the Tories what they will if they are the wrong side of the Laffer curve and get less money than the expect, and more like the money the IFS predicts, more tax or more borrowing?
The question is equally valid for them as their proposals (according the IFS) are also poorly costed.
But there is a broader question, which is that however well plans are made they are merely that, projections of tax receipts and spending in the future, which can prove to be wrong because of 'events dear boy', even with sensible planning. Governments and chancellors have to have the discretion to change planning and priorities to deal with changed circumstances, which is why crude pledges of 'not raising income tax etc' - while seeming to be good in sound bites merely mean that government's end up fettering their discretion and having to raise the same amount of tax, probably from the same people, via backdoor routes.
Frankly what matters to me (and probably to most people) is the total tax take. I'm not going to be happier if my take home pay is reduced to the same extent because of a 1% increase in NI rather than a 1% increase in income tax.
Woo, the Laffer curve is generally accepted. Doesn't make it right though. That tax revenues and tax take is different in different countries shoes that it is simplistic. It tries to midel behaviour way without understanding there is a feedback loop on what happens.
And saying something is a fair question to ask doesn't jusitfy the issue of the question creating an infinite regression so being logically flawed.
This is a pretty gopd explanation of the issues with the Laffer curve
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/whistlinginthewind.org/2012/09/07/the-mythical-laffer-curve/amp/
not aware of any major tax changes from other parties apart from LibDems.Err what about the so-called 'dementia tax' - which now was an (undefined) cap on it - so how will the cost of the U-turn be funded.
So you quote me some random site and I quote the IFS, neither of us are economists.
From your site ' Most economists know the Laffer Curve isn’t true. An IGM survey of economists found that not a single one of them agreed that a tax cut will increase revenue.'
That is not an accurate description of the laffer curve from wiki:-
'In economics, the Laffer curve is a representation of the relationship between rates of taxation and the resulting levels of government revenue. Proponents of the Laffer curve claim that it illustrates the concept of taxable income elasticity—i.e., taxable income will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation.'
I don't think its that debatable in concept, imagine the government decided to tax high paid footballers 90% on the earnings, with a few years they will have left to play in France / Germany / Spain and the tax receipts will have completely collapsed.
The debate is at what level your tax receipts start to fall isn't it?
Err what about the so-called 'dementia tax' - which now was an (undefined) cap on it - so how will the cost of the U-turn be funded.
Also the IFS were clear that the Tories manifesto pledges didn't add up financially, most notably due to the cost of delivering theyr immigration pledge and the unachievable nature of some of the cuts. They have failed to rule out tax rises (fair enough - see my earlier point) - so if the Tories get in there will be tax rises, they are just refusing to tell us what those will be.
There is another factor which is key - growth. Independent analysis predicts that the economy would be grow 1.9% more under the Lib Dem plans and 1% more under Labour’s plans than under the Conservative plans.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/28/far-from-strong-and-stable-mays-economic-plan-is-weak-and-unstable
The issue isn't about what happens at the extremes and that was covered in the link bit whether a curve is any useful representation. If the Laffer curve was true, you would know where you were on it because of previous changes and comparison with other countries.
So you think if you raise taxes to 90% on highly paid footballers they will all stay in the UK?
Your link is ideologically motivated do you have something a little more independent, like the IFS?
No, I precisely didn't say that.
I could argue the IFS is ideologically motivated but I'd rather look at the arguments presented than indulge in ad hominems.
Again, if the curve was factual you should be able to see it perform consistently.
Do you agree that by increasing tax at some point you risk that at some point you will see a decline in tax receipts?Yes, in principle. But it depends upon the tax in question. Where the tax is aimed at those with the means and ability to rearrange their financial affairs to avoid, then certainly that's true. On the other hand if this is aimed at those who really have no meaningful way to avoid (the vast majority of the population) then no.
I may have been wrong.
We'll take a short pause here while those so inclined get the sarcastic comments off their chests.
Better now? Shall we proceed?
I have always maintained that, at UK level, the British Conservatives tend to beat their British Labour rivals for a very simple reason. It has nothing whatever to do with the Tories' entirely mythical economic competence. It's because the Tories get stronger under stress. Where British Labour is fragile even at the best of times - like now! - nothing unites and inspires the Tories like adversity. The greater the adversity, the more their support pulls together. British Labour is in a constant state of impending disintegration under the pressure of self-destructive factionalism.
There are always internal power struggles within political parties. It's only a question of how damaging these power struggles are allowed to be. The people with the real power in the Conservative Party - people you will never see nor ever hear mentioned by name - don't allow the internal politics to get out of hand. If it ever gets to the point where it looks like jeopardising the party's grip on real political power, somebody gets quietly and coldly stabbed in the back.
Similar tensions exist within British Labour. But they don't deal with them nearly so effectively. They can easily get out of control. This is largely due to the customary internal power struggles being exacerbated by the existence factions so utterly persuaded of their righteousness that they will gladly sacrifice electoral success, and more besides, in the name of ideological purity.
The Tories have only one overriding ideological imperative and that is power. When push comes to shove, the entire party coalesces around that core aim. The Tories will not allow a party leader to jeopardise their grip on power. To the extent that British Labour coalesces at all it tends to be around a leader, with the consequence that unity crucially depends on that leader rather than on some 'higher purpose'.
Until recently, I've been convinced that the Tories would win the election because, whatever circumstances arose, ultimately they would be able to call on resources massive enough to overcome. Whether by manipulating public perceptions of their own record and proposals or by setting the hounds of spin on their opponents, they would win.
While there is still time for this to happen, and we should not be at all surprised to see some very dramatic developments over the next few days, it now seems possible that Theresa May is just so appallingly dire that even the colossal propaganda machinery available to the Tories might not be enough. The Tories could actually lose this election.
Not that I think they will lose power. Even if Jeremy Corbyn were to become the new British Prime Minister he will not be permitted to govern. The machine that was ineffective in compensating for the crushing awfulness of Theresa May will immediately be turned against Corbyn. That machine knows exactly where to place the wedges that will open the splits in British Labour. It has the capacity to drive those wedges home. British Labour has no defence against this onslaught. Corbyn will be forced into one compromise after another. Each compromise will be sold to the public as an embarrassing climb-down, and to those factions within the party as a betrayal. Corbyn's enemies will not subordinate their hatred of the man to the demands of effective political power. They will be just another component in the machine set upon bringing him down.
Should he actually win, I give Corbyn two years at most. Probably less. All the apparatus that was geared to portraying the inevitable disaster of Brexit as a triumph for the Tories will be diverted to presenting the whole process as the shambles it was always going to be - and putting the blame firmly on Corbyn's shoulders. He will be destroyed.
For the rest of us, nothing much will change. Little, if any, of British Labour's 'radical' manifesto, will be implemented. It will all be dropped or watered down. We will continue to live with the unrelieved grimness of an austerity agenda which, we will belatedly discover, is not a Conservative Party agenda, but a British state agenda.
And that is the nub of it. The Tories are the 'natural' party of government in the UK because the British state is a Tory state. A temporary switch between the two main British parties won't change anything. It won't alter the fundamental nature of the British state. The Tories didn't turn the UK into the intolerant, repressive, elitist entity that we have seen emerge over the last couple of years. The Tories are merely reflecting the British state as it really is.
Meaningful progressive change, however that may be defined, cannot happen until the British state is broken. And the British state will not be broken by voting for a British Labour Party which, regardless of occasionally throwing up a fairly convincing leader, is nonetheless firmly embedded in the British establishment. However superficially appealing Jeremy Corbyn may be, and however alluring his siren promises of reform, he really is no more than a marketing device for a party which is embedded in and dependent upon and beholden to the structures of power, privilege and patronage which define the British state.
I've never subscribed to the 'Red Tory' epithet commonly applied to British Labour. They are not the same as the Tories. But they are part of the same system. a system that will ultimately assert itself regardless of which party currently enjoys the trappings of power.
Scotland has a way out of this system. We don't have to be part of this British state. We have the means to follow our own path. It's possible that I could be wrong about the Tories winning this election. But I'm certainly not wrong about the fact that a British Labour win will change nothing. So long as Scotland is part of the British state the change we hope for cannot happen.
So long as we are part of the British state, Scotland can only be adequately represented by people who acknowledge the true nature of that state. Whatever the outcome of the unedifying contest between British Labour and British Tories, the closest Scotland can get to a win is by putting the full weight of our democratic power behind the SNP.
There is another factor which is key - growth. Independent analysis predicts that the economy would be grow 1.9% more under the Lib Dem plans and 1% more under Labour’s plans than under the Conservative plans.And we are now seeing that the UK economy is grinding to a halt - in the first 3 months the economy barely grew (just 0.2%) which puts us rock bottom of the G7 in terms of growth. The French economy is growing twice as fast as us, the Germany economy three times faster and Canada over 4 times faster.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/28/far-from-strong-and-stable-mays-economic-plan-is-weak-and-unstable
Not sure what else you expected. Do you think a different format would be better - one on one interviews or 2-2 traditional debate style?
Yes, in principle. But it depends upon the tax in question. Where the tax is aimed at those with the means and ability to rearrange their financial affairs to avoid, then certainly that's true. On the other hand if this is aimed at those who really have no meaningful way to avoid (the vast majority of the population) then no.
Hence the dilemma - it is easiest, politically, to argue for 'soaking the rich' - but the rich are, by definition rich enough to employ the best accountants etc to be able to avoid the increase and this may result in lower receipts.
If you actually want to be successful in raising more revenue much better to impose relatively small increases on low/middle income people, who will likely find it pretty well impossible to avoid the tax. Economically sensible, but politically this is suicide.
Found this quite interesting
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39952365
I guessed 55% who voted in our area, it was actually 67%, so not too bad.Most of the questions I was close on, but not the age one, where I went considerably younger than actual figure.
Agree so if Corbyn doesn't get the revenue he expects do you think he will crack on regardless or even be able to?I've no idea - why do you think I somehow have a hotline to Corbyn to know what he would do under those circumstances.
I've no idea - why do you think I somehow have a hotline to Corbyn to know what he would do under those circumstances.
By why this total focus on Labour - what about the Tories - they have a manifesto which has been described as 'the only numbers are the page numbers'. So her commitments are completely uncosted - so what would she do if she fails to raise the revenue she needs or fails to make the cuts needed to meet her commitments.
You used to be a member of Labour and were a centrist so you might have an insight how that group will react.Nope - I think you are overestimating the level of insight that a rank and file member has on policy approaches. More specifically the Corbyn crowd were a kind of strange, tiny self contained splinter group with barely a handful of MPs prior to 2015. Their views weren't in any way mainstream in the party and therefore hardly likely that a centrist member would know of them to any great extent.
I'm not thinking about voting for the Tories I'am thinking about voting Labour. My wife and I almost every time have voted for the winning party in the last 30 years, although I voted LibDem in 2010/5, we are floating voters.So you seem to be implying that you won't vote Tory. If that is the case I think you need to decide whether your key objective is to vote in a positive manner for another party or vote tactically to ensure that the Tory candidate has the least chance of getting in.
Still not sure, I'am sure Corbyn isn't going to raise the money he thinks from Corp Tax, leaves a question mark.
Nope - I think you are overestimating the level of insight that a rank and file member has on policy approaches. More specifically the Corbyn crowd were a kind of strange, tiny self contained splinter group with barely a handful of MPs prior to 2015. Their views weren't in any way mainstream in the party and therefore hardly likely that a centrist member would know of them to any great extent.
And I didn't vote for him in the leadership election (I voted for all the other candidates in various order) and left because of his leadership. So unlikely that I'd be on his Christmas card list, let alone have him ring me up to confide in me on plans of his economic figures don't add up.
So you seem to be implying that you won't vote Tory. If that is the case I think you need to decide whether your key objective is to vote in a positive manner for another party or vote tactically to ensure that the Tory candidate has the least chance of getting in.
I've no idea where you live and therefore of the political dynamics and whether it is a safe seat (in which case whichever way you vote is unlikely to change anything) or a marginal (in which case it might).
I'll add another couple of comments.
First even with the poll surge I think it is exceptionally unlikely that we will see a Corbyn lead government after the 8th June, so the issue is moot.
Secondly even were we too, Corbyn's hands will be completely tied, because virtually the whole of parliament will be to the right of him politically. His only option in power will be to compromise to the centre and right of his own party, as otherwise his plans will simply get voted down. The likelihood of him gaining a majority is vanishingly small but even if he did there will be no majority of like minded people.
I could vote Tory, I think May is a very poor politician and I'd vote for a centrist Labour led party without hesitation, its just how much power Corbyn is likely to wield.If voting Tory is an option, why are you not asking the same probing questions about her plans as you are about Corbyn's plans. That would seem sensible to me, as that would allow you to judge both options.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-40129826Not good news for May and her judgement yet again is awful - she should have completely distanced herself from him, which would have been pretty easy as she wasn't leader back in 2015.
If guilty he deserves to become a guest of HM! TM is sticking up for him, which won't go down well with many of the electorate!
Not good news for May and her judgement yet again is awful - she should have completely distanced herself from him, which would have been pretty easy as she wasn't leader back in 2015.
Some have suggested that it is just one of 650 candidates, but I think that misses the point. Don't forget that he was standing against Nigel Farage - so expect some pretty robust UKIP response, not doubt including Farage. There may well be a few wavering previous UKIP voters leaning toward the Tories who will see this as cheating that prevented their beloved Farage getting elected. This may deliver a small, but potentially critical, swing back to UKIP from the Tories.
That would be TERRIBLE! >:(I really am beginning to seriously worry about May's judgement. Over this she has simply offered another opportunity for Corbyn to get the better of her.
I really am beginning to seriously worry about May's judgement. Over this she has simply offered another opportunity for Corbyn to get the better of her.
This is an ongoing investigation and therefore under standard rules people in the public eye should not make comments that might prejudice a fair trial. So that would obviously include making statements suggesting that someone is guilty or innocent. Which is of course what May has just done, rather than to have simply said 'I cannot comment due to the ongoing investigation'. May really should know better as a former Home secretary.
So this has now allowed Corbyn to say the following:
"Nobody should be commenting on the details of an ongoing case, the police must be allowed to act independently, to investigate on the basis of any evidence they've got and the Crown Prosecution Service must be allowed to make its decision on whether to proceed on a case. I think it is a very bad road when democratically elected politicians start offering a running commentary on independent judicial processes. We have to have total separation of political and judicial powers in this country."
So he has, in effect, been able to credibly attack May for her ill-judged comments, while of course obliquely reminding the public that a Tory MP and candidate has been charged with election expenses offences. He has also managed to get in his point about separation of political and judicial powers which is his main defence against the attack ads on his record of voting against anti terror legislation.
I still completely disagree with his politics, but you have to admit that he is playing a blinder in this campaign, constantly getting the better of May.
There is something worrying about May, she looks quite frail, and her judgment seems all over the place. I can't make head nor tail of her in fact, it just seems odd that Corbyn was slated as the nutty one, with cack-handed judgment. Maybe the pressure has got to her, or she over-estimated her own position. I think the line about Corbyn being alone and naked in negotiations, obviously an echo of Nye Bevan, was very weird, as she followed it up by saying 'not an image to think about'. So why say it?
If voting Tory is an option, why are you not asking the same probing questions about her plans as you are about Corbyn's plans. That would seem sensible to me, as that would allow you to judge both options.
For what it is worth even were Corbyn in power he would have sufficient support even in his own party for some of the most extreme tax and spend commitments, so they would necessarily get toned down as otherwise they'd be voted down in parliament.
That isn't the same for May - she has uncosted plans but she would have sufficient support in parliament to push them through. And don't forget that some of those commitments were simply 'magic-ed' up out of thin air days before the manifesto launch without even consulting her cabinet colleagues.
I don't see the same size gap in Tory manifesto, agree its not costed and has a few unknowns but not to the same scale.Given that it is uncosted how on earth can you know whether you can see a gap of similar size, or bigger, or smaller.
Given that it is uncosted how on earth can you know whether you can see a gap of similar size, or bigger, or smaller.
So just to start - her U turn on a cap on social care costs. How much will this cost, where is the money going to come from - it certainly isn't planned because she announced a cap yet failed to announce any revenue raising measures to pay for the cost of that gap.
And don't forget that over the last 7 years the Tories have been appalling at matching their economic pledges, on tax, spending and (critically) borrowing. Note that the deficit was supposed to have been reduced to 0% in 2015 (in the 2010 election manifesto), then in 2018 (in the 2015 election manifesto) and that commitment has been kicked further and further into the long grass. And if there has been a need to borrow far more than planned that means that there was a black hole in the gap between tax receipts and spending that was not planned.
To give some kind of context, according to their 2010 (and in effect their 2015) commitment the deficit should now be zero, indeed on the 2010 commitments we should be running a surplus. The reality is that our deficit is £70billion - in other words the Tories estimates of what they would raise and what they would spend are some £70billion a year out.
The social care policy is revenue raising AFAIK.But the cap costs money compared to the original uncapped proposal in the manifesto.
So you wanted more severe austerity?Very simplistic interpretation.
Very simplistic interpretation.
The key problem with the Osborne economics of the early years post 2010 was that the austerity (actually more precisely the perception thereof) effectively stiffled growth so the economy flat-lined and that's what did for the public finances and therefore the plan to reduce the deficit. Other countries, most notably the USA invested to generate growth, ended up with a better growing economy and therefore much improved tax receipts allowing them to bring down their deficit much faster.
The other big problem was that austerity itself (i.e. cuts) are exceptionally difficult to achieve. It is one thing to say 'we are going to cut the budget for this department by x%' quite another to actually deliver it. And in many cases you actually have to invest to save, which wasn't factored in. So I know from personal experience with my brother that headline plans to 'cut quangos' effectively saved nothing as the costs to make staff redundant wiped out any savings in the first couple of years, and then the government ended up recognising that the functions of said quangos was actually still needed so they in effect re-hired the people they'd just laid off at significant cost who had set up in a private manner. So there was, frankly, no saving at all despite the bold headline.
And look at the current NHS position - easy to demand NHS trusts to meet unachievable squeezed budgets, but what are you actually going to do when it proves, well, unachievable. Suddenly decide no longer to keep A&E open for the last 2 months of the year because the trust has spent all its money? Of course not - so the target for cuts isn't delivered.
So actually the policy of austerity is precisely the reason why the deficit is £70billion greater that the Tories had planned.
Not too sure about that, actually current fiscal policy of the Tories isn't far off what Miliband proposed in 2015 manifesto.Why are you linking to an article from 2013 in which they are making 'predictions' about 2014 and 2018, the first of which didn't come true and the second looks astonishingly unlikely given that GDP growth in the last quarter was just 0.2%.
Anyway we have seen what Crobyn now proposes done in France haven't we:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10403285/GDP-Britains-recovery-compared-to-other-developed-nations.html
Why are you linking to an article from 2013 in which they are making 'predictions' about 2014 and 2018, the first of which didn't come true and the second looks astonishingly unlikely given that GDP growth in the last quarter was just 0.2%.
Lovely dishonest data presentation too - note the different y-axis scales for the graphs for quarterly growth for the UK and Germany. To the untrained eye you might think the UK is better, but of course the max scale for the Germany graph is 2% growth, while for the UK graph it is just 1% growth.
But France's choice was not between a Corbyn and a May but between a Corbyn and a Farage.
But France's choice was not between a Corbyn and a May but between a Corbyn and a Farage.No it wasn't - it was between LePen on the hard right and an avowed centrist, and ex-soft left (Macron).
No it wasn't - it was between LePen on the hard right and an avowed centrist, and ex-soft left (Macron).
The best UK comparison would be Farage vs Umuna (if he lead a centrist breakaway party).
François Hollande, Nicolas Sarkozy, France elected Hollande, increased taxes on the rich ended his reign as one of the most unpopular Presidents in France's history.That's a somewhat simplistic analysis of Hollande's period as President. Nothing about pension reform in terms of increasing contributions in non Corbyn manner? Or reduction in worker's rights?
François Hollande, Nicolas Sarkozy, France elected Hollande, increased taxes on the rich ended his reign as one of the most unpopular Presidents in France's history.I think HH was talking about the most recent French election - hence the comparison.
That's a somewhat simplistic analysis of Hollande's period as President. Nothing about pension reform in terms of increasing contributions in non Corbyn manner? Or reduction in worker's rights?Or, of course, the impact of multiple terror attacks.
Or, of course, the impact of multiple terror attacks.Surely those are in the category of events and aren't really about differences between Corbyn and Hollande? On the subject though, Hollande's support for the intervention in Libya seems unlikely from Corbyn.
Or, of course, the impact of multiple terror attacks.
It may be that there is a non damaging reason for this but it doesn't look good.This looks absolutely disgraceful.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/06/amber-rudd-prevents-independent-candidate-questioning-arms-sales-saudi-sponsors-terrorism/
Corbyn now supports shoot-to-kill?
Dearest British public in General,
"A Corbyn for me, a Corbyn for me,
If ye're no a Corbyn ye're no use to me.
The Liberal Democratics are braw, the SNP and a'
But the cocky wee Corbyn the pride o' them a'."
Gonnagle.
Dearest British public in General,Hear hear!
"A Corbyn for me, a Corbyn for me,
If ye're no a Corbyn ye're no use to me.
The Liberal Democratics are braw, the SNP and a'
But the cocky wee Corbyn the pride o' them a'."
Gonnagle.
Dearest British public in General,
"A Corbyn for me, a Corbyn for me,
If ye're no a Corbyn ye're no use to me.
The Liberal Democratics are braw, the SNP and a'
But the cocky wee Corbyn the pride o' them a'."
Gonnagle.
I read that latest opinion polls suggest there is only a point between the Tories and Labour. If that is correct, bearing in mind just how fallible these polls are, we could have a hung parliament. Now that be a turn up for the book.
The polls are all over the place Floo. Yesterday there was one that gave the Tories an 11% advantage. Today 1%. I hope for a miracle but I fear, as they nearly always seem to do, the British people will go in for yet more self-flagellation and vote the despicables in to power.
Maybe it's an appeal to the baby in us that wants a Nanny - albeit that the Nanny is more Rebecca de Mornay than Julie Andrews.
It's a tactic that has worked many times. Ignore the actual problems and carry on with creating more un-policed or unenforceable laws.
Since 2006 we have had laws against condoning and glorifying terrorism, why weren't these used against Butt et al? Possibly he could have been in prison since 2013 - oh wait, they only get worse in there and make more converts to idiot jihad-ism. Why is that?
We shall see, TM hasn't exactly done herself any favours in the last few days.I reckon she will step down after the election even if they win and then it will be between Rudd and Johnson.
'What's that, Lassie? You are hearing a dog whistle?'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40181444
Whilst I might agree that this may not address the issues society faces, blowing a left wing dog whistle in response doesn't help.Is it a left wing dog whistle? Surely pointing out that this is mere posturing and hints at a vacuous Human Rights bad idea is perfectly valid. You seem to be taking the position that pointing out issues with what May said is then somehow to be dismissed simply because of the tone that you (a) don't like and (b) continually indulge on here against the people you are talking to.
Whilst I might agree that this may not address the issues society faces, blowing a left wing dog whistle in response doesn't help.I think this is more about May blowing a right wing dog whistle.
As to your last question, it would seem to me that our ongoing like for prison solely as retribution is part of the issue. Note, that is a generic issue not aspwcific one with jihadism but we seem to want to ignore recidivism and 'graduation' to higher levels of crime, as long as we lock lots of people up.
It would appear that May has refused to be interviewed by Jon Snow on Channel 4 News. First PM to refuse in 7 GEs he has covered on there.Where's Theresa?
Where's Theresa?
Is it a left wing dog whistle? Surely pointing out that this is mere posturing and hints at a vacuous Human Rights bad idea is perfectly valid. You seem to be taking the position that pointing out issues with what May said is then somehow to be dismissed simply because of the tone that you (a) don't like and (b) continually indulge on here against the people you are talking to.
The continued muddying of the waters on the ECHR as being something to do with the EU rather than something based on our laws in its initiation and completely separate from the EU has been a lazy trope of both 'right' and 'left' over the years.
Could right an essay on this try be succinct. First will acknowledge you now make a more substantive points and will come back to them.Thanks for this, much appreciate the possibility of writing an essay, which surely indicates that it's incorrect to puck up one liners. Yes, my comment was a throwaway but the point it was making is that if politicians like May indulge in throwaway lines as she did on human rights legislation, it's definitely a dog whistle and is a reaction to the issues revealed in her time as Home Sec and PM.
Last night I watched some of the Newsbeat debate and at one point a woman stood up and said she was afraid to go out in light of the racist and xenophobic abuse she gets on-line. If you listen to Maajid Nawaz a former extremist this is what drove him down the path of extremism.
We do have an issue with the far right and other forms of extremism in this country and they tend to feed of each other.
So back the debate I was watching, what followed I'll speak of in general tones, the UKIP put forward a right wing solution, the Green party borderline bracketed that as far right.
Meanwhile I was thinking of the woman, she quite understandably thinks that she lives in an xenophobic racist society, and some our leading politicians have pretty much confirmed that. So should she meet an Islamic extremist who will tells her that the UK is a racist xenophobic society, she looks at a right wing party who almost sounds xenophobic and racist, and some of the left wing confirming that it is.
I don't agree with UKIP I think their solutions are counter productive and some of them downright nonsensical but its important to deal with the policy's they forward on the basis of rational argument not by blowing dog whistles even if that is what you think the opposition are doing.
Yes May was posturing, she is right-wing and likely to come up with right-wing solutions which will involve a crackdown on the results of extremism, I think it could be counter productive, it is still valid to debate though?
Thanks for this, much appreciate the possibility of writing an essay, which surely indicates that it's incorrect to puck up one liners. Yes, my comment was a throwaway but the point it was making is that if politicians like May indulge in throwaway lines as she did on human rights legislation, it's definitely a dog whistle and is a reaction to the issues revealed in her time as Home Sec and PM.
As previously covered I think 'left' and 'right' are often if not always too simplistic. You write that you think of the UKIP solution, whatever it was, as being right wing but that the Green Party rep portrayed it as 'far right' as if you are obviously correct and the Green party rep wrong rather than it surely being a matter of opinion and perspective?
I have to admit to finding your post confusing as it seems to state that the woman is correct to find society racist and xenophobic but that it is somehow a 'dog whistle' if someone calls out what ate racist and xenophobic remarks/policies as being racist and xenophobic. I am sure that isn't what you mean so unfortunately you may have to write the essay.
Why was it throwaway line? She is stating that if human rights legislation gets in the way she will review it, I think that is counter productive personally but its a valid position to hold?It's a throwaway line because there is no indication why any human rights legislation would get in the way of any sensible piece of action. It's only in to appeal to those who dislike the human rights legislation whether for good reasons or bad.
No, as ever being of the middle I tend to sit on the fence on most of these issues, mostly envious of the certainty that people seem to have. I think the UKIP policy was wrong but to dismiss the policy as xenophobic, when it was not, doesn't address why the policy was wrong.
I think you are forced to categorise political schools of thought when talking about wider society, hence use of the right/ left.
Ok lets look at a more concrete example Diane Abbott 'The people that complain about the freedom of movement will not be satisfied because what they really want is to see less foreign looking people on their streets.'
Do you accept that this plays up how racist / xenophobic society actually is?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40184826See post 922.
I see Diane Abbott has stepped down from campaigning , apparently due to ill health, hmmmmm!
It's a throwaway line because there is no indication why any human rights legislation would get in the way of any sensible piece of action. It's only in to appeal to those who dislike the human rights legislation whether for good reasons or bad.
Are you suggesting that because you categorise yourself as middle of the road then you become an arbiter on whether a policy is xenophobic of not? That seems odd? Surely as I posted this is a matter of opinion and perspective? if the Green party rep saw it as xenophobic then why wouldn't they say so?
Does it? Again surely this is your opinion, just as that might be Abbott's opinion. If you agree that society is xenophobic and racist, and it seems that you do, I don't get what point you are trying to make about when/how it is correct in your view to say that.
I don't think you can say that without knowing what the proposals would be. I'm not prepared to dismiss or accept an changes to human rights until those proposals are forwarded. I would think that in any legalisation you would not be prepared to consider refining human rights laws, a fair and valid position to hold, May would, a fair and valid position to hold.
Which is why I got a more concrete example.
No, its impossible to know that 'The people that complain about the freedom of movement will not be satisfied because what they really want is to see less foreign looking people on their streets'.
There are those in society that want to portray much of the Muslim population as extremists and there are those in our society that want to portray much of society as holding that view, both are wrong and part of the problem.
And in the absence of any proposals, the line about human rights legislation 'not stopping' those proposals is precisely a dog whistle throwaway line to those who think that the human rights legislation is a bad thing, in many cases while not understanding what they are. I'm not dismissing any proposals either but currently in their absence it's only a dog whistle to suggest that any sensible changes might be stopped by human rights legislation .
It's impossible to know anything, but most people express their opinion in a similar way to Abbott. Indeed you then do it yourself by stating that it is what people want to say rather than actually think, as if you have divined some dubious intent in exactly the same way as Abbott's quote does. Further you then express what is yourf opinion, I.e. that they ate wring as a fact in the sane way Abbott's quote does.
Laura Kuensberg partying like it's 18th April 2017. Kuensbergs conclusion of the election campaign........ May triumphant, Corbyn as inconsequential as ever. Little mention of Conservative fall in polling. BBC political bias at it's finest.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40184817
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40184826
I see Diane Abbott has stepped down from campaigning , apparently due to ill health, hmmmmm!
I looked at post 922.You are implying thst she isn't ill and is only saying it because she is out of her depth in your opinion and is therefore lying. Can you substantiate that?
Someone else said they thought it was wise of her.
It is wise, for a little while she has seemed to be a bit out of her depth -NOT the only one by any means! At least she has the sense to step down before she becomes ill with stress.
She's a valuable politician in her constituency and that's something she can continue to nurture. A few weeks and she'll be back on form hopefully but in the campaigning game you can only make so many faux pas.
You are implying thst she isn't ill and is only saying it because she is out of her depth in your opinion and is therefore lying. Can you substantiate that?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/06/diane-abbott-appears-fall-victim-hoax-email-conversation-online/Conclusive? it is indicative of the opposite. Abbott says they shouldn't add colour and it wasn't to do with her diabetes and that she wouldn't say anyhing that could easily be caught out due to untruth. why do you think that might support the idea that she isn't ill?
http://talkradio.co.uk/news/corbyn-ally-barry-gardiner-diane-abbott-has-long-term-illness-im-not-sure-what-it-17060714816
Not saying it is conclusive.
Her replacement, famed for telling a blind man to 'f off', is sure to do better than Abbott.
btw cashed out of betting markets now have hedged a big Tory majority.
Conclusive? it is indicative of the opposite. Abbott says they shouldn't add colour and it wasn't to do with her diabetes and that she wouldn't say anyhing that could easily be caught out due to untruth. why do you think that might support the idea that she isn't ill?
You can spin it that way I guess.
Given I'm predicting Tory bigger majority, I think some winners losers from this. May, loser, firstly has been pretty dire and I think the Tory campaign she has led has been awful, the Tory party winners on two fronts, they keep Corbyn as opposition and increased majority. Corbyn, winner, have to give him credit he has played a blinder!
The biggest losers will be centrists in Labour, they could have hung Corbyn out to dry, instead they have towed the line and I think this gamble won't pay off and will actually cost them the very soul of the Labour party.
If I was into conspiracy theories.....
In what way is using what was said in your links spinning it, why can you not actually engage in the discussion here rather than cast aspersions on my motivation?
You can spin it that way I guess.It'll be Jeremy's last election and May's poor performance cannot have gone unnoticed. I think it leaves Labour on the up and trust in and within the Conservatives on the down. The tories will turdpolish any Conservative victory into a landslide (see Kuensberg's election conclusion) but I can't see how the old tory Chutzpah can remain or the trust that folk will continue to take it up the rear.
Given I'm predicting Tory bigger majority, I think some winners losers from this. May, loser, firstly has been pretty dire and I think the Tory campaign she has led has been awful, the Tory party winners on two fronts, they keep Corbyn as opposition and increased majority. Corbyn, winner, have to give him credit he has played a blinder!
The biggest losers will be centrists in Labour, they could have hung Corbyn out to dry, instead they have towed the line and I think this gamble won't pay off and will actually cost them the very soul of the Labour party.
If I was into conspiracy theories.....
I'm still waiting for you comment on the last discussion we had. Not really seeing how you spinning something casts an aspersions on your motivations?
We all spin, its not conclusive, you could read/listen to the links I posted and then could lead you to think that she is actually ill or not.
Didn't the centrists in labour try that after Brexit and failed and before that, how far did Ed Milliband get?
The biggest losers will be centrists in Labour, they could have hung Corbyn out to dry, instead they have towed the line and I think this gamble won't pay off and will actually cost them the very soul of the Labour party.
I'm struggling with jakswan's idea here that in creating an implosion, an unimaginably large Tory majority possibly leading to complete demise of Labour Party, Labour party 'centrists' would have won.
Not following, I wrote 'The biggest losers will be centrists in Labour,'And the alternative to what has happened seems to be what I wrote about which is surely worse for them. If you ate saying they were fucked from the get go, I agree but then May wanted everyone to be like that
You mean the long posts? I am on a mobile just now so hadn't replied because it would be time consuming and difficult on a mobile. Why would that be relevant to this anyway?
As to spinning, are you actually saying that spin doctors are telling what they see as the trith? I wouldn't, which is why I don't read spinning as equalling expressing your opinion.
Further no matter what we call it, I can see no way of having a discussion of whether an opinion might be correct without referring to what was written. I can see nothing in the links you posted which indicate the illness is a lie for the reasons I have explained. What do you think is supportive of your viewpoint?
And the alternative to what has happened seems to be what I wrote about which is surely worse for them. If you ate saying they were fucked from the get go, I agree but then May wanted everyone to be like that
My viewpoint is that I'm not 100% convinced that Abbott is actually ill, it is alleged that Dianne Abbott wrote:-
"I am worried about telling untruths about my health which are easily disproved."
Why would you be worried about telling untruths if you were telling truths?
The centrists were fucked from the get go in terms of winning any power, they were not fucked in getting rid of JC. A 'not fully' supportive interviews on Corbyn's corp tax plans from a few centrists could have hung him out to dry and put them in a position to get rid post election.Which would only have happened by causing a complete collapse in the Labour Party as I outlined, so how would that be a win?
Ah the old strawman that when I asked someone to justify their idea that Abbott was lying about illness that the position is person who says she is lying is less than 100% sure she is well, person who asks them to justify their position is saying 100% Abbott is telling the truth.
The quote you have out of context underlines that she doesn't want to tell an untruth about her health. In the context where a prank email is sent about being unwell for yesterday's missed interview (as opposed to the overall claim for today that she is linger term unwell) then it underlines that she doesn't want to lie and is saying it shouldn't happen.
I didn't mean to imply she wasn't ill NS!
Looking at my post I wish had said "before she becomes more ill with stress". I've no doubt she is ill, we don't know what the problem is but stress can cause all sorts of physical illnesses & what she has been doing recently can only pile it on. So I think she is very wise to step down now rather than collapse in a few weeks.
I'm a great fan of Diane Abbott, always have been, but she's only human.
But we don't know if it is stress. That is another guess.
Whilst Abbott might have stood down because she is genuinely ill, but due to her recent screw ups it could be her 'illness' is a face saving exercise.Ah the NPF!
Which would only have happened by causing a complete collapse in the Labour Party as I outlined, so how would that be a win?
150 seats isn't a complete collapse?If they only get 150 seats, there will be a blood bath which will make Game of Thrones look like a knitting circle.
150 seats isn't a complete collapse?The polls would have to be astonishingly wrong for that to happen.
Whilst Abbott might have stood down because she is genuinely ill, but due to her recent screw ups it could be her 'illness' is a face saving exercise.Or her screw ups could be a result of her illness. My first reaction to her first screw up was that here was a person who should perhaps lose some of the weight,in the kindest sense of course............ some people adapt to overweight, some people aren't affected by it
If they only get 150 seats, there will be a blood bath which will make Game of Thrones look like a knitting circle.
The polls would have to be astonishingly wrong for that to happen.
Plugging ICM (the polling organisation with the highest Tory vote share and lowest Labour) into Electoral calculus still gives Labour over 200 seats.
I think Labour will get more than 200 seats, read back through the thread.Where did I say that you didn't.
Which is my point, Corbyn would go.I don't think the ''had there been a more centrist labour candidate they might have won'' narrative washes.
Which is my point, Corbyn would go.And again, yes but as argued it would lead to a blood letting so severe that The Red Wedding would be an overenthusiastic use of roses. How would Labour centrists 'win"?
I was wondering where right wing Labour stands now. Of course, it depends. If Labour do OK, Corbyn stays, then the right wing will presumably have to decide whether to stick or twist. Maybe they see Starmer as salvation? But some might just gradually leave. If Labour crashes, then they will be salivating.Yes I suppose we could expect the GBP to suffer amnesia of the past 7 weeks and vote like it was the 18th April 2017. Kuensberg of the BBC obviously thinks it will be some kind of high point for Theresa and Conservatism and that it's completely unclear whether Corbyn has had any effect outside the Corbynistas.
And again, yes but as argued it would lead to a blood letting so severe that The Red Wedding would be an overenthusiastic use of roses. How would Labour centrists 'win"?
Regain control of the leadership.And if it is the leadership of a destroyed party, that is never going recover, that is a win in what way?
ICM poll has 96 Tory majority, which makes the YouGov poll look barmy, and out of step.My guess is 365 Tories, pretty much in line.
ICM poll has 96 Tory majority, which makes the YouGov poll look barmy, and out of step.The polling companies have fallen into 2 camps.
And if it is the leadership of a destroyed party, that is never going recover, that is a win in what way?
The polling companies have fallen into 2 camps.
In the 'blue' corner are ICM and ComRes, both of whom are continuing to show major Tory leads, albeit somewhat down from the early (pre Tory manifesto launch) part of the campaign. So their final polls have Tory leads of 10-12%.
In the 'red' corner are YouGov, Survation, SurveyMonkey, Orb with Tory leads of between 3-6%.
One group (or even both) are going to be looking pretty foolish come Friday morning.
As for the Tories, They are left further in Hock to the right wing newspapers on whom they depend for their supply of votes, and the prospect of how to navigate Shite Brexit and be fighting fit for the end of the political cycle when they will be exhausted and old hat .
Five years no reason they could not win.Other than electoral and political history.
Dearest British public in General,Lovely post, just a pity you aren't voting in a proportional system, or in a presidential election.
"A Corbyn for me, a Corbyn for me,
If ye're no a Corbyn ye're no use to me.
The Liberal Democratics are braw, the SNP and a'
But the cocky wee Corbyn the pride o' them a'."
Gonnagle.
The polling companies have fallen into 2 camps.Final polls, published in the last 24 hours range as follows:
In the 'blue' corner are ICM and ComRes, both of whom are continuing to show major Tory leads, albeit somewhat down from the early (pre Tory manifesto launch) part of the campaign. So their final polls have Tory leads of 10-12%.
In the 'red' corner are YouGov, Survation, SurveyMonkey, Orb with Tory leads of between 3-6%.
One group (or even both) are going to be looking pretty foolish come Friday morning.
I think the BBC - well radio 4 which is what I listen to mostly - have been far too Labour-biased which I think is disgraceful.
However, I listened to Five Live yesterday evening and was encouraged to hear a more evenly balanced programme.
I was encouraged too to hear that Labour support will be reduced because of the SNP .
I shall seriously consider sinking into a decline and fading sadly away if by any ghastly chance Jeremy Corbyn and team win. The idea doesn't bear thinking about.
I think the BBC - well radio 4 which is what I listen to mostly - have been far too Labour-biased which I think is disgraceful.That would be dreadful! Who then would support hounding people to death because of their illness, or the rape clause, or sending arms to IS via Saudi Arabia!
However, I listened to Five Live yesterday evening and was encouraged to hear a more evenly balanced programme.
I was encouraged too to hear that Labour support will be reduced because of the SNP .
I shall seriously consider sinking into a decline and fading sadly away if by any ghastly chance Jeremy Corbyn and team win. The idea doesn't bear thinking about.
I haven't noticed any political bias by the BBC.
sending arms to IS via Saudi Arabia!
So the Newspapers don't write stories the electorate want to buy?
I think the BBC is pretty fair in its reports.
Evidence?Ypu mean from the unreleased report that identifies the Saudis as one of the main supporters of terrorism? Why has that not been released?
Ypu mean from the unreleased report that identifies the Saudis as one of the main supporters of terrorism? Why has that not been released?
We sell arms to the Saudis. (Known)
The Saudis arms IS (Known)
BTW nice to know that you would appear to be happy to vote for with hounding people to death because of illness and the raoeclause
So no evidence as yet then.
I expect better than this from you. The main reason I voted Tory was actually that I didn't get an answer to my questions about what Labour would do if it didn't raise the billions it thinks from raising Corp tax - (see IFS report).
Labour could still win most seats, I don't think it would be a disaster for the country but I think it would be a disaster for Labour.
I think the BBC is pretty fair in its reports.Most of the criticism has been that the BBC have been too soft on the Tories, with criticism particularly aimed at Laura Kuensberg.
From Betting markets implied probability.The betting markets as predictors of elections have taken a massive knock recently.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.119040708
Tory Majority 85%
Labour Majority 3%
Seats Labour - 200-249 Seats - 39%
Seats Tory - 350 - 399 Seats - 58%
The opposite of Brexit and Trump were at these prices, so the markets are wrong.
400+ Seats Tory @ 8 seems good value.
From Wiki: Dog-whistle politics is political messaging employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional, different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup.
We will have to disagree, I think it is a legitimate position to hold and not a dog whistle, maybe it has the effect of dog whistle but we can't know intent.
No not saying Abbott is doing anything with intent, her sweeping statement lends credence to the view that society is endemically racist.
The betting markets as predictors of elections have taken a massive knock recently.
Up until a couple of years ago (with some justification) it was argued that betting was a much better prediction of elections than the polling. But both brexit and Trump have blown that out of the water. In both cases the polls weren't too far off (a good proportion of referendum polls showing small Leave majority, and virtually all US polls showing a small Clinton majority on national vote share which proved correct). The betting was massively wrong, with 90-ish% probabilities of Remain win and Clinton win even after the polls had closed.
For some bizarre reason I don't understand (but then I don't understand betting anyway) you can get odds in the Daily Mirror on Ladbrokes of 20/1 that Theresa May will be PM after the election and on Coral 20/1 that the Conservatives will win most seats.They may well be introductory offers but are you sure the odds aren't being shown as 1/20 not 20/1? I.e. that it is 20 to 1 on and that for every 20 pounds ypu bet you will get that and a whole 1 pound back?
That can't be right surely? Or is it just a ruse to get punters to part with their money?
You can probably tell I don't gamble.
It is the only puritan streak I have in me!
They may well be introductory offers but are you sure the odds aren't being shown as 1/20 not 20/1? I.e. that it is 20 to 1 on and that for every 20 pounds ypu bet you will get that and a whole 1 pound back?
The betting markets as predictors of elections have taken a massive knock recently.
Up until a couple of years ago (with some justification) it was argued that betting was a much better prediction of elections than the polling. But both brexit and Trump have blown that out of the water. In both cases the polls weren't too far off (a good proportion of referendum polls showing small Leave majority, and virtually all US polls showing a small Clinton majority on national vote share which proved correct). The betting was massively wrong, with 90-ish% probabilities of Remain win and Clinton win even after the polls had closed.
Actually bet on there being a 2017 election as well, seem to recall people on here telling me it was not going to happen. ☺
You expect better than me to note that you voted to hound people to death because if illness and the rapeclause? Is that because you expected me not to remind you that you voted to hound people to death because of illness and the rapeclause?
I note as well that you think arming the Saudis to bomb hospitals, and the Saudis link to IS is not evidence?
I expected better of you than to vote to hound people to death because of illness, and for the rapeclause, and to arm the Saudis who arm IS.
We all vote for different reasons, where we vote does not mean we vote for every issue the party stands for.
Quite happy to debate with you on any issue. You will have to accept that had you wished me to not vote Tory then you should have defended Corbyn better.
We all vote for different reasons, where we vote does not mean we vote for every issue the party stands for.
Quite happy to debate with you on any issue. You will have to accept that had you wished me to not vote Tory then you should have defended Corbyn better.
Except when you voye for that party and they become govt you are voting for those policies. You have voted in favour of hounding people to death because of illness, you have voted in favour of the rapeclause, you have voted to sell arms to Saudi Arabia to bomb hospitals, and to support IS. It's your choice to have supported those things?
And since I didn't tell you to vote for Corbyn I have no idea what you are trying to say in your last sentence.
In a democracy if you want someone to vote in a certain direction then you should advocate for that direction.
Maybe you are happier demonising those which you disagree.
Gotta keep that chip on the shoulder eh?
I have come across people who can't be bothered to vote as their it won't make any difference to the result in their constituency. However, they whinge when the party they don't support gets in, how daft is that? ::)Well if it won't make a difference, then it won't make a difference. Far better to have PR rather than rotten boroughs
Ah so pointing out what you have voted for is having a chip on my shoulder! You really do struggle to stop personalising things rather than accept that you voted for hounding people to death because of illness, the rapeclause and selling arms to Saudi Arabia who arm IS.
I long for a better standard of debate, any other good forums that people frequent?Is it because you have voted for hounding people to death who are ill, and the rapeclause, and selling arms to Saudi Arabia who support IS, that you are not going to address that but rather comment on the debate?
You will have to accept that had you wished me to not vote Tory then you should have defended Corbyn better.Reading your posts over the past few weeks it has been abundantly clear that you had no intention of voting other than Tory.
I long for a better standard of debate, any other good forums that people frequent?
I am on several others, but this one seems to be the best.I wouldn't worry, Floo, jakswan just seems to want a board where no one points out that he voted to hound people to death because they are ill, the rapeclause, and to sell arms to Saudi Arabia who support IS.
Is it because you have voted for hounding people to death who are ill, and the rapeclause, and selling arms to Saudi Arabia who support IS, that you are not going to address that but rather comment on the debate?
I long for a better standard of debate, any other good forums that people frequent?Have you ever given IS (International Skeptics) a look? (I'm SusanB-M1 there.)
Reading your posts over the past few weeks it has been abundantly clear that you had no intention of voting other than Tory.
You complain at lack of debate, yet mostly all we have had from you are anti-Corbyn sound-bites, with a refusal to even engage in debate on the Tories.
A para I posted elsewhere
Good luck to my friends standing to be MPs today, all of you, every single one really, even Bill the UKIP,, I mean I obviously don't want you to win Bill the UKIP, after all this is a friendship based on honesty if nothing else! And honestly Bill? The UKIP?
Is this Bill who insists that he lives in Cumbria, when that is nothing more than a mongrel creation of the seventies?Different Bill, this one lives in on Harris and defaces Gaelic signs and keeps a whippet called Hereward. Though I am going to suggest Mohammed Al-Malarkey for his next dog's name.
So I voted and being in 1 constituency where it it is an all female list, I wonder will I ever have that again. There were 104 all male lists this election, but only the 1 all female list. The last all female list was in 1992.
I hope that one day this be unremarkable but at 1 constituency every 25 years, it's all a bit Brigadoon
Tories are Tories, IMHO . Women Tories ain't any better.
Tories win well, Corbyn does not resign, lefty Antifa types take to streets to protest / riot and destroy property.Not property!!! Surely they know people are far more expendable?
My prediction
Tories win well, Corbyn does not resign, lefty Antifa types take to streets to protest / riot and destroy property.I don't think so vegetarians aren't the rioting type and broken glass is bloody painful when you've got sandals on.
My prediction
Have you ever given IS (International Skeptics) a look? (I'm SusanB-M1 there.)
That is an interesting exit poll
Postal votes may be the issue?Well yes. Also, I think that a lot of people who voted for the Tories probably lied about how they voted because it is seen as embarrassing.
The exit poll looking weak and wobblyMight be in time - but not yet.
Credit to Corbyn for apparently making Labour "sexy" again among young people.
The NI result IMHO is disappointing, the moderate parties have been annihilated by extreme parties.
I can't say Corbyn thrills me, but to give credit where credit is due, he has don't so much better than ever could have been imagined when the campaign began.. So at least at the start the govt could be May-DUP
It is not a good thing that the Tories will be propped up by the DUP! :o
The idea of being misgoverned by a weak Tory party held up by Billy worshippers from Northern Ireland can appeal to no-one.
In charge of finance, Profdavey ( a new brief case is needed )What's wrong with my old one?!?
I agree. :o
EVEL - English votes for English laws - put in place under Cameron, means that, despite winning a dozen seats in Scotland, the new Tories cannot vote for Westminster legislation which doesn't affect Scotland....so whichever Tory gets the poisoned chalice has a heck of a problem.....
Dear Sweet British public,
The TV pundits keep going on about May's authority, what authority? she has never had any authority, she has been on a shakey wicket since day one, a remainer shouting for a hard brexit.
Tory smoke and mirrors or may be ( as some have suggested ) media smoke and mirrors.
Dear Your Majesty,
You will have a visitor today, the Tower is an option ;)
Gonnagle.
Gonnagle.
EVEL - English votes for English laws - put in place under Cameron, means that, despite winning a dozen seats in Scotland, the new Tories cannot vote for Westminster legislation which doesn't affect Scotland....so whichever Tory gets the poisoned chalice has a heck of a problem.....
Well whatever anyone else might think of Diane Abbott, the constituency vote was a ringing endorsement.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackney_North_and_Stoke_Newington_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
Lord Buckethead
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/06/09/all-hail-lord-buckethead-our-new-king/#.WTpIPfn-SNM.facebook
May’s attempt at coalition with the homophobic, science denying NI fruit loops doesn’t hold, Corbyn asks for support from SNP & Lib Dems to run a minority Government, either or both agree but the price is a Parliamentary vote once Brexit deal available, Brexit negotiated, Parliament decide it’s worse than remaining, sets up an independent office of fact checking and holds second referendum, public looks over the cliff and rejects the deal, Article 50 application to leave withdrawn, bluehillside buys nice little barn conversion in Tuscany.
You read it here first folks!
10. Legalisation of the hunting of fox-hunters.
May’s attempt at coalition with the homophobic, science denying NI fruit loops doesn’t hold
Who would have thought Scotland saved us from Corbyn, thank you Scotland! :)Hmm - and you'd have us to believe that over the past couple of weeks you are weighing up whether to vote for May or Corbyn with both as a serious possibility.
Dear Jim,
You leave our Maj alone ;) at least she is one treasure that the bloody Tories can't sell off >:(
Gonnagle.
319 + 10 hell would freeze over before they saw Corbyn in office.
However, LD could support Tories holding another Brexit vote for deal \ less austerity \ more taxes, as the price.
It conveniently gives the Tories someone to blame if the right wing arm get too horrified by a freedom of movement of Labour move.
Hmm - and you'd have us to believe that over the past couple of weeks you are weighing up whether to vote for May or Corbyn with both as a serious possibility.
I think we all saw through that pretence but at least you are starting to be honest in your posting now.
I agree, it is The Queen who has kept this country together, imo.
I agree, it is The Queen who has kept this country together, imo.Good God, what a recommendation ::)
jak,
Thought of that but Lib Dems so badly burned by coalition last time that inconceivable they'd try it again I think. Some combination of Sturgeon/Fallon insisting on Parliamentary vote on the Brexit deal though as price of working co-operation with Labour gov't possible maybe, esp if student loans/debts cancelled also part of the deal?
My wife and I prayed for a government which would return to traditional Christian values, but with no idea how this could be brought about with all the main parties all drifting away from such values. So we now have the possibility of a coalition with the DUP which is very pro life and anti gay marriage. So thank you God! :)
Can you for just once stop with the insults. I explained in detail yesterday how I had been thinking of voting in this election, you paint that as pretence and not being honest, and I think its a pretty poor show.It isn't that I disgree with you voting Tory that is the issue.
People can disagree with you it doesn't make them bad people.
My wife and I prayed for a government which would return to traditional Christian values, but with no idea how this could be brought about with all the main parties all drifting away from such values. So we now have the possibility of a coalition with the DUP which is very pro life and anti gay marriage. So thank you God! :)
My wife and I prayed for a government which would return to traditional Christian values, but with no idea how this could be brought about with all the main parties all drifting away from such values. So we now have the possibility of a coalition with the DUP which is very pro life and anti gay marriage. So thank you God! :)So - given the 70% + support for marriage equality in NI - you support a party which doesn't support democracy. Why am I not flabbergasted?
So you support parties supported by paramilatary groups.Oh the irony.
Dear Mr Burns,If only we followed the Maker's instructions there would be far less problems.
Christian values >:( >:( You really are a lovely poster boy for the religion of Churchianity :(
Gonnagle.
The numbers are not there, to form a government you have to get a Queens speech through, 329 MP's would block it. Which is why Scotland have voted to in effect to keep the Tories in power, if it were not for the 12 seats gained in Scotland the Tories (with DUP) would only have 317. If it were not for this gain Corbyn would be odds-on for PM.
What you are proposing is like contemplating a SNP \ Tory deal!
Seen elsewhere 'The DUP manifesto is basically just the Bible, with fortnightly bin collections'
If only we followed the Maker's instructions there would be far less problems.Which "instructions" according to which "maker"?
My wife and I prayed for a government which would return to traditional Christian values, but with no idea how this could be brought about with all the main parties all drifting away from such values. So we now have the possibility of a coalition with the DUP which is very pro life and anti gay marriage. So thank you God! :)
If only we followed the Maker's instructions there would be far less problems.
I suspect it will all end in tears before long, and the ballot boxes will be used again before the year is out.
It isn't that I disgree with you voting Tory that is the issue.
It is the pretence (clear for all to see) that somehow you were seriously considering voting for Corbyn instead. All you have done throughout the past few weeks is carp and criticise Corbyn and Labour (and I'm not fan of the former, no longer a member of the latter and didn't vote Labour). You were going to vote Tory all along, that's clear for all to see. Just start being honest.
I don't think Corbyn is running on a socialist manifesto most of it seems fairly sensible.
To be honest I find the Tory manifesto pretty bland
I like the Labour policies generally
I could vote Tory, I think May is a very poor politician and I'd vote for a centrist Labour led party without hesitation
I'm not thinking about voting for the Tories I'am thinking about voting Labour.
I think generally Labour has better policies, I'm sold on that.
I think he has played a blinder. (Corbyn)
Hung parliament that could be a great result all round!
Again I was basing my vote on the fact that I used to think May would be the better leader, I'm now basing it on who I think has the best policies, Labour.
And the notion that the social care policy turned you into a don't know is just laughable given that you spend post after post defending it when I was critical.
Looking at the voting map I'm surprised how blue Scotland is, I thought you guys didn't like the conservatives? :o
Looking at the voting map I'm surprised how blue Scotland is, I thought you guys didn't like the conservatives?
:o
The percentage is wrong it was 37% of those that voted and was down 13%.
Most of the Tory gains were in rural (and therefore larger) constituencies - or in areas where rich or upper middle class retired - such as Ayr.
In essence, the old Tory heartland. The SNP vote held up - but the Labour voters voted tactically; in effect a unionist vote.
Actually, 59% of the electorate in Scotland voted SNP, and they still won more seats than everyone else put together - by quite a margin.
Looking at the voting map I'm surprised how blue Scotland is, I thought you guys didn't like the conservatives?
My wife and I prayed for a government which would return to traditional Christian values, but with no idea how this could be brought about with all the main parties all drifting away from such values. So we now have the possibility of a coalition with the DUP which is very pro life and anti gay marriage. So thank you God! :)
Jak,
Well, Jezza seems to think he could make the numbers work. Given the Daily Mail's vitriol about his history with Sinn Fein, what I wonder will they make of May getting into bed with the terrorist-endorsed DUP?
Corbyn is in a win, win situation he is the hero of the election campaign, but doesn't have the task of actually having to fulfil his election promises!
Except he lost.
Maybe but his rating in now in the ascendency, whereas May's is in the sewer!I'm really struggling to see how May can survive after this.
I'm really struggling to see how May can survive after this.
I can't see how she will manage it, she had quite a few detractors in her party before this debacle.Indeed - and she completely sidelined just about every other leading Tory during the campaign, with the exception of Amber Rudd (and Ruth Davidson in Scotland). Hammond, Gove, Johnson, Hunt, Fox, Leadson, Greening, Morgan, Truss etc were simply invisible.
I'm really struggling to see how May can survive after this.
Maybe but his rating in now in the ascendency, whereas May's is in the sewer!
Absolutely, May's time is limited, a caretaker. Expect new Tory leader by autumn.Would Ruth not have to become an MP first?
Odds are less than 5 for these to be next Prime Minister Boris Johnson, David Davis, Amber Rudd, Jeremy Corbyn, Ruth Davidson.
Would Ruth not have to become an MP first?Yes - unless they put her in the House of Lords and started playing politics as if it was 1817 not 2017.
Well played by Labour.
I did not support many of Labour's manifesto commitments - nice as they are I did not think they were economically viable.
For a start increases in Corporation Tax means more people have an incentive to pay accountants additional fees to save them from paying additional taxes. Accountants often charge a percentage of the tax saved so higher tax rates would probably mean the government collects less tax to spend on public services.
Secondly my experience is that there are very few people in a private sector business who have the ability to make a significant impact on profits. My experience is that a talented few put in crazy hours because they are competitive and delivering results matter to them - they define themselves by it - and then delegate work and manage and monitor the people below them, who wouldn't achieve those results without their managers to manage resources, take risks, make strategic decisions. The few who are so good at their job that they are hard to replace (and the business would take a big hit without them) get paid a bigger share of the profits to retain them. Everyone else is not good enough at their jobs to be irreplaceable, regardless of how much training they get, because it's about drive, not education.
Thirdly I support private and grammar schools - helps people with drive compete against other people with drive and the competition leads to higher achievements for the few. I know - Labour's manifest is for the many, not the few. If private and grammar schools were abolished, the smart or driven kids in the state school system would improves state school standards. But those smart or driven kids won't achieve what they could have achieved in the private or grammar school system.
Well, thank God we will all be saved from sodomy and evolution, and not just Ulster. God has a plan!... and he's swapping notes with Al Burns!
. But those smart or driven kids won't achieve what they could have achieved in the private or grammar school system.Does that apply to all smart and driven kids who have never attended private or grammar schools?
Don't expect the lefties here to pick this up, misrepresentation and whataboutery is their playbook. :)
Does that apply to all smart and driven kids who have never attended private or grammar schools?Which is, of course, the vast majority, given that most parents of smart kids can't afford private schooling and there aren't any grammar schools in most of the country.
Don't expect the lefties here to pick this up, misrepresentation and whataboutery is their playbook. :)Hole, digging, stop.
Hole, digging, stop.You can have in, when, a and you're for free.
Use these three words to create a well known phrase.
Well played by Labour.
I did not support many of Labour's manifesto commitments - nice as they are I did not think they were economically viable.
For a start increases in Corporation Tax means more people have an incentive to pay accountants additional fees to save them from paying additional taxes. Accountants often charge a percentage of the tax saved so higher tax rates would probably mean the government collects less tax to spend on public services.
Secondly my experience is that there are very few people in a private sector business who have the ability to make a significant impact on profits. My experience is that a talented few put in crazy hours because they are competitive and delivering results matter to them - they define themselves by it - and then delegate work and manage and monitor the people below them, who wouldn't achieve those results without their managers to manage resources, take risks, make strategic decisions. The few who are so good at their job that they are hard to replace (and the business would take a big hit without them) get paid a bigger share of the profits to retain them. Everyone else is not good enough at their jobs to be irreplaceable, regardless of how much training they get, because it's about drive, not education.
Thirdly I support private and grammar schools - helps people with drive compete against other people with drive and the competition leads to higher achievements for the few. I know - Labour's manifest is for the many, not the few. If private and grammar schools were abolished, the smart or driven kids in the state school system would improves state school standards. But those smart or driven kids won't achieve what they could have achieved in the private or grammar school system.
However, my very active Labour MP (she campaigned against local hospital closures) phoned me and said Labour have no chance of winning so don't worry about tax policies and education policies, vote for me if you think I do a good job in Opposition of asking the government awkward questions and holding them accountable. So I did vote for my Labour candidate - because I wanted someone to hold the government accountable rather than giving them free rein.
Speaking as a former partner at one of the Big 4 accountancy firms, corporation tax is already largely discretionary given the ease with which it can be avoided – see Starbucks, Amazon etc. All you need do for example is house the ownership of your intellectual property rights in a low tax off-shore territory, then charge your UK subsidiary a shed load of royalties for using the company name, thereby reducing its taxable profit here.That only really works for larger businesses with the ability to transfer profit offshore - most small businesses can't do that.
Worth noting too that the plans for higher corporation tax would have applied to profits over £300k, so not affected most small businesses at all.I hadn't picked up on that - but when the plans were being discussed I did comment that the rates they were discussing from 2010 were those that applied to big businesses, not the small business rate.
I don’t. Private and grammar schools privilege the wealthy over the less wealthy when there’s no corresponding relationship with intelligence and drive. While I might come some of the way with you about creating an educational system that enables everyone to achieve their potential, I don’t see what the size of your parents’ bank account has to do with it.And there is plenty of evidence that in areas which are largely selective overall attainment across both the grammars and the de facto secondary moderns is lower than in non selective areas where everyone is going to comprehensive schools.
My “smart or driven” daughter incidentally went to a comprehensive school that offers the International Baccalaureate rather than “A” levels. She scored 45 points – the maximum possible, equivalent to five A* “A” levels. Did she not “achieve what they could have achieved in the private or grammar school system”?
That only really works for larger businesses with the ability to transfer profit offshore - most small businesses can't do that.
I hadn't picked up on that - but when the plans were being discussed I did comment that the rates they were discussing from 2010 were those that applied to big businesses, not the small business rate.
And there is plenty of evidence that in areas which are largely selective overall attainment across both the grammars and the de facto secondary moderns is lower than in non selective areas where everyone is going to comprehensive schools.
Fair enough. Why then shouldn’t those big bizzos pay their share? After all, they rely on employees and for that matter on a customer base that has to be educated, use medical services, drive on the roads, have the rubbish collected etc. If Starbucks and the rest paid tax in a relationship with where their sales occurred I really don’t think they’d leave the UK.They should - my point was that the current system, even with a small business corporation tax rate, is stacked against small businesses, when they are competing with large ones.
Which is why I’d rather live in a society with a non-selective system, certainly when the selection is done by bank balance.I agree.
Hole, digging, stop.
Use these three words to create a well known phrase.
Davey, unable to refute dishonesty and hypocrisy.Quote from Jakswan:
Quote from Jakswan:
'Don't expect the lefties here to pick this up, misrepresentation and whataboutery is their playbook.'
And he would have us believe that just days ago he was seriously considering voting for a left wing party. We aren't idiots you know.
Well that will be JC out of a job pretty soon!Seb. Right on the money I see.
So we have you to thank for a strategically inept PM being supported by a bunch of science-deniers: one would have thought God would be a little more politically savvy. Will await with interest to see what the DUP will demand by way of return: perhaps a green-tinged version of the 'Noah's Ark' theme park in Kentucky being built in leafy Strabane.Gordon
I suspect it will all end in tears before long, and the ballot boxes will be used again before the year is out.
Does that apply to all smart and driven kids who have never attended private or grammar schools?I doubt it - there are always exceptions and some really good state schools or exceptional teachers in bad state schools.
Rose,
The geographic and the demographic maps don’t correlate.
I have no idea how that translates to university results ...With all other factors accounted for students entering university with AAA from a private school have a 72% likelihood of attaining a first of 2i degree at the end of their studies. An equivalent AAA student from a state school has over 80% chance of getting a first or 2i. The differences exist for all other entry A-level grades, except the very top (i.e. 4 or more As).
Dear Prof,
She can't, the next big question is Brexit and she is now a laughing stock in Europe, she must at all times go to parliament ( not the Tories ) on all decisions she makes regarding Brexit, her gamble for overall power failed.
Just to add, Ruth Davidson is now talking about a open brexit ( whatever that means ) and she is also quoted as saying we must talk to other parties regarding Brexit, is this the first sign she is throwing off her leaders shackles, distancing herself from a soon to be ex Prime Minister.
Gonnagle.
Gabriella,
But they were at least costed – which more that can be said for the tory “menu without the prices” approach.
Labour last but won,
Gabriella,I think companies make a decision on where to invest based on post tax NPV and I would rather companies had spare funds to hire and train more employees. Most of my employable skills came from learning on the job.
Speaking as a former partner at one of the Big 4 accountancy firms, corporation tax is already largely discretionary given the ease with which it can be avoided – see Starbucks, Amazon etc. All you need do for example is house the Group's intellectual property rights in a low tax off-shore territory, then charge your UK subsidiary a shed load of royalties for using the company name, thereby reducing its taxable profit here.
Worth noting too that the plans for higher corporation tax would have applied to profits over £300k, so not affected most small businesses at all.
It’s also a lot about luck and happenstance – anyone can be a risk taker, but it’s dangerous to assume that those whose risks came good had any special insight. Either way though, I’m not sure how this relates to Labour’s corporation tax proposals?Oh absolutely it's mostly luck. I don't think it is special insight - it's mostly tenacity and sheer bloody-mindedness to keep going and make it work by trying different things and networking to overcome obstacle after obstacle, sacrificing time with the family and your health in the process.
I don’t. Private and grammar schools privilege the wealthy over the less wealthy when there’s no corresponding relationship with intelligence and drive. While I might come some of the way with you about creating an educational system that enables everyone to achieve their potential, I don’t see what the size of your parents’ bank account has to do with it.Currently very few state schools offer IB. Your daughter did really well and was lucky to be at a school that offered her the option of working to her potential. I don't think the size of the parent's bank balance is the issue - both my kids are at private school but my younger daughter will probably achieve better exam results than my older daughter even though I will spend more on my older daughter by paying for extra tutoring outside of school for her. But I do notice that their private school demands higher standards of work and gives them harder work than my younger daughter was offered at State school. A state school that offers IB may be the exception - I have little experience of IB but I remember the Maths in an IB text book at a private school I visited looked pretty tough compared to A'Level Maths.
My “smart or driven” daughter incidentally went to a comprehensive school that offers the International Baccalaureate rather than “A” levels. She scored 45 points – the maximum possible, equivalent to five A* “A” levels. Did she not “achieve what they could have achieved in the private or grammar school system”?
Dangerous things, generalisations.Yes - that's why I was talking about my experience rather than generalising.
I brought this up in this thread and as I stated then, whilst I thought the Tories manifesto was pretty bland it wasn't that costly.It included the most costly manifesto promise of any of the major parties. Leaving the single market and customs union and prioritising immigration over the economy in brexit.
I've been reflecting on this all day.
In fact, no, Labour lost but they lost.
I think this result is actually a disaster for them. Everybody is praising Corbyn for narrowing the gap from 25 points to virtually nothing, but everybody seems to have lost sight of the fact that, coming into this election, Labour was 25 points behind. It's like praising a football team that is five-nil down in the 80th minute for pulling the score back to 5-4. Yeah, they scored four goals but they previously shipped five. This is not good.
It's the same team that failed to hold the Conservative government to account for two years that is now being praised for losing not as badly as they might have done. Except now, of course, they cannot be booted out.
From18 AprilI'm delighted to be proved wrong!
Seb. Right on the money I see.
I have little experience of IB but I remember the Maths in an IB text book at a private school I visited looked pretty tough compared to A'Level Maths.The IB isn't harder than A-level - the issue with the IB is that it is broader, but actually rather less deep than A-levels.
It included the most costly manifesto promise of any of the major parties. Leaving the single market and customs union and prioritising immigration over the economy in brexit.
I've been reflecting on this all day.
My demonstrably hypocritical dishonest chum, freedom of movement of labour and a free trade deal, thought you were up for that? What did Labour promise is this regard?Oh here we go again - blind to the cost impact of the Tory manifesto, but instantly shifting the focus on the Labour manifesto.
Oh here we go again - blind to the cost impact of the Tory manifesto, but instantly shifting the focus on the Labour manifesto.
We aren't talking about the Labour manifesto, but the Tory one - the Tories committed to remove us from the single market and customs union, said they'd be prepared to walk away with no trade deal and they committed to a cap on net migration of under 100,000 which necessaries prioritises numbers over economic needs.
What's the cost to the economy of those manifesto commitments - must be in the tens of billions per annum.
Increasing rates will raise less revenue in the medium to long run because firms would respond by investing less in the UK. This in turn would depress economic activity and lead to fewer jobs and lower wages. There is a very high degree of uncertainty about how large these effects are but estimates suggest that they may be substantial. The potential size of these effects is an indication of why the OECD and others judge corporation tax to have a particularly damaging effect on economic growth.
I agree, Jeremy. What we have now is the worst of all possible worlds. Hopefully another election will happen soon but if that returns a similar result then we are screwed.
Tezza is being propped up by Prod bigots?
Paisley must be laughing in hell.
OK all together now
....."the sash my father wore..."
And NO I am not joking
Agree and I'm puzzled by commentators suggesting Tory Brexit deal is off the table, article 50 is triggered, if they don't vote for the Tory deal that they forward then we will have no deal.
I wish you were.
Those vermin infest the streets of many Scots towns in July.
I know the sectarian trash peddled by the DUP, and greet with horror May's desire to get into bed with them.
I brought this up in this thread and as I stated then, whilst I thought the Tories manifesto was pretty bland it wasn't that costly. Much of Labours programme, spend by taxing the top few % was according to the IFS a nonsense.Spot on about the catchphrases or hypnotic mantras as I call them but then that reflects the appalling view by the Tories of the electorate as the disgruntled family dog easily soothed by a few words.
The Tories seemed wedded to catch phrases, 'magical money tree' which is a conclusion not an argument. The Tories seemed to surrender the economic argument, you would get an opponent attack with 'you planned to end deficit by 2015 but failed' they had no comebacks. Surely the obvious comeback is to challenge when they would end the deficit?
Do you really think Corbyn would have increased Corp Tax tax take by what Labour claimed?
Here is the IFS summary.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR4VYOqovsQ
May’s attempt at coalition with the homophobic, science denying NI fruit loops doesn’t hold, Corbyn asks for support from SNP & Lib Dems to run a minority Government, either or both agree but the price is a Parliamentary vote once Brexit deal available, Brexit negotiated, Parliament decide it’s worse than remaining, sets up an independent office of fact checking and holds second referendum, public looks over the cliff and rejects the deal, Article 50 application to leave withdrawn, bluehillside buys nice little barn conversion in Tuscany.
You read it here first folks!
Is this what you are looking for?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGAbh0uMDcY
BTW way Swannie - Traffic is so fuckin' low on this site these days that I'm sure enabling YouTube player won't make any dent on bandwidth...
This site is nothing to do with me, passed it on to others.We'll have a look
Fringe idiot MP Chris Leslie ,labour, talked earlier today about how Corbyn missed the open goal and failed at this election.
Did the BBC locate him because he is obviously Odd or because of their general anti Corbin position.
Fringe idiot MP Chris Leslie ,labour, talked earlier today about how Corbyn missed the open goal and failed at this election.
Did the BBC locate him because he is obviously Odd or because of their general anti Corbin position.
Thanks for your post.oh ffs, the it was the nasty press schtick gives you nothing here. I waded through wheat fields of that pish last night from people saying the BBC was obviously biased because Question Time had three 'progressives' on it to 2 holders of the one true flame. Shunting about it isn't going to be the zone Big Push. This country is in the midst of a huge change and you are maundering about some wank on a radio programme. I take it you attacked them for shoeing Anna Soubry yesterday attacking May?
The obvious nonsense put forward by ChrisLeslie was that the election was an open goal for CorbynThat the BBC gave him scope for this is consistent with the BBC anti Corbyn opinion IMHO.
Having failed to destroy Corbyn I think the press will try getting us to forget the result vis the Express describing the result as an Upset.
Expect silence, articles on statins and rose growing, and light orchestral classics instead of right wing shock jocks.
oh ffs, the it was the nasty press schtick gives you nothing here. I waded through wheat fields of that pish last night from people saying the BBC was obviously biased because Question Time had three 'progressives' on it to 2 holders of the one true flame. Shunting about it isn't going to be the zone Big Push. This country is in the midst of a huge change and you are maundering about some wank on a radio programme. I take it you attacked them for shoeing Anna Soubry yesterday attacking May?Rubbish
It's currently 435,000.
Rubbish
Dimunition of Corbyn achievement is vital for the maintenance of Tory culture in the party, in the press and yes, in the BBC.
I understand as a Scottish commentator Corbyn looms less on your political radar.
You are therefore complicit in the dimunition of the political shift in favour of the Conservative retrotopia which seeks to paint the election as a little "upset".
I just have.
So have I.Love, peace and charity to the fore as ever ::)
The sight of those lunatic taig hating prods on the government front bench aint amusing.
Apparently 300,000 people have already signed a petition against a Tory/DUP coalition.
It isn't a little upset, it's a loss. It doesn't matter what happens unless you actually manage to do something. Sitting there moaning about Chris Leslie or me because people haven't noted that not doing as badly as some thought isn't a glorious victory when you haven't noticed that it is a loss is indulgent and self obsessed.You are the one on the sidelines.
It's what the Labour Party does now is import ant and if it is going to sit like you on the sidelines, and go oh look the BBC talked to a nasty Labour MP, then it will become an irrelevance. Forget about the media portrayal of the defeat and see what you can do with it.
It is a petition against a deal, no one is talking of coalition. If you don't want the Tories to do a deal with DUP then start campaigning to get SNP/Labour/LibDems to do a deal with Tories otherwise there is no choice.Isn't a petition a way of campaigning?
Its almost a petition to end democracy.
It is a petition against a deal, no one is talking of coalition. If you don't want the Tories to do a deal with DUP then start campaigning to get SNP/Labour/LibDems to do a deal with Tories otherwise there is no choice.
Its almost a petition to end democracy.
Isn't a petition a way of campaigning?
You don't need a deal, the Tories could run as a minority. Though as I suggested in my post to Vlad, I think Labour should offer opposition but not to through the Tories out in a no confidence vote in return for all party driving of Brexit and no DUP deal.
Love, peace and charity to the fore as ever ::)
The deal need only be us or else Corbyn. All other parties would vote against a Queen's speech.And lose. There isn't an or else Corbyn unless the DYP were to vote for him, given Sinn Fein's abstentionism. The issue with the DUP as coveted earlier is not that the effect on policy particularly but the effect on NI where there is no possibility of brokering a piece while being propped up. The Tories didn't need the DUP at all but they panicked. Not a good sign.
Apparently 300,000 people have already signed a petition against a Tory/DUP coalition.Well, I hope that people in positions of responsibility who need to think clearly, as impartially as they can, and withthe the long term prospects in mind will not take any more notice of this than it merits.
Well, I hope that people in positions of responsibility who need to think clearly, as impartially as they can, and withthe the long term prospects in mind will not take any more notice of this than it merits.As opposed to rushing to do a deal with the DUP?
Rushing to sign a petition is a knee-jerk reaction and far too easy to do.
And lo, from the New YorkerOh, thank you very much for posting that linke. I love it! It shall be sent on to others!
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-book-of-jeremy-corbyn
Well, I hope that people in positions of responsibility who need to think clearly, as impartially as they can, and withthe the long term prospects in mind will not take any more notice of this than it merits.
Rushing to sign a petition is a knee-jerk reaction and far too easy to do.
Breaking wind.Is that the couple on her advisory team that I heard mention of on the news (or something) just now?
Theresa May now much less shit after resignation of little known pair.
Expiation to country now not only complete but GBP now owe May full allegiance.
Is that the couple on her advisory team that I heard mention of on the news (or something) just now?Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, today's sacrificial victims, others will no doubt follow. Note the issues with communication office was apparent with the resignations in the months before the election. No matter what happens from here May won't lead the Tories in another election.
ETA I have modified my previous post.
And lose. There isn't an or else Corbyn unless the DYP were to vote for him, given Sinn Fein's abstentionism. The issue with the DUP as coveted earlier is not that the effect on policy particularly but the effect on NI where there is no possibility of brokering a piece while being propped up. The Tories didn't need the DUP at all but they panicked. Not a good sign.
Well, I hope that people in positions of responsibility who need to think clearly, as impartially as they can, and withthe the long term prospects in mind will not take any more notice of this than it merits.
Rushing to sign a petition is a knee-jerk reaction and far too easy to do.
ETA I see from subsequent posts that I might well think it is a fair point, but I still would not sign a petition.
Can you quite a member of any party that is now saying there is no possibility of peace?
A broken peace in Ireland may be a price you are willing to pay for political capital but I'd prefer to keep the peace as much as possible.
I would much prefer perhaps SNP or Labour or LibDems to set out their terms for a Tory Govt but that ain't going to happen.
Can you point out where you think I have said or implied a broken peace is a price worth paying? It's precisely my worry the govt will not be able to brokeR a peace that I don't think thisisa good idea.
I don't think there is any chance of a full deal with the other parties which is why I suggested the Labour Party says that it won't vote No confidence if there is full cross party involvement in Brexit and no DUP deal.
You have toned that down - no possibility of brokering a piece - you are now worried
Lets see if the Labour does that then.
and the Mash take
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/dup-deal-to-focus-on-brexit-pensions-and-dinosaurs-being-a-hoax-20170610129309
When I was about 13 I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church I attended where dinosaurs fitted in, as they were obviously much older than the 6000 years he believed the earth to be. His daft reply was that god had placed their skeletons around the world as a test of faith!!!. My faith took a nosedive after that.
When I was about 13 I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church I attended where dinosaurs fitted in, as they were obviously much older than the 6000 years he believed the earth to be. His daft reply was that god had placed their skeletons around the world as a test of faith!!!. My faith took a nosedive after that.
Carol Anne Duffy in today's Guardian:
In which her body was a question-mark
querying her lies; her mouth a ballot-box that bit the hand that fed. Her eyes? They swivelled for a jackpot win. Her heart was a stolen purse;
her rhetoric an empty vicarage, the windows smashed.
Then her feet grew sharp stilettos, awkward.
Then she had balls, believe it.
When she woke,
her nose was bloody, difficult.
The furious young
ran towards her through the fields of wheat.
Glad the Tories didn't get an overall majority. I even like some of Corbyn's views, especially regarding nationalisation.
When I was about 13 I asked the YEC pastor of the Pentecostal church I attended where dinosaurs fitted in, as they were obviously much older than the 6000 years he believed the earth to be. His daft reply was that god had placed their skeletons around the world as a test of faith!!!. My faith took a nosedive after that.
But have you told the papers? I'm sure they will be desperate to get your take,
Yes, it is the Mail on Sunday and, yes it is Peter Hitchens, but he can still write. As ever don't agree with him entirely but the angle chimes.I agree.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4592398/PETER-HITCHENS-Theresa-s-Tories-useful-zombie.html
I agree.
However, He could, if it is his thesis that the tories have been off true message for years, state just what type of Conservatism will be the nations salvation.
Worse though is his complete ignoring of the role of the press. It isn't brave enough for him to exaggerate the negative role of the BBC rules as a conduit for tory views as he seems to and not bite the hand that feeds him. In other words he hasn't tried to remove from himself the humbug his article hopes to
The 'logic' of your approach here is that since you haven't condemned child poverty in the above post, you support it and have been complicit in ensuring that children go to bed in squalor and hunger.Nonsense
The 'logic' of your approach here is that since you haven't condemned child poverty in the above post, you support it and have been complicit in ensuring that children go to bed in squalor and hunger.Have you you placed this red non sequitur begging herring into muddy waters which have been poisoned in line with the policy of knocking theists for their logic?
I need to get a bigger television for it to show George Osborne's smirk on Andrew Marr
Did Labour make it clear in their manifesto that they are opposed to the single market and will not negotiate on it?
For once I found him watchable, in a kind of don't-want-to-look-have-to-look kind of a way. Politicians are always more interesting when they leave politics..I saw him being attacked elsewhere for being 'disloyal, unprofessional and pretty self indulgent' or as someone pointed out 'a journalist'. A very loved friend lost their seat at the election, and I wrote a note to them commiserating but pointing out that they get their life back now.
To quote
'We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. '
I saw him being attacked elsewhere for being 'disloyal, unprofessional and pretty self indulgent' or as someone pointed out 'a journalist'. A very lived friend list their seat at the election, and I wrote a note to them commiserating but pointing out that they get their life back now.
Did Labour make it clear in their manifesto that they are opposed to the single market and will not negotiate on it?They called it a ''Jobs first Brexit'' having prioritised that that notionally leaves them with a flexibility on how that is achieved. They also have the luxury of the tories having to finally show a good deal of their brexit hand.
Yes, he's all those things. Unfortunately something in me finds that watchable. Current political television is like Jeremy Kyle for Guardian readers.The point though is surely that to expect a journalist to be loyal, and not to act professionally as a journalists is missing the point. Osborne is doing his job (well one of them), that he gets to to it with some glee doesn't stop it being his job. It is also a foolish attack as it gains nothing, intimidatesnit at all,and looks like a whinge.
Hope your friend is ok.
The point though is surely that to expect a journalist to be loyal, and not to act professionally as a journalists is missing the point. Osborne is doing his job (well one of them), that he gets to to it with some glee doesn't stop it being his job. It is also a foolish attack as it gains nothing, intimidatesnit at all,and looks like a whinge.
Did Labour make it clear in their manifesto that they are opposed to the single market and will not negotiate on it?
They called it a ''Jobs first Brexit'' having prioritised that that notionally leaves them with a flexibility on how that is achieved. They also have the luxury of the tories having to finally show a good deal of their brexit hand.
The GBP have been paradoxically shielded from contemplating the full implications of Brexit because of the recent events and have effectively separated the brexit from the politics. Whoever is negotiating Brexit particularly the Conservatives who are on the brink of electoral annihilation need therefore to know what the word on the street is about Brexit and whether the majority of people actually want it any more. The ball is in the tory court. Once they go and Brexit is seen as the turd it is....Labour will then do whatever they think fit.
Go back on their manifesto?That depends if they get in this time round if T.May fails to form a government. In that eventuality an argument could be made that they had gone back on their manifesto. That would have been a big deal when the tories could get away with 5 manifesto reversals to everyone of labour but i'm not sure those days are here anymore.
Go back on their manifesto?
And Fintan O'Toole's take
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/06/10/britain-the-end-of-a-fantasy/
Partying like it was still 18th April 2017
Andrew Neil and Pienaar trying to get confessions of failure out of Labour politicians.
Graham Brady, who chairs the 1922 committee of backbench Conservative MPs, has said the UK now has two options. Another election for which HE doesn't ''detect an appetite for'' or ''responsible leadership'' from the Conservatives.
Source BBC.
If we are honest the consequences of Brexit never mattered to the Conservatives since any outcome does not effect any of them seriously materially.
I suppose right-wing Tories like it as it has overtones of nationalism, Britannia, keeps the wogs out, and so on. Economically, it's more difficult to justify, as at a stroke you cut off or shrink trade with your nearest neighbours. So you have to go on about trade with everybody else - which may be possible of course. But you can't help thinking that May's chaos is partly Brexit-caused, as she has not spelled out what it means. Well, nobody has, except in vague terms. Blank cheques rule.
Ah unity!!!
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/conservative-party/theresa-may/news/86605/theresa-may-be-hauled-emergency
This just what we need, make out some as racist, fuels hatred and division.But some are racist. You have a point if you complain about all being made out as racist but denying that any are is just as ludicrous.
This just what we need, make out some as racist, fuels hatred and division.
You should come and talk to some of my neighbours (Norfolk), they sound like Julius Streicher. Do you think I should avoid mentioning this?
I thought you were referring to MP's since it was in context of view over Brexit? Anyway someone can be a right-wing tory without being racist as someone can be hard left without being anti-Semitic.And since wigginhall didn't say that either, it was simply a misreading on your part
It was a lazy generalisation in my view.
The odd thing too is that we are still getting the 'and we'll get a great Brexit deal' mantra: apart from this sounding like a request for a thoughtfully arranged natural disaster, I'd imagine the EU negotiators will be well aware that they're dealing with a hapless Tory government that has ran out of feet in which to shoot itself.
That'll secure the pylon, lift and escalator enthusiasts. Phew Tories in forever on landslides all the way...no wait...er.
Also hearing Gove in as DPM.
Baffled why LibDems don't put themselves up as possible coalition partners for Tories, could extract referendum as the price.
Nobody yet seems to have considered another of the genies to be liberated from the bottle: the young. Corbyn motivated young people to enfranchise themselves. And they did.
If the demographic analysis following the EU membership referendum is reliable, then it may be that - already - "the will of the people" has changed because the electorate itself has changed. I suspect that the Tories know that, and that to enable another referendum in the short term would be just one step too far. They would lose all credibility.
Maybe but it wasn't in their manifesto, leaving the single market was in labour and tory.A fair point...though who would offer the almost inevitable referendum after that.
One party was offering another vote and the electorate ignored them.
A fair point...though who would offer the almost inevitable referendum after that.One thing is clear after the election. There isn't a mandate for May's hard brexit that prioritises control of migration over the economy. Nor is there a mandate for 'no deal is better than a bad deal'.
Given everything isn't a Brexit for jobs the optimum solution here.
Connected this is the phenomenon that voters are beginning to disconnect Brexit with party.
The expectation is that the government in question has a responsibility to sort this out.That is why Boris Johnson Should never be countenanced and that the Lib Dems should follow your suggestion and go into coalition with second referendum as the price.
Out of Labour and the Tories I'm afraid Corbyn fulfils the qualities the Tories thought were necessary and thought they had. Mistakenly I think.
One thing is clear after the election. There isn't a mandate for May's hard brexit that prioritises control of migration over the economy. Nor is there a mandate for 'no deal is better than a bad deal'.
I think we are swinging back towards retaining membership of single market and customs union. Seems to be that is the only thing left that cannot be discounted as having been rejected by the public.
Labour and Tory both committed to leaving the single market, John Mcdonnell confirmed this as did JC.
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-single-market-jeremy-corbyn_uk_593d320ee4b02402687a2460
The UK staying in the single market is a busted flush.
And I don't believe a lot of Labour voters realised that.I think the labour voter with regards Brexit expected a jobs Brexit with rights as workers remaining.
Government reshuffle really looks like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Bringing Gove back in is just like making the iceberg the minister.
And I don't believe a lot of Labour voters realised that.
Its not just Labour voters, its Labour MP's, I know he is not MP but representative, seen Alistair Campbell tweet today.I don't think the Tories will do the deal with the LibDems although that would certainly relieve pressure on the DUP front.
"I suspect some of the young people voting Labour and voting for the first time were hoping for something a bit less Brextremist from JC/JMcD"
Meanwhile we saw Labour MP's today delightfully telling interviewers that the Tories would tear themselves apart over Brexit, ironic its going to be Labour who do exactly that!
Weird init, I told posters here if you didn't want to leave the Single Market then the LibDems was the only game in town and they invested all their time and effort in defending Corbyn.
A last gasp LibDem - Tory coalition could save the day for remainers and get a referendum on a deal in the Queens speech, yet they are deluding themselves they won when in fact they lost.
The establishment wants you to think there will be another general election soon and can change all this, dream on.
The DUP will do a deal Tuesday, after that any hopes of membership of the single market/EU is possible is over.
TM called election to strengthen her hand re. Brexit but ended up weakened so you might expect that an astute PM might consider that perhaps popular support for Brexit has weakened: it was suggested that the demise of UKIP would see the Tories stronger since they'd benefit from these voted, and though UKIP bombed the Tories were still weakened
That the Tories seem so determined on Brexit no matter what, and despite losing their majority, suggests to me that this is still all about the internal affairs of the Tory party. They must be desperate if they're prepared to get into bed with the DUP rather than face the possibility that opinion on Brexit may have changed even if their internal rogue element hasn't.
I don't know if this is relevant here, but aftre the referendum it was noted that 3 out of 4 young voters were remainers.
Yesterday I heard part of a programme in which a group of teenagers were listening to a discussion. Afterward it appeared to be that they were, or would have been, Labour and all agreed that if more young people had voted in the referendum, the result would have been a much clearer majority for leave. This does not accord with the 3 out of 4 number of remainers.
Snp / Libdems anti-brexit, Lab/Tory pro-brexit, popular support for Brexit never been higher. Labour had 3line whip FOR invoking art50.
That is true.
My impression though, and I many have the wrong impression, is that even though the majority for Leave wasn't massive, and case for Brexit that convinced some involved xenophobia and downright lies, the received wisdom quickly became that it was a convincing result based on a sound case put by competent politicians whereas, in my view, a major change is being driven through on the basis of a shambolic campaign, a narrow majority and by a political party who not only didn't have a clear plan for the result they actually got they, as has just been demonstrated, are now lead by an incompetent PM.
Perhaps the clamour for Brexit is obvious elsewhere in the UK but I've yet to encounter anyone I know personally, and I've had quite a few conversations on this, who is pro-Brexit: it's more the case that anecdotally they think it is madness.
Tories in Govt have manifesto promise to leaveWhich was rejected by the electorate - hence they failed to gain an overall majority.
That is true.Agreed. I keep trying to find optimnistic aspects to all this, but it is hard! The only really positive thing (and I've probably said this already, but it will take too long to check!) is that all this will not lead to War.
My impression though, and I many have the wrong impression, is that even though the majority for Leave wasn't massive, and case for Brexit that convinced some involved xenophobia and downright lies, the received wisdom quickly became that it was a convincing result based on a sound case put by competent politicians whereas, in my view, a major change is being driven through on the basis of a shambolic campaign, a narrow majority and by a political party who not only didn't have a clear plan for the result they actually got they, as has just been demonstrated, are now lead by an incompetent PM.
Perhaps the clamour for Brexit is obvious elsewhere in the UK but I've yet to encounter anyone I know personally, and I've had quite a few conversations on this, who is pro-Brexit: it's more the case that anecdotally they think it is madness.
Corbyn clearly committed to leaving single market.There was no commitment in the Labour manifesto to leaving the single market.
There was no commitment in the Labour manifesto to leaving the single market.
And even if there were, so what. Labour lost the election - it isn't bound by what it said prior to the election. What losing parties do is rethink their position on the basis of not winning an election on their previous manifesto. The current mood music (see Barry Gardiner's comments today) and Keir Starmer - single market membership is smack back on the table.
What we do know is that May's view of hard brexit (migration prioritised over the economy), no deal better than bad deal is dead in the water. Rejected by the electorate and without a commons majority.
Article 50 is triggered, Tory will put deal before parliament, fails to get through we leave with no deal.Massively simplistic.
The labour party is in the hands of the MarxistsBizarrely I think that there will be a softening on both sides within the Labour party. Corbyn is safe so the centre and right of the party will stop fighting him. But Corbyn and his small like minded cliche (which hasn't become any bigger in terms of ideology of MPs) also recognise that he needs to compromise and bring the whole parliamentary party with him. Interestingly we actually saw that with the Labour manifesto. For all the hysteria of the right wing media the manifesto wasn't all that left wing - indeed it wasn't far from that of Miliband.
if you wanted to stop Brexit the LibDems is the only hope.Which is one of the reasons why I voted for them. But it is clear that the whole agenda has changed since last week, and quite rightly so - that's what general elections are for. May cannot simply carry on as if nothing has happened. She asked for a mandate (in her mind a massively increased majority) for hard brexit, for prioritising migration over the economy, for no deal being better than a bad deal and she failed spectacularly. She is going to have to change her policy (and her approach) - if she doesn't she is toast.
Massively simplistic.
Implies no other scenarios are possible - the most obvious being revoking article 50 if it looks as if there is a bad deal. Remember no parliament can bind its successor. Article 50 was triggered prior to the general election.
And this is a critical issue - the timing of mandate. Prior to the election the referendum superseded the election of the MPs as it was a more recent mandate. That has now changed completely, all the current MPs have been provided with their mandates more recently than the referendum.
But Corbyn and his small like minded cliche (which hasn't become any bigger in terms of ideology of MPs) also recognise that he needs to compromise and bring the whole parliamentary party with him.
What is Corbyn & Co's track record on compromise?That's why they won't go into coalition with the Tories.aka the Mexican standoff party.
Did you listen to Shadow Chancellor yesterday, we'll forward a Queens speech no deals with other parties. The LibDems won't back a party with fantasy economic policies.
The labour party is in the hands of the Marxists if you wanted to stop Brexit the LibDems is the only hope.
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made.Groucho Marx
What is Corbyn & Co's track record on compromise?Err ... Trident.
LOL there is zero chance of that now, the only way to stay in would have been a referendum on the deal.Why is there zero chance of that.
Err ... Trident.
Direct quote from their manifesto:
'Labour supports the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent.'
That is a massive compromise on behalf of the Corbynites.
Actually I don't think you really understand the mind-set of the Corbynite left. They are wedded to 'democratic' decision making within the party, hence they accepted the party's decision to support Trident renewal even though they personally opposed. If you read the manifesto, there are loads of things that aren't overtly Corbynite as policy commitments - these came from the democratic party process, e.g. 2% of GDP sent on defence (more than the Tories spent in 2016).
I think most Labour politicians will realise this over the next week, I'm predicting another Labour civil war is about to begin.Civil war in a major UK political party - yup, but wrong party.
Why is there zero chance of that.
Don't forget the current crop of MPs have a democratic mandate which supersedes both the referendum and also the triggering of article 50.
I'm not saying the likelihood is high (not least because I anticipate either a permanent soft brexit deal now or a transitional uber-soft brexit), but you are laughably naive to support the likelihood is zero.
Let's not forget that the Tories only have a majority with the support of the DUP, and the DUP (for obvious reasons) will not support a 'no deal' option as it would massively and detrimentally affect NI.
Apparently Jacob Rees Mogg lost the plot on Victoria Derbyshire.
When asked how long May could go on he said "May Theresa May live forever, alleluia, alleluia, amen".
Why would Tories go for a softer BrexitBecause they failed to get a mandate for hard brexit in the referendum, despite calling the election specifically to achieve just that. And because probably half of Tory MPs supported remain and would almost certainly prefer soft rather than hard brexit. Their re-election, coupled with May's failure to get a mandate for hard brexit massively strengthens their position.
the Scottish Tory manifesto commits to leaving single marketBut the Tories failed to win a mandate for their manifesto - you do understand that don't you. They failed to win an overall majority, which is what is required to gain a mandate for your manifesto.
Corbyn backs that position.In case you failed to notice this too - Corbyn did not win the election. He, and the Labour party are very clearly rethinking their approach. Note Barry Gardiner just this morning. It is very notable that the Labour figures most involved in the brexit positioning (Gardiner and Starmer) are clearly moving rapidly towards soft brexit.
Agree and I'm puzzled by commentators suggesting Tory Brexit deal is off the table, article 50 is triggered, if they don't vote for the Tory deal that they forward then we will have no deal.I think they are looking at the numbers. There are more MPs that would prefer soft Brexit to hard Brexit, but that fact is only relevant if the soft Brexiteers in the Tory party are willing to put their jobs on the line because, the wrong kind of Brexit might trigger another election.
why the heck did you spend so much time debating with me over how wonderful Corbyn was ...When did I ever do that. You seem to be confusing me with some other poster, or posters.
I think they are looking at the numbers. There are more MPs that would prefer soft Brexit to hard Brexit, but that fact is only relevant if the soft Brexiteers in the Tory party are willing to put their jobs on the line because, the wrong kind of Brexit might trigger another election.There always were more MPs preferring soft brexit. What has changed is that these MPs now have a new post-referendum electoral mandate, and they will be massively emboldened to push for soft brexit. They are further strengthened by the fact that May called this election specifically to get a huge mandate for her hard brexit vision and she failed to get that mandate.
Dear Jeremyp,Yes. It's a disaster for them too. As far as I can tell, the only people who should be happy with the result are the DUP and the Scottish Conservatives. Everybody else has had a bad election.
Can you reflect some more, I will, for me this is a complete disaster for the Tories, I honestly don't see any upside for the Tories
Once again I will reiterate, Corbyn only needs to shutup now and watch as the Tories implodeIt didn't work after the referendum. It won't work now. He's got to start doing his job, which is Leader of the Opposition.
he had a cracking Election campaign
Let's not forget that the Tories only have a majority with the support of the DUP, and the DUP (for obvious reasons) will not support a 'no deal' option as it would massively and detrimentally affect NI.
Yes. It's a disaster for them too. As far as I can tell, the only people who should be happy with the result are the DUP and the Scottish Conservatives. Everybody else has had a bad election.In two years both the Tories and labour created their own opposition factions.In the Tories their opposition one. In Labour the incumbent one.
It didn't work after the referendum. It won't work now. He's got to start doing his job, which is Leader of the Opposition.
But he had a dismal two years before that. That's why he lost, that and the fact that it turns out Theresa May is also pretty useless,
There always were more MPs preferring soft brexit. What has changed is that these MPs now have a new post-referendum electoral mandate, and they will be massively emboldened to push for soft brexit. They are further strengthened by the fact that May called this election specifically to get a huge mandate for her hard brexit vision and she failed to get that mandate.Yes, but the Tories are on a knife edge and are supported by a party that advocates hard Brexit. If Theresa May fails to push through a hard Brexit, she might lose the support of the DUP which will inevitably lead to another General Election.
Dear Forum,There's probably something in it that the DUP doesn't like.
Breaking news on the Beeb, Queens speech delayed, what's that about??
Gonnagle.
Because they failed to get a mandate for hard brexit in the referendum, despite calling the election specifically to achieve just that. And because probably half of Tory MPs supported remain and would almost certainly prefer soft rather than hard brexit. Their re-election, coupled with May's failure to get a mandate for hard brexit massively strengthens their position.
But the Tories failed to win a mandate for their manifesto - you do understand that don't you. They failed to win an overall majority, which is what is required to gain a mandate for your manifesto.
And on Scotland - their leader (who is probably just about the most popular Tory at the moment) is openly challenging May's hard brexit line. She is going hell for leather for soft brexit.
In case you failed to notice this too - Corbyn did not win the election. He, and the Labour party are very clearly rethinking their approach. Note Barry Gardiner just this morning. It is very notable that the Labour figures most involved in the brexit positioning (Gardiner and Starmer) are clearly moving rapidly towards soft brexit.
Hard brexit is dead - May put it to the people and the people said 'no'.
The DUP is a hard Brexit party.No they aren't for the obvious reason that hard brexit would be likely to result in a hard border between NI and the republic being needed.
Yes, but the Tories are on a knife edge and are supported by a party that advocates hard Brexit.They aren't - the DUP do not support hard brexit:
In this election more than 80% voted for pro-brexit parties.You can't necessarily conclude anything from that. I voted Remain. I also voted Labour - not because I now support Leave - but because in my constituency a Lib-Dem vote would have meant that the Tory candidate may have got in, which I did not want as the Tory candidate did not campaign for issues that I care about in my constituency. I wanted to try to make sure that there were MPs in Parliament who would ask the government awkward questions and hold them accountable for their Brexit and austerity related policies.
Dear Forum,
Breaking news on the Beeb, Queens speech delayed, what's that about??
Gonnagle.
No they aren't for the obvious reason that hard brexit would be likely to result in a hard border between NI and the republic being needed.
8. Progress on new free trade deals with the rest of the world
9. Comprehensive free trade and customs agreement with the European Union
Sounds all very soft-brexity to me.
Dear Forum,Not clear what is in it because of DUP and internal divides, it needs to be written on special paper with magic ink that takes several days to dry, and if it isn't ready for Monday, the Queen is off to Ascot which is obviously more important
Breaking news on the Beeb, Queens speech delayed, what's that about??
Gonnagle.
8. Impossible unless out of single marketThe DUP clearly aren't running the show. What this is about is saying that depending on what other (who are running the show) decide, this would be a priority. So this isn't saying they don't want to be in the single market at all.
9. Not needed if in single marketBut being in the single market is perhaps the best way of achieving this.
I assume you still define hard as out of single market?And/or customs union.
The DUP clearly aren't running the show. What this is about is saying that depending on what other (who are running the show) decide, this would be a priority. So this isn't saying they don't want to be in the single market at all.
But being in the single market is perhaps the best way of achieving this.
And/or customs union.
So how do you counter Arlene Foster's own words:
'No-one wants to see a ‘hard’ Brexit ...'
The DUP are soft brexit - the media etc have rather failed to recognise this as because of their extreme views on other thing the London based chatterati have assumed they are UKIP with Irish accents. That isn't the case - they might be nutters on all sorts of matters, but they aren't hard brexit nutters.
Dear Forum,Tories daring Jezzer to step forward. They don't want to clear up their own Brexit shit.
Breaking news on the Beeb, Queens speech delayed, what's that about??
Gonnagle.
Its clear to me that both DUP & Tories have in their manifesto a promise to remove UK from single market ...Really?
There's probably something in it that the DUP doesn't like.Something about being written on Goatskin and time for the ink to dry.
Dear Forum,The Tories are hoping that Aliens will invade.
Breaking news on the Beeb, Queens speech delayed, what's that about??
Gonnagle.
The Tories are hoping that Aliens will invade.
Dear Vlad,Buying copies of the Sun and laughing their Cocks off at us.
That's got me thinking, anybody know what the Argentine's are up to at the moment :o :o
Gonnagle.
Really?
Have you actually read the DUP manifesto? Clearly not.
Well I have and there isn't a single mention of the single market, and absolutely no promise to remove the UK from the single market.
I suspect you are under the misapprehension that the DUP are UKIP with irish accents. They aren't on brexit - they do not support hard brexit.
It will be interesting to see whether the general election shifts opinion on brexit.
Over the past year opinion has been remarkably stable, with opinion largely continuing to reflect the wafer thin majority for Leave (with maybe a tiny shift toward remain recently). This is really unusual - typically once a decision is made there is a shift toward that position, in effect the new status quo. But we haven't seen this post-referendum.
Now it is possible that opinion will carry on the same as before the election, but I have a feeling we are going to see a shift. We will see presuming that YouGov continue to poll with the same question on brexit that they have since last June.
Last I heard on Brexit was only 21% wanted to reverse the move.The question YouGov have asked consistently is whether voting to leave was the right or wrong decision.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/03/29/attitudes-brexit-everything-we-know-so-far/
Which is why the election wasn't about Brexit, people have moved on.
Also watch Daily Politics today Labour difference to Tory is that we should drop 'no deal is better than a bad deal' position on single market the same, leave.
You copied content from that Manifesto, it doesn't need to mention the single market in order for you to deduce that their intent was to leave it.So let's be clear, shall we.
Boundary changes not favouring Tories.Actually, that's not true. That result shows the Tories only two seats short of a majority and with nine Sinn Fein members not taking up their seats they would have a working majority even without the DUP.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Actually, that's not true. That result shows the Tories only two seats short of a majority and with nine Sinn Fein members not taking up their seats they would have a working majority even without the DUP.I think it is unlikely this will ever happen.
Interesting, also in your link, that people don't support 'hard' brexit - albeit there is significant confusion as they appear to support May's version of brexit, which is, of course, hard brexit.
However these findings (from March) have been superseded by a real vote - the general election, called to give May a mandate for her version of brexit, in which the people said 'no'.
My interest is in direction of travel of opinion (hence focussing on the question asked regularly) rather than the response to one-off questions from months ago. Over the past few weeks we have seen that opinions can be really soft, changing dramatically over a very short period of time (from over 20-point lead for May to an actual result of just a couple of %). Will be interesting to see whether the see change in opinion of May (she is terminally damaged) will result in a big shift in opinion on brexit in principle, and type of brexit specifically.
This is what happens when you believe your own spin, you get confused. :)Not really - no-one seriously denies that May's brexit view is a hard brexit view.
I know the centrists in Labour are going off on it at the moment they will have to get in line behind the leaders who are for leaving the single market.The people leading on brexit in the Labour shadow cabinet (Starmer and Gardiner) are the ones making clear soundings about a shift to a soft brexit.
So let's be clear, shall we.
Can you provide any actual evidence that the DUP support withdrawing from the single market, or are you relying on some kind of Jakswan hunch.
I have found nothing to indicate that the DUP support withdrawal from the single market (and nor have you). I have found their manifesto which makes no such claim. I have also provided a direct quote from Arlene Foster in which she rejected hard brexit. And if you look at the brexit priorities in their manifesto the vast majority will be delivered by remaining in the single market - by contrast most will be in serious jeopardy if we withdraw from the single market.
Worth pointing out too that the DUP aren't obsessed with immigration - indeed it is mentioned only twice in their whole manifesto - once being a positive statement about 'Effective immigration policy which meets the skills, labour and security needs of the UK'. The main reason other UK parties want to leave the single market is to restrict migration - if you aren't bothered about migration, why would you feel the need to leave the single market.
The people leading on brexit in the Labour shadow cabinet (Starmer and Gardiner) are the ones making clear soundings about a shift to a soft brexit.
I suspect what is happening here is a case of 'run it up the flag-pole and see who salutes it' - in other words throw out a range of options with a view to taking soundings about the support from the public. Perfectly reasonable when you have just failed to win a general election as that is the time when you can legitimately change tack and not be beholden to a manifesto that didn't succeed.
But, of course, it isn't just in the Labour party that there are rumblings of disquiet about a hard brexit - woman of the moment Ruth Davidson is making increasingly clear statements that the previous Tory approach to brexit needs to be dumped in favour of soft brexit. And again that isn't unreasonable as the tory's manifesto was also rejected by the public as they failed to gain a majority and lost seats.
There you go again believing in your own spin again.For heaven's sake - I'm not spinning anything. I am using the statements from the DUP leader and the actual wording in their manifesto - none of which indicate that the DUP are committed to withdrawal from the single market.
Who are trying to convince, me or yourself?Neither - I'm just reflecting and reporting what is currently going on in both the Labour and Tory parties. In both there is strong pressure to rethink brexit approach and in both cases it is all one way - a move towards a softening of the brexit approach.
I have ...No you haven't - you have provided not one iota of evidence to support your assertion that the DUP support withdrawal from the single market. Somehow you seem to think you know their motives better than they do themselves - if they support withdrawal from the single market why would Arlene Foster have clearly rejected hard brexit in the last couple of days and why would they have clearly stated priorities for brexit that are largely inconsistent with withdrawal from the single market.
Yes we are leaving the single market that is my opinion, there was a play available but that ship has now sailed.The good ship May's hard brexit set out from port hit a rock called the general election and has sunk without trace.
I have and clearly we have drawn different conclusions. I could be right and you could be right, worth noting you were wrong on Brexit, Art50 getting through Parliament and another election, so I know who I would have my money on.I think the party was ruined on 23rd June 2017 and the subsequent Blairite coup attempt. But Corbyn has managed to get it on it's feet again with none of the bloodletting i'd expect from ''Leftie'' politics. The man is a political genius and can now get away with a bit of political hedge.
There you go again believing in your own spin again.
What motivates the DUP is staying in the UK union, Labour, Conservatives, LibDems are unionists but they are no where near as driven by it as the DUP.
I also think its worth restating my position on Brexit, I'm comfortable with a Norway type deal, whilst I disagree with the LibDems on Brexit good/bad thought their position on a referendum on the deal was pretty coherent.
More broadly, I desperately want politics to be motivated by centrist principles, this election could have ruined Corbyn and the Labour party have returned to the middle.
I was hoping the LibDems could deal themselves back in but they have bottled it and been reduced to an irrelevance.
Yes we are leaving the single market that is my opinion, there was a play available but that ship has now sailed. I think the centrists in the Labour Party have put their careers ahead of their principles. Corbyn mania might have a run for a year or two but he is a socialist, his economics are a fantasy, he will ruin the Labour Party.
Just my opinion, hopefully I'm wrong.
No you haven't - you have provided not one iota of evidence to support your assertion that the DUP support withdrawal from the single market. Somehow you seem to think you know their motives better than they do themselves - if they support withdrawal from the single market why would Arlene Foster have clearly rejected hard brexit in the last couple of days and why would they have clearly stated priorities for brexit that are largely inconsistent with withdrawal from the single market.
Come back when you can actual provide some evidence rather than Jakswan fantasy.
I think it is unlikely this will ever happen.Your political analysis may be correct in the it may be hard to push through, but the justification hasn't gone away. The constituencies need rebalancing to make them more or less of even size (except in some exceptional circumstances).
Firstly one of justifications is gone.
I think the party was ruined on 23rd June 2017 and the subsequent Blairite coup attempt.I think you mean 2016. And I agree, The coup was disastrous and any fool could see it wasn't going to work.
But Corbyn has managed to get it on it's feet again with none of the bloodletting i'd expect from ''Leftie'' politics. The man is a political genius and can now get away with a bit of political hedge.Yes, he must be a genius. He's managed to spin Labour's third consecutive defeat as a glorious triumph.
Brexit is a necessity for a low wage low tax economy. It is economic Armageddon and scrapheap to be picked over by people who revel in a squalor they don't have to be part of i.e. very fucking few,And it's quite surprising that so many British people haven't realised this yet.
Labour are right to concentrate on how things should be with or without Brexit.I tend to think, if Labour and Corbyn in particular had been a bit more committed to the Remain campaign, we might not be in this mess. Unfortunately, Corbyn was privately a Brexiteer. It clearly hasn't occurred to him that many of the workers' protections come from European law and will be rolled back once the Tories (who tend to be more on the ownership side) get their Brexit
Your political analysis may be correct in the it may be hard to push through, but the justification hasn't gone away. The constituencies need rebalancing to make them more or less of even size (except in some exceptional circumstances).Yes of course - sorry that wasn't the part of the proposals I was talking about. I was talking about the proposal to reduce the number of seats from 650 to 600. The main justification for this was that the UK parliament did less since devolution. That will now be balanced by doing more because of brexit.
Wrong on DUP manifesto policy with regards single market?Indeed you are - I note you have still failed to provide one iota of evidence that the DUP manifesto committed them to withdrawal from the single market.
We will see.We will see what? Anything that happens in the future wouldn't prove or disprove whether the DUP committed to withdraw from the single market on the basis that the DUP stood on their manifesto in the election and that election is over.
I'm fed up with how the press seem intent of deposing Theresa May. How some MPs are saying " dead woman walking"
The conservative voter , that voted for them, voted for her not some other random power hungry person.
All it means to replace her is that she will be replaced by someone no one actually voted for ::)
The only people who for voted specifically for Mother Theresa were the voters in her constituency: it is unfortunate for the rest of us that they did.
At least with Theresa May, you know what you are getting.
I didn't vote conservative, but if I had, I would have been voting for her and her apparent strong will, thinking she had what it took to negotiate for this country.
Somehow getting the vote and then sneaking a relative unknown person in to be PM isn't a good move, imo.
Not exactly going to make people feel the country is stable.
At least with Theresa May, you know what you are getting.
People do vote according who is in charge, I've heard an awful lot of people in the past say they would have voted for labour, had the other milliband brother got in.
It's all about perceptions I suppose.
I didn't vote conservative, but if I had, I would have been voting for her and her apparent strong will, thinking she had what it took to negotiate for this country.
Somehow getting the vote and then sneaking a relative unknown person in to be PM isn't a good move, imo.
Not exactly going to make people feel the country is stable.
At least with Theresa May, you know what you are getting.
One wonders if the Queen's Speech might be July 12th?
Indeed you are - I note you have still failed to provide one iota of evidence that the DUP manifesto committed them to withdrawal from the single market.
We will see what? Anything that happens in the future wouldn't prove or disprove whether the DUP committed to withdraw from the single market on the basis that the DUP stood on their manifesto in the election and that election is over.
Just so you might understand a little better - in 2010 the LibDems had a manifesto commitment to abolish tuition fees. When they went into coalition they made a U-turn and agreed to increase fees massively as part of the coalition deal. Does that mean there was never a manifesto commitment to abolish tuition fees - of course not.
What the DUP might, or might not agree to support (or even abstain on) in a deal with the Tories tells you nothing about manifesto they ran on in the general election - which clearly did not include a commitment to withdraw from the single market.
Like many Brexiteers, the party wants to end the supremacy of the EU’s highest court and argues that Britain should regain the freedom to make global trade deals, which would require leaving the EU’s single market
You can only vote for someone on your ballot paper.
May became PM solely on the votes of Tory MPs when Cameron resigned.
So the country is 'stable' when the Tories are dependent on the votes of a bunch of bigoted homophobes: really?
True: an incompetent with zero leadership abilities.
Don't think she is incompetent either.
Which particular group is the bigoted homophobes? I wasnt aware the conservatives qualified, my local conservative MP is openly gay, so not sure what you mean by that.
Rebuttal approaching:
She made Boris Johnson Foreign Secretary.
No further evidence needed.
The DUP. And while they are mentioned, using them as the prop up seems to incompetently screw up the Good Friday Agreement
I'm fed up with how the press seem intent of deposing Theresa May. How some MPs are saying " dead woman walking"
The conservative voter , that voted for them, voted for her not some other random power hungry person.
All it means to replace her is that she will be replaced by someone no one actually voted for ::)
The DUP. And while they are mentioned, using them as the prop up seems to incompetently screw up the Good Friday Agreement
Its a fair position to hold, holding it though you will however you will have to accept that if Sinn Fein got involved in Irish Parliment would also screw up the Good Friday Agreement.
You going to tell them?
I don't understand what you mean 'got involved in Irish Parliament'. Sinn Fein are in the Dail, as they stand in the Republic. If you think that is incorrect then you are saying you think the DUP shouldn't take their seats in the UK Parliament?
And just to note, even if I don't doesn't affect that the agreement is evidence of incompetence.
If a Uk party using DUP to prop up a UK government screws up the Good Friday Agreement then it follows that an Irish Party using Sinn Fein would fall foul of the same thing.Indeed but that's why I asked what you meant by 'involvement in the Irish Parliament'. Obviously by this answer what you meant was Sinn Fein being in coalition or providing confidence and supply with/for a party making up the govt of the Republic. Since this hasn't happened since the GFA (and iirc never before), I am not sure what the point of asking someone to condemn a hypothetical that hasn't happened is to whether the Tories wooing of the DUP here would lead to a breach of the GFA and an indication of incompetence.
Indeed but that's why I asked what you meant by 'involvement in the Irish Parliament'. Obviously by this answer what you meant was Sinn Fein being in coalition or providing confidence and supply with/for a party making up the govt of the Republic. Since this hasn't happened since the GFA (and iirc never before), I am not sure what the point of asking someone to condemn a hypothetical that hasn't happened is to whether the Tories wooing of the DUP here would lead to a breach of the GFA and an indication of incompetence.
Interesting results from the first post election poll (from Survation - the polling company that were best at prediction the actual outcome).
Firstly Labour (45%) with a 5 point lead over the Tories (40%), which is interesting but rather irrelevant as there isn't going to be another election straight away.
More interesting is that soft brexit (specifically defined as remaining in the single market and customs union) is now preferred by 47%, a substantial lead over the 36% preferring a hard brexit involving leaving the single market and customs union.
Its about a principle, not sure Sinn Fein would agree with to being condemmed to never being in office in Ireland.I am not sure they would (and the GFA doesn't rule that out for all time, nor could it) but what has that got to do with whether the current action is leading to a breach of the GFA and us evidence of incompetence?
I am not sure they would (and the GFA doesn't rule that out for all time, nor could it) but what has that got to do with whether the current action is leading to a breach of the GFA and us evidence of incompetence?
Its not a breach, if it was then SF could never be in power in Ireland.
Also interesting the Irish times reaches the same conclusions as I.Yet more assertion.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/dup-trying-to-face-both-directions-at-once-on-brexit-1.3117013
The DUP campaigned actively in favour of Brexit. It has also leaned towards a harder version of Brexit, saying, for example, that it is in favour of the Conservative vision of making “progress on new free trade deals with the rest of the world”.
This implies that the DUP favours leaving the EU Single Market and the Customs Union, which is the part of the Single Market which allows free trade in goods. This is the only way Britain can forge ahead and seek new trade deals on its own behalf with other countries.
I think that Major would think that currently a Republic govt propped up by Sinn Fein would cause the same issue, as do I.
That is all I was looking for, a fair position to hold, the arbitrators of what is fair, SF in this case, are likely to disagree.
Yet more assertion.
Yes I'm asserting that my reading of the DUP manifesto implies that they are going to support leaving the single market, you are asserting your view.I'm not providing a view - I am using the direct evidence of their manifesto and the comments of their leadership, which (as far as I am aware) have never provided a commitment to leaving the single market and customs union.
Manifesto: "progress on new free trade deals with the rest of the world”.
Journalist: This implies that the DUP favours leaving the EU Single Market and the Customs Union
I agree with the Irish Times and their analysis, you agree with other analysis, we can agree to disagree, no need to call my journalist ill-informed, I think the Irish Times is quite a well respected paper.
Again though it is irrelevant as to whether it is a breach. Your entire approach here has been based on badly phrased questions and a ludicrous tu quoque. I pointed that out at the start but you haven't seemed capable of understanding it. I could happily be posting that Sinn Fein need to be taken into govt and it matters not a whit as to the statement that this is a breach of the GFA being true. The argument does not depend on consistency. If an alcoholic tells you drinking too much is bad for you, they aren't wrong because they are necking a bottle of Aftershock while doing so.
It is my understanding that the GDA demands that UK/Irish governments remains independent, not heard you articulate this but I've heard it argued that a supply deal will break that independence and as a result the GDA.
If you wish to be bound by the GDA and its terms & conditions, a term applies to Irish and UK governments, i.e. to be independent. If you argue that DUP propping up UK government breaks the UK independence then to be consistent then SF propping up an Irish government would break Irish government independence.
This is about interpretation of an agreement and consistency.
My argument against the DUP agreement is precisely that it was against the GFA. Why are you saying you haven't heard that argument? It makes no sense for you to do so, since that is the argument I was making?
And again consistency does not affect the rightness of the argument. But your persistent use of the tu quoque fallacy is noted.
I think you are failing to see my position, I have already stated your position is consistent. Your interpretation of the GDA agreement is irrelevant, it is SF's that counts, they are not likely to have the same interpretation.No, I'm pointing out that you think a tu quoque fallacy is a significant. Even, were I or Sinn Fein, to be inconsistent about a statement it does not make the statement that this would be a breach of the GFA wrong. Do you think that an someone necking a bottle of Aftershock and telling you drinking too much is bad, is wrong?
The only people who for voted specifically for Mother Theresa were the voters in her constituency: it is unfortunate for the rest of us that they did.Actually, almost nobody bases their voting decision on who the local MP is. Although, technically you are voting only for your local MP, most people will have voted for the party they most want in power, and by extension, that party's leader.
Its not a breach, if it was then SF could never be in power in Ireland.Are they in power in Ireland?
Actually, almost nobody bases their voting decision on who the local MP is. Although, technically you are voting only for your local MP, most people will have voted for the party they most want in power, and by extension, that party's leader.Broadly correct. I agree that relatively few vote for the person rather than the party, but not infinitesimal - particular with a long standing MP there is often a block of personal support voters who like the person even if the party wouldn't otherwise be their first choice.
It's the clearing thing, isn't it? I think it's hugely likely. Why on earth would the EU want the Euro handled outside of the EU?
Thanks for replies above. Wouldit severely damage the position of London, or dent it to a position from which it could recover?In combination with all the other negative effects of Brexit, I think it would be catastrophic.
Thanks for replies above. Wouldit severely damage the position of London, or dent it to a position from which it could recover?
The lovely Michael
http://newsthump.com/2017/06/12/everyone-planning-to-vote-tory-now-that-michael-gove-is-back/
GHASTLY little man !>:(I always found him to be rather lovely and charming. He's certainly one of the wittiest people I have known. Just wrong.
I always found him to be rather lovely and charming. He's certainly one of the wittiest people I have known. Just wrong.
Really? I find he comes across as arrogant and creepy.
Really? I find he comes across as arrogant and creepy.Oh, he is undoubtedly arrogant. That was one of of his best qualities. He's also unfailingly polite in person, very clever, and very witty. Politics has been his downfall
Oh, he is undoubtedly arrogant. That was one of of his best qualities. He's also unfailingly polite in person, very clever, and very witty. Politics has been his downfall
Surely even as a politician you retain an option as too whether or not you lie? I mean really, really lie, not just fudge and evade? And whether you shaft your friends and colleagues ruthlessly and publicly?Didn't suggest you don't. Just find it hard to understand what happened. There was Michael before politics and Michael after. Now obviously we have to be careful about post hoc but....
Didn't suggest you don't. Just find it hard to understand what happened. There was Michael before politics and Michael after. Now obviously we have to be careful about post hoc but....
Farewell, Tim Farron
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40281300
It still sounds like it was Michael that ruined Michael. But there we are. He had choices.He did, but we aren't always aware of the effects of choices.
He did, but we aren't always aware of the effects of choices.
Faithful Christian equals being a bigot. Ffs. Most faithful Christians I know will want to tut very loudly.I have no issue whatsoever with believers being politicians and see no fundamental conflict of interest.
Didn't Shakespeare write a play about that?pretty much all of them.
A nonentity leaves an irrelevance. That's about it, AFAICS.
pretty much all of them.
Yep. You'd have thought Michael would remember them from school.It is his obsession for Dickens and Gradgrind that I find oddest
It is his obsession for Dickens and Gradgrind that I find oddest
A nonentity leaves an irrelevance. That's about it, AFAICS.
If that seems harsh ... well yes, I'm like that.
Soz been away last few days. Penton is tweeting DUP remain comiited to leaving single market.Who or what is Penton.
Who or what is Penton.
How can the DUP remain committed to something that they never committed to in the first place.
Soz been away last few days. Penton is tweeting DUP remain comiited to leaving single market.Clearly getting a deal with the DUP is proving much, much harder than anticipated, given that it is now a week since the election and still no announcement.
Oops peston, on mobile auto complete.As I've said the DUP might do a U-turn in order to get a deal, although the lack of an announcement doesn't bode well for that deal.
Clearly getting a deal with the DUP is proving much, much harder than anticipated, given that it is now a week since the election and still no announcement.
It is, of course, possible (indeed probably) that the DUP will align with the government's view on brexit (although what that is seems to be changing almost by the hour, with Hammond seemingly now calling the shots). However that would no more prove that the DUP had a manifesto pledge to leaving the single market prior to the election than the LibDems signing up to massive increase in tuition fees after the 2010 election proved that their manifesto for the 2010 election committed them to raising tuition fees.
Dear Forum,Yes but it's not enough to support and defend the rights of gay people or whatever these days. You have to show that you are stiff and moist for it. Do you remember I had demonstrated a little excursion one could have with certain folks over Gay marriage.
On the question of Mr Farron ( I kind of agree with the good Prof, bit of a light weight ) I applaud and denounce his stance on his faith, it ain't easy being a Christian, but if he is in conflict about his faith then the best thing is to do is go away, study Scripture and ask the Father, what is my best course.
If he is troubled by the homosexual question then he should read Scripture and and find the answer ( I did ) half the world is starving whilst the other half are fighting obesity, we are polluting Gods seas at a alarming rate ( okay he gave us the seas ) we are travelling down a road which will lead to this thing called Armageddon, but it won't be boiling seas it will be dead seas.
So I would say to Mr Farron, The Lord gave us this World to manage and pass on and what have we done, Mr Farron, stop focusing on the minuscule and focus on the bigger picture.
Gonnagle.
Lets face it some people are not happy until they get their spouses to have plastic surgery to look like the captain Mainwaring types they are themselves complete with bald head and little moustache.What on earth are you on about?!?
Yes but it's not enough to support and defend the rights of gay people or whatever these days. You have to show that you are stiff and moist for it. Do you remember I had demonstrated a little excursion one could have with certain folks over Gay marriage.
Should it happen- Yes alright how do feel about it. Pretty cool-how cool etc, etc, etc,
Lets face it some people are not happy until they get their spouses to have plastic surgery to look like the captain Mainwaring types they are themselves complete with bald head and little moustache.
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN She continues to do her duty, which is very onerous at times, even though she is very elderly and frail.Agreed and she speaks clearly and well. Okay, good sound technicians etc, but her voice did not in any way sound weak or feeble.
Agreed and she speaks clearly and well. Okay, good sound technicians etc, but her voice did not in any way sound weak or feeble.
In PM there was an interview with Boris Johnson, he was rambling, incoherent, didn't seem to have a clue about what he was saying,. and the sooner Theresa May gets rid of him, the better. Whatever anyone thinks of Theresa May, she spoke well in the House this afternoon.
I see lots of people deeply offended that Corbyn didn't bow his head yesterday, despite it being current convention that MPs don't. Lots of suggestions on the more mouthfoaming sites that he should have been dragged out and hung drawn and quartered for treason.
They're nothing but a pack of cards floo!
I thought bowing of head went out with the ark. Trust the media to make a point of Corbyn not doing it.
I see lots of people deeply offended that Corbyn didn't bow his head yesterday, despite it being current convention that MPs don't.It's not a 'thing' for MPs - all MPs; any MPs - to bow. Corbyn, being an MP, went along with this and didn't bow; entirely predictably, the right-wing frothies exploded in spittle-flecked, swivel-eyed fulmination.
Yes!Don't you think he'll put his own tamp on the role of manarchy?
Quite apart from the blatant insult to representative democracy that an hereditary monarchy represents, who wants an unelected head of state who wants to be a female sanitary product?
I do wonder how on Earth this deal is possiblem dtill at least we have proof of the existence of the fabled magic money tree.
The Tory Party exist so as to be in power.
If they have to make deals so as to justify their existence, they will do so.
Jeremy says he will be PM in six months.Maybe he just got the letters MP the wrong way round. To be fair I am sure he might have passively indulged in some party pharmaceuticals at Glastonbury.
Jeremy says he will be PM in six months.No idea if he actually said this, but I can only hope he's right.
No idea if he actually said this, but I can only hope he's right.
Chappie that runs Glastonbury reported that he had said it to him.Can I vote for Nile Rodgers?
Can I vote for Nile Rodgers?
I think everyone should vote for Nile Rodgers. Underrated or what.
Anyhow - back to this 'billion is less than a rounding error' - not in our house it ain't. But I take your point it is a small amount in the great scheme of things, but I think a party who dismisses others economic plans quite so cavalierly as the Tories do should make some pretence at caring about what the electorate think - particularly currently.
As I said small beer - but the NHS total debt is 'only' 2.5 billion. Perhaps Theresa should shake that tree again.
and simply talking about magic money trees falls into a mistake that condemns spending even if it is minimal and rational.
I agree. But you do know who started talking about magic money trees in the first place. Sauce for goose etc. Other suitable metaphors I am sure are available.it's all a bit Dr Evil though. It's the same way people talk about the overseas aid budget so that people go 'A Billion dollars!'while ignoring that the cost on pensions is the most significant cost and growing.
YEs but that is kind of my point. The Tories with their talk of money trees encourage economic illiteracy for their own gain. Not unlike a certain figure of £350 million a week.
That £350m could just be pissed away in the wind and we'd hardly notice - but as a headline or rallying call for the economically naïve, it worked.
And? There's as much economic illiteracy encouraged by the idea that if you raise taxes you get x more income. The Laffer curve is naive and simplistic but it does expose the idea of taxes being easily predictable. I don't buy the idea that because the other side is crap , it means you can ignore your own crapness.
Increasing rates will raise less revenue in the medium to long run because firms would respond by investing less in the UK. This in turn would depress economic activity and lead to fewer jobs and lower wages. There is a very high degree of uncertainty about how large these effects are but estimates suggest that they may be substantial. The potential size of these effects is an indication of why the OECD and others judge corporation tax to have a particularly damaging effect on economic growth.
Both sides were misleading in the manifestos according to the IFS. They said about Labour's Corp Tax Plan:-
https://election2017.ifs.org.uk/article/labour-s-reversal-of-corporate-tax-cuts-would-raise-substantial-sums-but-comes-with-important-trade-offs
The Tories fiscally were going for what SNP \ Milliband were advocating in 2015.
Why is it John Mc Donnell's poetic description of the crimes of capitalism taken literally and yet Boris Johnson's ''Pfwahpfafflepfwaargh aaaeeeaaaapflump'' translates as ''My word, that's terrific..... who else could and should be our prime minister!!!''?False dichotomy and irrelevant whataboutery.
False dichotomy and irrelevant whataboutery.Irrelevant whataboutery has been the bedrock of this forum for over half a decade. That and Dalraidian antitheistic twattery.
Irrelevant whataboutery has been the bedrock of this forum for over half a decade. That and Dalraidian antitheistic twattery.and some more whataboutery and more lying from you.
Is there any relevance to your orgasm of whataboutery here?
My mistake I thought we were about to engage in a meaningful debate about economics, forgot I was on the gotcha virtue signalling forum. :)oh stop it! Your post engaged in some irrelevant whataboutery, if you want meaningful debate then doing that gets in the way. You use this approach all the time. Say something that gets in the way of meaningful debate and when you are picked up on it, complain it's the other persons fault.
oh stop it! Your post engaged in some irrelevant whataboutery, if you want meaningful debate then doing that gets in the way. You use this approach all the time. Say something that gets in the way of meaningful debate and when you are picked up on it, complain it's the other persons fault.
You were had just posted on the merits of economic policy of the Tories and Labour, mentioned the Laffar curve, I pointed out that the IFS found both to be dishonest but, in IFS terms, were pretty scathing about Labours Corp tax plans.
For it to qualify as 'whataboutery' imho I'd have to have mentioned something out of context like Trident.
I suggest you need to reread what was posted. I wasn't discussing the relative merits at all but pointing out that both sides promote economic illiteracy.
And that because you can point to the other side being bad, doesn't allow you to ignore your own flaws. I.e. that it's a form of the tu quoque, otherwise known as whataboutery (note you seem not to understand whataboutery).
Ypu then posted something about how bad Labour were in the opinion of the IFS, indulging in the same whataboutery, and for good measure threw in something about the SNP and Ed Milliband.
If you are pointing out that both sides promote economic illiteracy, then that is discussing their relative merits or lack thereof.I am sure you think you are making a point here but I am at a loss to what it is.
Don't disagree, if I was advocating for a side.
Yes because you had brought up the fact that there was economic illiteracy on both sides, I pointed out the economic illiteracy on one of those sides, especially as you had already mentioned the laffar curve.
I was not really overly concerned DUP policy with regard to proving you wrong (again), more concerned with DUP policy as it would indicate their likely behaviour.
It's a weird political scene. The Tories in many ways look exhausted and bereft of ideas, but they hang on, and Mrs May hangs on, since they dare not replace her. And another election is out of the question, since Labour would probably win.I fear you are right Tory fortunes have been nailed to the Brexit thing that there is more of a Brexit entitlement than a Tory entitlement. Politics must be suspended because of Brexit hence Mays all must come together line....and that is why Corbyn is right to define Labour as it is because a fudge and judge Brexit just reestablishes the old narrative of Tory competence.
I'm not sure about Labour, since the right wing are still making anti-Corbyn noises, and that could pull Labour's numbers down. And of course, Brexit hangs over it all like a decaying corpse. Plenty of people are saying, let's rethink it, but then politicians are frightened of the backlash from Brexiteers, violence, and so on.
Corbyn's best bet is to stand back, and watch the Tories commit suicide. But then again, right wing Labour may want Corbyn to fail.Yep all though there is the right wing tendency remaining and the Tories have become a bit like Carpenters The Thing where they assume the appearance of what they absorb vis UKIP.
Yep all though there is the right wing tendency remaining and the Tories have become a bit like Carpenters The Thing where they assume the appearance of what they absorb vis UKIP.
I think the headline overly dramatic but the demographics of the election interestingThe Tories have had problems with the electorate for a long while.
https://capx.co/can-the-tories-save-themselves-from-demographic-disaster/
Keunssberg becomes star of Labour conference. The ultimate BBC self reference.
Keunssberg becomes star of Labour conference.in which Vlad appears to make light of and thereby condone threats of violence
The ultimate BBC self reference.
Keunssberg becomes star of Labour conference.
The ultimate BBC self reference.
This is sick, Vlad. You can't dismiss all the abuse of women in politics as something self-referential, or argue that LK is a star. FFS, she has a bodyguard.She has become the story..
Just to add that I think she misrepresented Corbyn badly over the shoot-to-kill policy, but that's not an excuse for abuse.
She has become the story..
Any criticism of keunssberg has been turned into supporting violence and abuse.
It's just another attempt to silence dissent. Keunssberg is an immensely and peculiarly powerful Journalist
In which Vlad further extends his support for threats of violence.How is criticism of a powerful mover and shaker support for violence?
How is criticism of a powerful mover and shaker support for violence?Because it isn't tgat. Just as it isn't 'criticism of a poweful mover and shaker' when people sent threats of violence to Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh, Joanna Cherry, or Diane Abbott. That you downplay this sort of stuff seems to me deeply misogynistic and disturbing.
No, she reports the story. What's happening is that both far left and far right want to silence reporting of opinion that they don't agree with through intimidation and the threat of violence, to the point where the BBC sees a need to employ protection. And not at a Britain First rally. At the Labour Conference.Yes and those people would do that anyway.
Yes and those people would do that anyway.
No.......she is the story.
Because it isn't tgat. Just as it isn't 'criticism of a poweful mover and shaker' when people sent threats of violence to Tasmina Ahmed Sheikh, Joanna Cherry, or Diane Abbott. That you downplay this sort of stuff seems to me deeply misogynistic and disturbing.What has that got to do with me? How have I downplayed this.?
What has that got to do with me? How have I downplayed this.?You are downplaying threats of violence as 'criticism'. You appear to think it's ok to threaten people with rape.
You are downplaying threats of violence as 'criticism'. You appear to think it's ok to threaten people with rape.No I'm not downplaying anything. I have not condemned your condemnation and I certainly condemn threats of rape.
No I'm not downplaying anything. I have not condemned your condemnation and I certainly condemn threats of rape.
I condemn all wrong doing especially those who see the masses as cyphers in a journalistic fantasy and on this occasion you for coming up with the biggest steaming pile of shite you've ever mustered.
Since you are messing around with posts I'm afraid I'm out of here.No one has messed around with your posts.
Best wishes to all.
Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Since you are messing around with posts I'm afraid I'm out of here.Now is that out of here as in this thread or out of here as in this forum?
Best wishes to all.
Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
I think the headline overly dramatic but the demographics of the election interestingYou have to take all these things with a pinch of salt. Don't forget that the UK General election was a secret ballot. Nobody knows who voted for whom. For all we know Theresa May could have voted for Labour in a desperate attempt to pass the Brexit buck.
https://capx.co/can-the-tories-save-themselves-from-demographic-disaster/
No, she reports the story.Most of the time she reports the story. However, she was once found to have misreported Corbyn's views on "shoot to kill". I can understand why some Labour people don't trust her.
Most of the time she reports the story. However, she was once found to have misreported Corbyn's views on "shoot to kill". I can understand why some Labour people don't trust her.I became convinced of her lack of impartiality on election night. Watch her in the hour or so after the exit poll as it became clear that the Tories had blown it. She was almost in tears and clearly furious. Her comments to some of the Tories on the coverage was massively impartial - her attitude was one of fury at them for blowing the election which she so clearly wanted the Tories to win.
Most of the time she reports the story. However, she was once found to have misreported Corbyn's views on "shoot to kill". I can understand why some Labour people don't trust her.She isn't getting a bodyguard because some people don't trust her. I think there are serious questions about whether she should have sacked but don't see that as a justification for abuse.
She isn't getting a bodyguard because some people don't trust her. I think there are serious questions about whether she should have sacked but don't see that as a justification for abuse.
Yes, you have you have said it is criticism. That's what you called it. Threats of rape and violence ate to you, criticismVlad did not say that, and it does not logically follow from his statements, also he has explicitly stated that he does not support the threats. So your statement above is a misrepresentation, probably due to misunderstanding or extrapolating from an interpretation he did not intend.
Vlad did not say that, and it does not logically follow from his statements, also he has explicitly stated that he does not support the threats. So your statement above is a misrepresentation, probably due to misunderstanding or extrapolating from an interpretation he did not intend.
Logically, in fact, he is stating the inverse. viz: "Criticism" is being labelled as "threats of violence" incorrectly, not "threats of rape and violence are criticism". He says nothing about any actual threats that may have been made.
You could well have proved him right if he had actually validly criticised LK instead of blathering about in his usual manner.
imo LK does a great job overall, and certainly should have support and bodyguard(s) given the circumstances.
He's called all of what has been addressed to Kuenssberg criticism. So it means that any threats of violence and rape she has received is 'criticism'.No he hasn't. He said in #1527 that "any criticism of Kuenssberg has been turned into supporting violence and abuse", which is the complete opposite of saying "everything addressed to her, including threats, is criticism.
No he hasn't. He said in #1527 that "any criticism of Kuenssberg has been turned into supporting violence and abuse", which is the complete opposite of saying "everything addressed to her, including threats, is criticism.except his whole premise from the start is that there is only criticism.
So, in the same way as you attacked Vlad, you think Craig Murray supports threats of violence and rape as they are only a form of criticism?
No one apart from LK, the BBC and the police know details about the threats - we must take on trust (or not) that they are taking actions based on real events.
Corbyn is fine with her, his supporters should follow his example.
No, I think Craig's at least made an effort to justify it and not personalise it and assume that it's about 'criticism'. He's asked at least for the information though I don't see that not getting a reply from LK tells him that much. I think he indulges in default conspiracy thinking.I think it tells us that he is concerned that the claims of threats of violence have been exaggerated by LK or the BBC for political or chivalrous reasons, as it seems male journalists and politicians who receive online abuse are not assigned bodyguards. It seems reasonable to ask for evidence from those making the claims if you can't find evidence on-line.
I think that there is a generic question about the protection of public figures that we need to address and that it isn't helpful to argue that if someone has been assigned a bodyguard that it is somehow to silence criticism.I think it is appalling that men and women are subject to so much on-line abuse for challenging opinions - essentially doing their jobs. If criticism of Laura was not silenced by generalising all criticism as threats, then the argument presumably fails.
I think it tells us that he is concerned that the claims of threats of violence have been exaggerated by LK or the BBC for political or chivalrous reasons, as it seems male journalists and politicians who receive online abuse are not assigned bodyguards.
On the Media Show (BBC R4) a few minutes ago, Nick Robinson said that he had a bodyguard during the Scottish referendum campaign.Nick Robinson got a lot of flak on the basis that he was a young Conservative and President of the Oxford Conservative Association. So he was an easy target for those complaining of right wing bias. However I never felt that when he was BBC political editor - he always seemed pretty fair an unbiased, albeit imprinting his personality (but not his political bias) onto the role.
I think it tells us that he is concerned that the claims of threats of violence have been exaggerated by LK or the BBC for political or chivalrous reasons, as it seems male journalists and politicians who receive online abuse are not assigned bodyguards. It seems reasonable to ask for evidence from those making the claims if you can't find evidence on-line.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/men-are-harassed-more-than-women-online
I think it is appalling that men and women are subject to so much on-line abuse for challenging opinions - essentially doing their jobs. If criticism of Laura was not silenced by generalising all criticism as threats, then the argument presumably fails.
On the Media Show (BBC R4) a few minutes ago, Nick Robinson said that he had a bodyguard during the Scottish referendum campaign.Thanks. It would be interesting to compare how Nick's bodyguard was reported by various media outlets vs how LK's bodyguard was reported in the media.
Absolutely it's reasonable to ask the question but in coming to a decision about it, without the info, and adding in the anti semitism part we are back at conspiracy theory.Nothing wrong with conspiracy theories. It's irrelevant to me if someone else wants to package it up and try to discredit it as a conspiracy theory.
Agree with you that the idea that this was going to silence criticism was, if any one had it, stupid and categorically wrong now. However, I think the idea that it can be used to portray this as 'what the left dors' and has been, see Spectator on this, is much more of a worry but that doesn't need a conspiracy just people seeking to spin.
If you add two non connected issues together without actually proving either, and say that you have an argument, which is what the conspiracy theory here is then the thinking is faulty. The two things do not back each other up.The issues don't appear non-connected. I agree that a non-response from Jasper Jackson or Babbs or LK does not prove anything. But Craig does not need to prove anything - he is highlighting in his blog that he saw only one misogynistic comment and one misogynistic tweet relating to a petition of 35,000 signatures against Kuenssberg and despite asking for evidence of a larger number of misogynistic comments or tweets, none was forthcoming. So no evidence that Kuenssberg is some special case amongst broadcasters that we should feel outraged about, which then makes the "outrage" against Vlad's comments and accusations that Vlad supports abuse of women very silly.
As to the non response from Kuennsberg, it's worth precisely nothing as to whether non specified threats may or nay not have been made.
I agree that the use of anti Semitism claims are used by some people to defend Israel. Just as some people use coded attacks on Isreal but are actually being anti semitic. That's the spin, as in The Spectators approach to the bodyguard that I was talking about.
Having contributed to Craig's defence fund, I am perfectly well aware of the case. I may disagree with him often but he's a good guy, and we need to do someone how about how free speech van be attacked by suing.
But you are right about the anti Semitism issu needing a separate topic, which is my point about Craig's blog here. They are separate topics.
(BTW Craig's book on Alexander 'Sikunder' Burnes is very good IMO
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Burnes)
Some prankster gave May a P45 whilst she was making her speech. ;D I suspect that will be remembered long after what she said has been forgotten.I here she was overcome by the return of Ian Duncan Cough.
Apparently Mrs May's speech was a ucking disaster.I thought she was quite phlegmboyant!
Votes or women!Ointment or that nasty rash.
So that would be baroness Shappi and Polly, Lords Dicky, Andrew, Keith and Terry.So how many of those people are members of the HoLs to balance the 26 Lords Spiritual Bishops and countless other establishment Christians (including many retired Bishops). Hmm - that would be none, zero, zilch - not a single one of the people you mention is a member of the House of Lords.
So how many of those people are members of the HoLs to balance the 26 Lords Spiritual Bishops and countless other establishment Christians (including many retired Bishops). Hmm - that would be none, zero, zilch - not a single one of the people you mention is a member of the House of Lords.No i'm proposing they should be since they represent the largest world view in the UK. The division of the 26 Lords spiritual should be decided by numbers represented.
No i'm proposing they should be since they represent the largest world view in the UK.No they don't - most people in the UK aren't affiliated to, nor consider themselves to be represented by, any organised religious denomination nor any humanist or secular organisation.
No they don't - most people in the UK aren't affiliated to, nor consider themselves to be represented by, any organised religious denomination nor any humanist or secular organisation.No i'm not, I'm proposing keeping the twenty six but more fairly distributing them amongst those with a world view since we should have those eyes in Government.
You are making the classic error of thinking that by stacking up membership of the Lords (or other establishment bodies) with more and more people in leadership positions of organisation with tiny memberships that you end up being representative. You don't - actually you compound the error. We are seeing this more any more, where bodies that have always had CofE representation, and often RCC representation, feel the need to add an official representative of Islam (2-3% of the population) and Judaism (1% of the population) etc as if this makes them somehow more representative. And in doing so ignoring the 85-90% of the population that are not active members of any official religion nor of any humanist/secular organisation. We need greater representation from the majority not inviting more and more representatives of organisation with tiny memberships.
The division of the 26 Lords spiritual should be decided by numbers represented.Sorry - I don't understand what you mean.
No i'm not, I'm proposing keeping the twenty six but more fairly distributing them amongst those with a world view since we should have those eyes in Government.Would you repeat that in plain English as I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about.
In that proposal therefore the overview is thus represented. I believe it is already but it has not stopped self short term interests spiralling up their own rectum's.
Get secular humanist lords in and tough titty on those without a world view who are represented anyway.
Would you repeat that in plain English as I haven't the faintest idea what you are on about.1: I'm not proposing adding any more lords.
1: I'm not proposing adding any more lords.Are you proposing a reduction overall, or total numbers remaining as they are. The current proposals are based on reduction over a period of years.
2: I'm proposing to redistribute the seats more fairly to represent those of different world viewsAgain, what do you mean - are you talking about some kind of established and organised philosophical group - whether religious or otherwise. If so, then firstly I'm not sure I agree (see my earlier post), but secondly to do so would necessarily require substantial reduction in the numbers of CofE Bishops (and ex CoE Bishops) - currently about 35 - in the Lords. Not to do so would require a similar number of RCC Bishops to be appointed, perhaps about half that number of Muslim Imans etc etc to be balanced by membership of those organisations. So you'd end up massively disproportionately packing the Lords with formal representatives of religious (and perhaps non religious) organisations, way beyond their proportionate membership amongst the population. And don't forget that this is just the 'formal' representation. There are also large numbers of active Christians (from that 5% block of the population) in the Lords.
3: Those with no world view are already represented by default.What do you mean by 'those with no world view' - I think virtually everyone has a world view - it may however be personal and individual rather than aligned with an organised world view - but that doesn't mean it is any less a world view. And in what way are those people represented - if you have a personal and individual worldview, then surely the only way you'd be represented would be if you, yourself, were a member of the HoLs.
Are you proposing a reduction overall, or total numbers remaining as they are. The current proposals are based on reduction over a period of years.I think there are plenty who will claim to having no world view. Get rid of the Lords spiritual and ''world view'' has no representation in the national public sphere where the debate becomes parochial, self and short term interested.
Again, what do you mean - are you talking about some kind of established and organised philosophical group - whether religious or otherwise. If so, then firstly I'm not sure I agree (see my earlier post), but secondly to do so would necessarily require substantial reduction in the numbers of CofE Bishops (and ex CoE Bishops) - currently about 35 - in the Lords. Not to do so would require a similar number of RCC Bishops to be appointed, perhaps about half that number of Muslim Imans etc etc to be balanced by membership of those organisations. So you'd end up massively disproportionately packing the Lords with formal representatives of religious (and perhaps non religious) organisations, way beyond their proportionate membership amongst the population. And don't forget that this is just the 'formal' representation. There are also large numbers of active Christians (from that 5% block of the population) in the Lords.
What do you mean by 'those with no world view' - I think virtually everyone has a world view - it may however be personal and individual rather than aligned with an organised world view - but that doesn't mean it is any less a world view. And in what way are those people represented - if you have a personal and individual worldview, then surely the only way you'd be represented would be if you, yourself, were a member of the HoLs.
I think there are plenty who will claim to having no world view.Only if you try to define 'world view' as something organised and largely associated with religion. When you define it in a much more expansive manner then I suspect the vast majority have a 'world view' whether that be linked to adherence to the golden rule, concern for the environment, commitment to basic human rights, belief in democracy etc etc.
Get rid of the Lords spiritual and ''world view'' has no representation in the national public sphere where the debate becomes parochial, self and short term interested.Rubbish - all that would be lost would be the narrow official representation of one denomination or one religious faith, who count less than 2% of the UK population as their members. And also an organisation whose are wrestling with moral issues that most of the country moved beyond decades ago - most specifically on gay rights and role of women in society amongst others. So no, aligning 'world view' with the Lords Spiritual would be the very definition of parochial, self and short term interests.
It puzzles me that the Humanist associations are not campaigning for a scheme like mine.Which merely shows how little you understand about humanism and the role of humanist organisations. They are not top down, joining organisations that create structures for adherents to fold into. In that respect they are entirely unlike organised religions.
Only if you try to define 'world view' as something organised and largely associated with religion. When you define it in a much more expansive manner then I suspect the vast majority have a 'world view' whether that be linked to adherence to the golden rule, concern for the environment, commitment to basic human rights, belief in democracy etc etc.The religious of this country of all religions are split between not having bishops in and having bishops in. I have heard it reported on the BBC that people of other faiths are glad that there is some spiritual involvement in government and that it has allayed the kind of fear among the religious in countries such as France.
Rubbish - all that would be lost would be the narrow official representation of one denomination or one religious faith, who count less than 2% of the UK population as their members. And also an organisation whose are wrestling with moral issues that most of the country moved beyond decades ago - most specifically on gay rights and role of women in society amongst others. So no, aligning 'world view' with the Lords Spiritual would be the very definition of parochial, self and short term interests.
If Humanists feel that then their feeling is hanging off a shoogly peg.
I was all for disestablishment until I became aware of the fear of marginalisation of the religious by Secular Humanism and realised that Humanists actually feel they are represented by the majority of the house of Lords
The religious of this country of all religions are split between not having bishops in and having bishops in. I have heard it reported on the BBC that people of other faiths are glad that there is some spiritual involvement in government and that it has allayed the kind of fear among the religious in countries such as France.Oh don't you just love hearsay being used as 'evidence'.
Oh don't you just love hearsay being used as 'evidence'.It still doesn't exonerate the Humanist associations of Humbug and actually holding the privileged position does it. The Humanist campaigns are a ploy to remove religion from the public forum and that is motivated by antireligious bigotry.
To assess public opinion on this you need proper polling. Admittedly this hasn't been done often but there is some actual evidence, which shows:
1. Overall the public is strongly against Bishops in the House of Lords - typically more that twice as many don't support their presence as do support their presence.
2. Unsurprisingly the non religious are most against.
3. More surprisingly, ICM research for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust found that more religious people did not support their presence than did.
4. Most surprisingly Christians were also against their presence, with 48% not supportive compared to only 33% who supported.
But hey why bother with evidence when hearsay, anecdote and 'I heard a guy on the BBC once say' will do.
It still doesn't exonerate the Humanist associations of Humbug and actually holding the privileged position does it. The Humanist campaigns are a ploy to remove religion from the public forum and that is motivated by antireligious bigotry.Nice diversionary tactic - duly noted.
It still doesn't exonerate the Humanist associations of Humbug and actually holding the privileged position does it.In what way do Humanist associations hold a privileged position in regard to automatic presence in the House of Lords?
Nice diversionary tactic - duly noted.Are you trying to pull an argumentum ad populum here.
So you accept that public opinion, including the subset of the overall public who are religious and the subset of that group who are Christian all opposed the presence of Bishops in the House of Lords.
So are those subsets (the religious in general and Christians in particular) also showing anti religious bigotry by opposing Bishops.
Are you trying to pull an argumentum ad populum here.You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of representative democratic government.
... if you are partially satisfied by most seats being non religious ...But most seats aren't non religious, with the exception of the Lords spiritual all seats are neither religious nor non religious - they are not defined in that manner. Sure individual Peers may be religious or non religious, but that is a different matter.
You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of representative democratic government.You cannot have representative democracy if Secular Humanists are fully represented and the religious are not.
You cannot have representative democracy if Secular Humanists are fully represented and the religious are not.Who is saying that they're not or shouldn't be?
You cannot have representative democracy if Secular Humanists are fully represented and the religious are not.But there is no Secular Humanist (note the capitals) representation in the Lords (nor in the Commons) - there are presumably some individuals who are members of those Houses who are themselves secular humanists (note no capitals) but they aren't there as representatives of Secular Humanism. Similarly there are plenty of members of both houses who are religious, yet who aren't there as representatives of those religions. The only people in the Commons or the Lords who are representatives of a religion or of Secular Humanism are the Bishops.
Who is saying that they're not or shouldn't be?There are just by the 26 bishops. I'm saying those 26 should be redistributed among UK world views. I proposed the majority would be SH Lords. However if it is the case that SHers feel they are adequately represented by the Lords non spiritual then they have majority representation in any case.
Secondly is it not the case that calling for the removal of representation, disenfranchisement goes against the usual reasonable scenario of increasing representation and enfranchisement?Reducing over-representation of one group to allow increase in representation of another under-representative group would be perfectly reasonable.
Reducing over-representation of one group to allow increase in representation of another under-representative group would be perfectly reasonable.Then I suppose we are nearly singing from the same sheet. I believe our differences in opinion are manifest.
But we aren't even dealing with over and under representation - we are dealing with a situation where the CofE and the CofE alone has formal representation in the House of Lords - not other equivalent group, whether another religious organisation or a non religious organisation (for example Secular or Humanist organisations) are represented at all. The only members of the House of Lords automatically appointed to their positions by virtue of being the incumbent in a senior position in another organisation are the Bishops - no one else.
There are just by the 26 bishops. I'm saying those 26 should be redistributed among UK world views. I proposed the majority would be SH Lords. However if it is the case that SHers feel they are adequately represented by the Lords non spiritual then they have majority representation in any case.Still not clear what you are saying. But are you implying that currently we have 26 automatic members from one single world view (whatever that may be) organisation. And that we should replace those with 26 automatic members appointed by virtue of their leading position in a range of 'world view' organisations. Given that there are only 26 places presumably those would need to be selected from organisations with significant and demonstrable support within the UK population.
Reducing over-representation of one group to allow increase in representation of another under-representative group would be perfectly reasonable.
What would be perfectly reasonable would be a second chamber containing representatives of the total voting population who are elected (preferably by proportional representation) who are not their because of their parentage, managerial positions in the Church of England, employment as judges or who are simply appointed as an act of political patronage.I think you are somewhat confusing democratic with representative (in demographic terms).
I think you are somewhat confusing democratic with representative (in demographic terms)....
Since HH doesn't use the terms democratic or representative, how is he confusing the terms?Oh here we go again:
Oh here we go again:
'... a second chamber containing representatives of the total voting population who are elected ...'
I think even you are surpassing yourself in your pedantry (another 'p'-word) if you wish to nit pick about representatives rather than representative.
I suspect most of us would consider systems associated with voting population and members who are elected to be, err, democratic.
But actually the distinction between two meanings of representative in government terms was the point I was making.
And the current sytem of democratic election in political theory would be described as representative democracy as opposed to delegated so not sure what you are trying to say. So my MP and indeed my MSP (that's a Member of the Scottish Parliament) are democratically elected representatives.I'm not arguing for anything - but the earlier discussion was largely about disproportionate over representation of leaders of one religion in the HoLs, with Vlad suggesting a better balance whereby membership of the HoLs was managed to make it more representative (in demographic terms) of a range of 'world views' (his term not mine).
You seemed to be arguing for a second chamber that is chosen rather than elected, so I suggest here your elision of a representative and a set of people who are representative of a demographic was an easy error to make. However, it was misrepresentative of HH's position.
Thank you, NS. You have clearly expressed my position.All I was doing was pointing out that we sometimes need to be careful what we wish for.
Perhaps I could have been more careful when writing my earlier post, but it is a quickly written contribution to an on-line forum not a political positioning paper nor an undergraduate essay.
I'm not arguing for anything - but the earlier discussion was largely about disproportionate over representation of leaders of one religion in the HoLs, with Vlad suggesting a better balance whereby membership of the HoLs was managed to make it more representative (in demographic terms) of a range of 'world views' (his term not mine).
....
It is easy to wish for a democratically elected parliament AND one that is demographically representative of the wider population. It is hard to achieve both at the same time.
All I was doing was pointing out that we sometimes need to be careful what we wish for.
It is easy to wish for a democratically elected parliament AND one that is demographically representative of the wider population. It is hard to achieve both at the same time.
Very true.Surely if it happens it's a fluke rather than an achievement?
Thank you, NS. You have clearly expressed my position. I value the Prof's comments on and about my submission but I did consider the direction in which Vlad's suggestions were leading was not appropriate for a major democracy in the 21st century.Look we have HoC where the professional politicians go and at least one of the parties seems more dedicated to itself. Nothing though that an alternative voting system couldn't fix.
Perhaps I could have been more careful when writing my earlier post, but it is a quickly written contribution to an on-line forum not a political positioning paper nor an undergraduate essay.
If My proposals were developed then the second house would still be elected through the organisations and groups which they represent or have represented.How many lords would you propose?
How many lords would you propose?Six.......You, me, Shaker and BlueHillSide........... all three of them.
Look we have HoC where the professional politicians go and at least one of the parties seems more dedicated to itself. Nothing though that an alternative voting system couldn't fix.as opposed to a house appointed by some people.
If My proposals were developed then the second house would still be elected through the organisations and groups which they represent or have represented.
2 houses elected by General election just means 1 House of commons of professional politicians dedicated to party rather than nation, sitting in two places
Which organisations?
as opposed to a house appointed by some people.The groups and organisations so represented would select in a process guided and influenced by voting and electoral arrangements as seen fit by those groups which is why I put this:
If My proposals were developed then the second house would still be elected through the organisations and groups which they represent or have represented.
Here are some to be going on with ...There is already political representation of sorts. Since living where I do I have never been represented in the HoC apart from persons in and from other constituency.
The Royal Society
English Collective of Prostitutes
Nottingham Forest Supporters Club
The National Trust for England
The Sealed Knot
The Watchtower
Iron Maiden Fan Club
Flat Earth Society
... and before Vlad objects, they all have a "world view" - no matter how narrow.
No. The second chamber should not be appointed but elected. It should have fewer members than the House of Commons - perhaps determined regionally - with a membership which reflects the political views of the electorate.
the second house would still be elected through the organisations and groups which they represent or have represented.
Here are some to be going on with ...Hmm The ECP and FES maybe.............The Sealed...........Knot.
The Royal Society
English Collective of Prostitutes
Nottingham Forest Supporters Club
The National Trust for England
The Sealed Knot
The Watchtower
Iron Maiden Fan Club
Flat Earth Society
The groups and organisations so represented would select in a process guided and influenced by voting and electoral arrangements as seen fit by those groups which is why I put this:
What if I am not in any of the groups you want to set up but you are in six? You get six votes I get none.Those who do not get to vote in any of the other groups, if you see my list of 'Chambers' get to vote for a representative or representatives for a chamber of people I then elected through the organisations and groups which they represent or have represented.
Those who do not get to vote in any of the other groups, if you see my list of 'Chambers' get to vote for a representative or representatives for a chamber of people I then elected through the organisations and groups which they represent or have represented.
So do the others get multiple votes? Why should these people have special representation?Each seat is the voice of that community so there is a sense in which nobody ends up underrepresented. Eg No one person can be a representative for more than one group. Not perfect but what would be? And more representative than another politically elected house which ends apparently in persons not sure what they are there for. Presumably that would not be the state of affairs with 'chambers'.
Each seat is the voice of that community so there is a sense in which nobody ends up underrepresented.What sense is that, nonsense?
What sense is that, nonsense?It's a proposal. My favoured version for a house of lords is election by lot or Sortition I believe it is referred to.
It's a proposal.Wait until you can afford a decent engagement ring.
He is probably right. Everything moves according to God's plan in the long term.
Really?I suppose that includes the Black Death, the Holodomor and Bergen-Belsen.
I suppose that includes the Black Death, the Holodomor and Bergen-Belsen.
That's quite a plan.
He is probably right. Everything moves according to God's plan in the long term.
We are not here to enjoy and have fun.
https://t.co/vk9QriDYnj
NHS in crisis. Open the link, check the date, see the content of the article
Just pointing out a winter crisis in the NHS is nothing new.
In 2000 tories berating labour, in 2017 labour berating tories. It's happened before and it will happen again.
As an aside there it nothing being reported about the devolved health services so i assume all is working perfectly well outside of England.
Reshuffle leaves the great steaming turd that is the state of the railways to be cleared up by successor.
Why do you think that a Conservative government can clear up "the great steaming turd that is the state of the railways"?I'm not sure even Major envisaged the railways as a testbed for subordination of passenger health or safety and a union management confrontation union tribute act both of which seem to have backfired badly.
It was, after all, a Conservative government - led by John Major - which invented the modern, Balkanised, lawyers' paradise that is the UK railway system.
Why do you think that a Conservative government can clear up "the great steaming turd that is the state of the railways"?I'm not sure even Major envisaged the railways as a testbed for subordination of passenger health or safety and a 70's union management confrontation tribute act both of which seem to have backfired badly.
It was, after all, a Conservative government - led by John Major - which invented the modern, Balkanised, lawyers' paradise that is the UK railway system.
The reshuffle has been so exhilarating particularly the moment when a Conservative replaced a Conservative as party chairman.