Entirely off thread, and a discussion which should normally be post-Lagershed, but I've just had a pair of jeans delivered. They are more than I have ever spent on a pair of trousers - £59 - but I am delighted with them. As I get older I have more and more specific requirements for jeans (this is not just a result of ageing, it's also a result of clothing manufacturers being such neophiles that they can't let a product well alone: I'd have been perfectly happy to buy the same pair of jeans every 9 months from the age of 16, but they won't leave well alone): I want jeans to be light blue in colour (ideally slightly lighter than these turned out to be in real life), to taper slightly at the ankle, and to be 100% cotton. It's increasingly difficult to find even men's jeans without some sort of stretchy stuff woven in. I want my jeans as stiff and unyielding as cardboard. And also to be able to accommodate my unusually large legs. Anyway, weirdly, John Lewis of all places was able to provide. I blanche slightly at the price, but I am now going to order 6 more pairs which should see me comfortably through to my fifties. My taste in jeans hasn't changed for the last 30 years so I see no danger in it changing in the next four.
Try Yoga pants. They stretch.
I don't want my trousers to stretch! Too many of them do stretch. I want them to be entirely rigid, like nature intended.
Yes, but jeans do stretch while wearing them, indeed that is why they are so comfortable, and also why you shouldn't wash them too often as they lose their acquired shape.
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
While I rarely agree with you, I am sorry to see you go. All the best.
So blowing up Stormont has zero impact on anything due to external factors.
Exactly what I suspected would happen and the DUP attempt to win votes back from the TUV is starting to fail.
Even my mother (who votes DUP) thinks they are heading for oblivion now that Paisley is dead. She thinks that Norn Iron will be tossed away by "the English" and will have to become federal with the South, or as she put it "have our government again like when I was younger even though they are all useless"
Was your mother born before 1922?
1940s but Stormont ran the show until the early 70s.
The problem with Stormont, as I'm sure you know, was that it was crudely gerrymandered to ensure 'a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant People' with FPTP elections in constituencies organised to have at least 50% non-Catholics in as many as possible. I'm not sure about the value of all of the arrangements for the Executive, but STV does seem to have given a more 'representative' legislature.
Stormont using STV also ensures the median MLA will almost always be from the Alliance now.
Hence neither Unionists nor Nationalists have a majority there
Good. Aspiring politicians will have to start thinking about 'what's best for the people', rather than 'how does the Chief Priest of my tribe see it'.
Nah, they will continue to think 'What is best for me? That must be what is best for the people'.
LOL!! There are positives to that over those to the benefit of the Chief Priest!
The discussion about Alison Saunders, Starmer and the CPS is all very interesting. But what you are missing is that the Met - and other police forces - are still operating on the basis of the flawed assumptions about uncritical belief in what a victim alleges, despite Sir Richard Henriques pointing out all the wrongheadedness of this in his report following Operation Midland.
That report was written 3 years ago.
Nothing has been done to implement his recommendations. The police have simply waved 2 fingers at him. The government in charge while all this has been happening has been led by one Boris Johnson and the Home Secretary throughout has been Priti Patel.
So wondering whether Saunders or Starmer could have done their jobs better in the past is a diversion from the fact that this gruesome duo (Johnson and Patel) are not doing their jobs well in this regard now. The injustices are continuing now.
One curiosity of modern policing is how the SMT is so willing to overlook grooming gangs, push Yewtree on minimal evidence, celebrate Pride week, yet has developed a canteen culture of misogyny and racism as seen in Charing Cross Station.
Perhaps just a reflection of wider society, but even so.
Misogyny explains in part the attitude to the girls raped by grooming gangs.
Yewtree - this is easily explained by incompetence and a desire to please political masters.
Pride - no work involved. Turn up at a parade, wear a few badges & get lots of praise for doing nothing substantive.
So basically old attitudes, sucking up to your boss & doing easy stuff that gets you a pat on the back but involves no work.
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
I tend to oppose taxing the rich much more because: 1. My belief is that it doesn't work. The rich are not like you and me. That's why they're rich. They're motivated by increasing their wealth, rather than family, an easy life, inertia, whatever motivates most people. And they have the means to do so. If you try to tax them more, they will either go somewhere else, pay specialists to find ways of avoiding the increased liabilities, or do less of the money-making activities that are being so heavily taxed - because they are wealthy enough not to need to. So if you're objective is maximising tax revenue, raising taxes on the rich is a surprisingly poor way to do it. And 2. The rich already pay a frighteningly large proportion of the tax the exchequer receives. A narrow base to tax revenues is undesirable because it's a) fraught with risk and b) engenders a disconnect in the minds of most people between raising of funds for public spending and the outcomes of that public spending, which leads to poor understanding of values. It's like the story Nick tells about the Swiss talking about 'our bridge' and that public spending is 'ours' whereas we say 'they are building a bridge'. Public spending is a public good, but should also be a public cost; not a cost which falls upon some 'other'. (A good example: Andy Burnham can add, I think, £10 to council tax in Greater Manchester, and with it pay for the specific outcome of free public transport for 16-18 year olds. Is this a cost I think there is a benefit in? As it happens, yes, even though I have no children that age. I can see the public good in allowing that cohort wider access to education and other opportunities.)
I'm not against tax rises per se, but I'm always wary when they are narrowly targeted.
I was actually physically present when a rich (owned a house whose garden actually opened onto Wentworth Golf course) relative fired his tax lawyers and decided to simply pay the income tax.
This was when Maggie dropped the rates.
The comment I've heard from a number of such people is that while paying tax is OK, over 50% they feel motivated to extreme measures to reduce the bill.
Some points on this:
1. People on Universal Credit routinely pay more than 50% effective tax when they take part-time work, because of the taper effect. When I was briefly on the previous system, I found myself paying 80% tax on casual work. I agree it's then tempting to take extreme measures, which for benefits takes the form of either not doing the work or not reporting it, both of which then incur lofty condemnation of "benefit scroungers". I think this discussion should prompt understanding of their position too.
2. I agree that rates over 50% incur active resistance. What could reasonably be considered would be additional bands above basic rate or a sliding scale where the % inches up as your income grows - the gaps to the £100K mark when an effective 60% rate kicks in (because of the loss of PA) and then to the £150K mark are very large, and unusual in international comparisons, where a sliding scale is common.
3. The differences in wealth are nowadays much more noticeable than difference in income (though the head of the BoE on something like £300K urging wage restraint on others was a good example of tin ear), and a wealth tax (perhaps replacing council tax) or at least additional council tax bands for very expensive properties seems a reasonable way forward. The Duke of Westminster and his family are reportedly worth £10 billion, not because he's worked his fingers to the bone or made brilliant decisions, but because he's the son of the previous Duke. I've nothing against him but if he paid say 0.5% a year on his assets I doubt if even he would feel it was especially unfair or required extreme avoidance tactics.
1 - Is why thing like UBI will make sense, eventually. For the moment, I would consider *increasing* benefits for those who are long term unemployed when they get a job. Then taper, much later.
2 - Simplifying the tax system is more important - less loopholes. Get rid of NI and merge into Income tax. Tax all income at the same rate.
3 - Nice idea. The problem is that people will see that as coming for their houses. Most people who have a house don't feel rich. The only way out of this is deflating house prices so that they are no longer a ridiculous multiple of income and dominate personal spending.
Reasons why Boris doesn't want to go now No 1 to 60million
Boris wants another 4-6 months to get past Brown and May - and he needs to avoid a VONC otherwise he isn't going to get there.
I still think Boris wins a VONC 55% to 45% or so for now
He'll probably beat Spencer Perceval. Unlikely he'll beat Gordon Brown.
Ah, Boris, you old duffer, it could all have been so different. You were played a hugely difficult hand - take over a party with no majority and with two wings in open rebellion, in different directions, deal with the most contentious constitutional issue of the post-war era, and then thrown off course by the biggest emergency of my lifetime. The first you managed with astonishing success, the second to no less dissatisfaction than anyone else would have achieved*, and the third better than many, with some brave calls along the way.
And then you threw it away on - what? Holding some not-very-good-parties? Evacuating someone's pets from Afghanistan? Owen Paterson? A distasteful jibe at PMQs?
I'm not trying to excuse Boris. I didn't want him in the first place and I certainly don't want him now. But he dealt with the really difficult issues quite well - certainly better than many. The first few months of his premiership when he took a fractious party without a majority which had recently polled below 10% in a national election to a landslide-ish majority was just astonishing.
He's played an astonishingly difficult hand with a surprising degree of success, and then made some really, really, really stupid and unnecessary unforced errors. Like the spy who finds the Macguffin, defeats three different sets of baddies, makes it home through no-mans land, then gets hilariously drunk on the train back from Dover, picks a fight with a bouncer and leaves the Macguffin on the tube.
*I can sense Remainer piss boiling from here when I write this. Sorry. It's hard to frame in a neutral way. But I stand by it - other solutions may or may not have been better; but any other solution would have pissed off at least as many people.
As a former remainer (meaningless term now, really) I agree completely. The options were piss off the Brexiters, piss off the Remainers or piss off everybody both extremes (something Norway-esque). Probably the last option was best for the country, but would have still greatly annoyed those on both extremes and been seen as a betrayal, for different reasons, by many. It would have required a great leader to bring people together behind it.
Actually I think most Remainers would have grabbed Norway with both hands, certainly once the initial shock of the vote was absorbed. That is certainly suggested by the parliamentary votes on this where Remainers overwhelmingly voted for it. The opposition came from Leavers who were in full on yah boo you lost mode and held out for a maximal position - which fair play to them they achieved. The least they could do now is own it instead of whining about the fact they've got everything they wanted.
The problem with the first part is that the Remainers who "overwhelmingly voted for it" came across as it being their second choice behind overturning the referendum result, so it looked like a trap.
If Remainers had been strong from June 2016 until May's election that "we lost, but only narrowly, but EEA is a reasonable outcome from the result" then plenty of Leavers would have been more than happy with that.
I think that is just a sign of Leaver paranoia.
Given how bitterly a faction of sore-loser Remainers fought to overturn the referendum result, a certain level of paranoia was quite understandable.
Not really, Leavers controlled the process at all times. The only reason that there was stalemate was that they promised something impossible (leaving the single market and customs union with no implications for the Irish border). That wasn't the fault of Remainers.
Remind me which way Theresa May voted in the referendum?
To say that Leavers controlled the process at all times is simply revisionist history. There was always a Remainder majority (by 2016 vote if not by 2017 manifesto pledge) in the Commons, aided and abetted by an activist Speaker who would keep or change conventions as necessary to favour the Remain side.
COOKE, Christian Christopher (Local Conservatives) 613 LOXTON Huw Geraint (Independent) 482 FOSTER, David Geoffrey (Labour Party Candidate) 311 Con 43.6 (-11.7) Ind 34.3 (+16.9) Lab 22.1 (-3.0)
Quite a muscly Owen Jones piece here imo. His main point is we shouldn't be suckered by the Tory Party into thinking if Boris Johnson goes all is fine.
Johnson is no grotesque interloper: his behaviour and attitudes are emblematic of the British establishment. If our ruling institutions have a shared culture, it’s entitlement and shamelessness, a conviction that wrongdoing should meet consequences only if you are poor and powerless.
OJ is half right. The British establishment is very much as he depicts, but the British establishment is overwhelmingly centre left leaning, Remainy, and moderately woke. Oddly OJ draws attention only to Tory exemplars.
There is no single Establishment, there are just well-connected people with power - political, financial, social - these being strongly correlated. If you think the overwhelming majority of these people hold left of centre views I'd like you to send me a postcard from whatever place you're living in because it sounds exotic and rather lovely.
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
Sorry to hear that Mr Ed. You'll be welcome back should you change your mind.
Entirely off thread, and a discussion which should normally be post-Lagershed, but I've just had a pair of jeans delivered. They are more than I have ever spent on a pair of trousers - £59 - but I am delighted with them. As I get older I have more and more specific requirements for jeans (this is not just a result of ageing, it's also a result of clothing manufacturers being such neophiles that they can't let a product well alone: I'd have been perfectly happy to buy the same pair of jeans every 9 months from the age of 16, but they won't leave well alone): I want jeans to be light blue in colour (ideally slightly lighter than these turned out to be in real life), to taper slightly at the ankle, and to be 100% cotton. It's increasingly difficult to find even men's jeans without some sort of stretchy stuff woven in. I want my jeans as stiff and unyielding as cardboard. And also to be able to accommodate my unusually large legs. Anyway, weirdly, John Lewis of all places was able to provide. I blanche slightly at the price, but I am now going to order 6 more pairs which should see me comfortably through to my fifties. My taste in jeans hasn't changed for the last 30 years so I see no danger in it changing in the next four.
My wife's view was that once I got into my 50s blue jeans were strictly for garden work only. Just a thought.
The discussion about Alison Saunders, Starmer and the CPS is all very interesting. But what you are missing is that the Met - and other police forces - are still operating on the basis of the flawed assumptions about uncritical belief in what a victim alleges, despite Sir Richard Henriques pointing out all the wrongheadedness of this in his report following Operation Midland.
That report was written 3 years ago.
Nothing has been done to implement his recommendations. The police have simply waved 2 fingers at him. The government in charge while all this has been happening has been led by one Boris Johnson and the Home Secretary throughout has been Priti Patel.
So wondering whether Saunders or Starmer could have done their jobs better in the past is a diversion from the fact that this gruesome duo (Johnson and Patel) are not doing their jobs well in this regard now. The injustices are continuing now.
One curiosity of modern policing is how the SMT is so willing to overlook grooming gangs, push Yewtree on minimal evidence, celebrate Pride week, yet has developed a canteen culture of misogyny and racism as seen in Charing Cross Station.
Perhaps just a reflection of wider society, but even so.
Yes it's a puzzle. The police are simultaneously horribly woke and horribly non-woke.
The "canteen culture of misogyny and racism" has always been there.
It is now submerged under lawyers of training in what to say. Not got rid of.
So Constable Savage is now arresting Black people for ordering their coffee Black.
If you see the problem as a broken culture trying to behave to standards that are not actually understood in a moral sense... it takes perfect sense.
"He looks like a lower primate trying to fly an aeroplane."
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
Sorry to see you go MrEd.
Indeed, MrEd was a minority view but an important one for a site that is a betting site and therefore needs to reflect all views, even pro Trump and pro Boris ones.
The last thing we want is for it to become a left liberal echo chamber
I wouldn't say most people on here are left/liberal although a few are like Kinabalu, Gallowgate and Northern_Al More establishment centre/centre right types who have extreme/irrational hatred of both the broad Labour left and Johnson.
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
The discussion about Alison Saunders, Starmer and the CPS is all very interesting. But what you are missing is that the Met - and other police forces - are still operating on the basis of the flawed assumptions about uncritical belief in what a victim alleges, despite Sir Richard Henriques pointing out all the wrongheadedness of this in his report following Operation Midland.
That report was written 3 years ago.
Nothing has been done to implement his recommendations. The police have simply waved 2 fingers at him. The government in charge while all this has been happening has been led by one Boris Johnson and the Home Secretary throughout has been Priti Patel.
So wondering whether Saunders or Starmer could have done their jobs better in the past is a diversion from the fact that this gruesome duo (Johnson and Patel) are not doing their jobs well in this regard now. The injustices are continuing now.
One curiosity of modern policing is how the SMT is so willing to overlook grooming gangs, push Yewtree on minimal evidence, celebrate Pride week, yet has developed a canteen culture of misogyny and racism as seen in Charing Cross Station.
Perhaps just a reflection of wider society, but even so.
Misogyny explains in part the attitude to the girls raped by grooming gangs.
Yewtree - this is easily explained by incompetence and a desire to please political masters.
Pride - no work involved. Turn up at a parade, wear a few badges & get lots of praise for doing nothing substantive.
So basically old attitudes, sucking up to your boss & doing easy stuff that gets you a pat on the back but involves no work.
I don't find it that puzzling.
"Misogyny explains in part the attitude to the girls raped by grooming gangs."
I think it was a combination of
- The victims were considered gutter trash - The perpetrators were, in a number of cases, from minorities. The instinctive racism of "they are like that" + fear of being *seen* to be racist.
Worse than the drop after the GFC or Black Wednesday is quite a grim situation.
Yes, indeed. Also, that graph is obviously an average; there will be a large number of low-paid people for whom the effect is proportionately larger, and who probably will already have had a tough time during the pandemic. The only relatively bright spot is that at the moment unemployment doesn't seem to be likely to be a big problem, but it is going to be pretty grim for many.
Not all of this is the government's fault, of course, and their room for manoeuvre is limited, but Sunak's mitigation measures are only going to address a small part of the pain.
It will be interesting to see if voters wake up to the fact that Brexit has made this substantially worse.
The other chart of relevance is this one from the FT which gives some idea of the regional bounce back, and where it is lacking:
The West Midlands being the cockpit of any election, but by far the worst affected doesn't bode well, especially for a government that talks about "The North" and ignores the Midlands.
It is paywalled, but googling the full title takes you past it with the FT.
Looking on the ONS, in November 2021 they posted figures for the period to MARCH 2021.
The article says this:
"Economic output in Northern Ireland in the third quarter was only 0.3 per cent below that of the final quarter of 2019, before the pandemic, according to data published by the Office for National Statistics on Monday"
Obviously more up to date data will be interesting, but will the regional imbalances in recovery be very different?
Next set of data should be GDP figures released by the ONS on 11 Feburary.
Reasons why Boris doesn't want to go now No 1 to 60million
Boris wants another 4-6 months to get past Brown and May - and he needs to avoid a VONC otherwise he isn't going to get there.
I still think Boris wins a VONC 55% to 45% or so for now
He'll probably beat Spencer Perceval. Unlikely he'll beat Gordon Brown.
Ah, Boris, you old duffer, it could all have been so different. You were played a hugely difficult hand - take over a party with no majority and with two wings in open rebellion, in different directions, deal with the most contentious constitutional issue of the post-war era, and then thrown off course by the biggest emergency of my lifetime. The first you managed with astonishing success, the second to no less dissatisfaction than anyone else would have achieved*, and the third better than many, with some brave calls along the way.
And then you threw it away on - what? Holding some not-very-good-parties? Evacuating someone's pets from Afghanistan? Owen Paterson? A distasteful jibe at PMQs?
I'm not trying to excuse Boris. I didn't want him in the first place and I certainly don't want him now. But he dealt with the really difficult issues quite well - certainly better than many. The first few months of his premiership when he took a fractious party without a majority which had recently polled below 10% in a national election to a landslide-ish majority was just astonishing.
He's played an astonishingly difficult hand with a surprising degree of success, and then made some really, really, really stupid and unnecessary unforced errors. Like the spy who finds the Macguffin, defeats three different sets of baddies, makes it home through no-mans land, then gets hilariously drunk on the train back from Dover, picks a fight with a bouncer and leaves the Macguffin on the tube.
*I can sense Remainer piss boiling from here when I write this. Sorry. It's hard to frame in a neutral way. But I stand by it - other solutions may or may not have been better; but any other solution would have pissed off at least as many people.
As a former remainer (meaningless term now, really) I agree completely. The options were piss off the Brexiters, piss off the Remainers or piss off everybody both extremes (something Norway-esque). Probably the last option was best for the country, but would have still greatly annoyed those on both extremes and been seen as a betrayal, for different reasons, by many. It would have required a great leader to bring people together behind it.
Actually I think most Remainers would have grabbed Norway with both hands, certainly once the initial shock of the vote was absorbed. That is certainly suggested by the parliamentary votes on this where Remainers overwhelmingly voted for it. The opposition came from Leavers who were in full on yah boo you lost mode and held out for a maximal position - which fair play to them they achieved. The least they could do now is own it instead of whining about the fact they've got everything they wanted.
The problem with the first part is that the Remainers who "overwhelmingly voted for it" came across as it being their second choice behind overturning the referendum result, so it looked like a trap.
If Remainers had been strong from June 2016 until May's election that "we lost, but only narrowly, but EEA is a reasonable outcome from the result" then plenty of Leavers would have been more than happy with that.
I think that is just a sign of Leaver paranoia.
Given how bitterly a faction of sore-loser Remainers fought to overturn the referendum result, a certain level of paranoia was quite understandable.
Not really, Leavers controlled the process at all times. The only reason that there was stalemate was that they promised something impossible (leaving the single market and customs union with no implications for the Irish border). That wasn't the fault of Remainers.
The whole Brexit process in 2017-19 was a clusterf*. I don't think ascribing blame to a bloc or party is actually the right way to look at it (though one can lay the ultimate blame at Cameron's door for putting a referendum in the manifesto in 2015).
It was a case study in prisoner's dilemma / Bullseye special prize. Each faction - both brexiteer and remainer - were weighing up options based on a gamble as to how the other side would behave.
For committed Remainers, you either compromise and get 50% of what you wanted (say customs union - EEA was almost impossible after May's red lines) but forego the opportunity to win outright, or you don't compromise and go for either outright victory (second referendum and reversal) or losing everything (second referendum that you lose, or election that you lose).
For hard Brexiteers, exactly the same: you either compromise and get 50% of what you wanted but forego the opportunity to win outright (as above), or you don't compromise and go for either outright victory or losing everything.
For middle of roaders of which there were many on the Tory and Labour benches the decision was much easier.
In the end the committed Remainers gambled and lost heavily; the hard Brexiteers gambled and won handsomely. If things had gone differently people would be blaming the Spartans for overreaching and blowing their chance.
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
Sorry to see you go MrEd.
Indeed, MrEd was a minority view but an important one for a site that is a betting site and therefore needs to reflect all views, even pro Trump and pro Boris ones.
The last thing we want is for it to become a left liberal echo chamber
Over 93,000 posts from your good self suggest there is little chance of that.
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
The Big Dog wouldn't flounce and neither should you.
Reasons why Boris doesn't want to go now No 1 to 60million
Boris wants another 4-6 months to get past Brown and May - and he needs to avoid a VONC otherwise he isn't going to get there.
I still think Boris wins a VONC 55% to 45% or so for now
He'll probably beat Spencer Perceval. Unlikely he'll beat Gordon Brown.
Ah, Boris, you old duffer, it could all have been so different. You were played a hugely difficult hand - take over a party with no majority and with two wings in open rebellion, in different directions, deal with the most contentious constitutional issue of the post-war era, and then thrown off course by the biggest emergency of my lifetime. The first you managed with astonishing success, the second to no less dissatisfaction than anyone else would have achieved*, and the third better than many, with some brave calls along the way.
And then you threw it away on - what? Holding some not-very-good-parties? Evacuating someone's pets from Afghanistan? Owen Paterson? A distasteful jibe at PMQs?
I'm not trying to excuse Boris. I didn't want him in the first place and I certainly don't want him now. But he dealt with the really difficult issues quite well - certainly better than many. The first few months of his premiership when he took a fractious party without a majority which had recently polled below 10% in a national election to a landslide-ish majority was just astonishing.
He's played an astonishingly difficult hand with a surprising degree of success, and then made some really, really, really stupid and unnecessary unforced errors. Like the spy who finds the Macguffin, defeats three different sets of baddies, makes it home through no-mans land, then gets hilariously drunk on the train back from Dover, picks a fight with a bouncer and leaves the Macguffin on the tube.
*I can sense Remainer piss boiling from here when I write this. Sorry. It's hard to frame in a neutral way. But I stand by it - other solutions may or may not have been better; but any other solution would have pissed off at least as many people.
As a former remainer (meaningless term now, really) I agree completely. The options were piss off the Brexiters, piss off the Remainers or piss off everybody both extremes (something Norway-esque). Probably the last option was best for the country, but would have still greatly annoyed those on both extremes and been seen as a betrayal, for different reasons, by many. It would have required a great leader to bring people together behind it.
Actually I think most Remainers would have grabbed Norway with both hands, certainly once the initial shock of the vote was absorbed. That is certainly suggested by the parliamentary votes on this where Remainers overwhelmingly voted for it. The opposition came from Leavers who were in full on yah boo you lost mode and held out for a maximal position - which fair play to them they achieved. The least they could do now is own it instead of whining about the fact they've got everything they wanted.
The problem with the first part is that the Remainers who "overwhelmingly voted for it" came across as it being their second choice behind overturning the referendum result, so it looked like a trap.
If Remainers had been strong from June 2016 until May's election that "we lost, but only narrowly, but EEA is a reasonable outcome from the result" then plenty of Leavers would have been more than happy with that.
I think that is just a sign of Leaver paranoia.
Given how bitterly a faction of sore-loser Remainers fought to overturn the referendum result, a certain level of paranoia was quite understandable.
Not really, Leavers controlled the process at all times. The only reason that there was stalemate was that they promised something impossible (leaving the single market and customs union with no implications for the Irish border). That wasn't the fault of Remainers.
Remind me which way Theresa May voted in the referendum?
To say that Leavers controlled the process at all times is simply revisionist history. There was always a Remainder majority (by 2016 vote if not by 2017 manifesto pledge) in the Commons, aided and abetted by an activist Speaker who would keep or change conventions as necessary to favour the Remain side.
May embraced Leave enthusiastically post-referendum. Brexit means Brexit, remember? Or do you think she was a Remainer sleeper agent? (actually she was so inept that it's a plausible theory).
COOKE, Christian Christopher (Local Conservatives) 613 LOXTON Huw Geraint (Independent) 482 FOSTER, David Geoffrey (Labour Party Candidate) 311 Con 43.6 (-11.7) Ind 34.3 (+16.9) Lab 22.1 (-3.0)
Labour have done universally and weirdly badly in last night's elections. Can't work out whether it's a freak or the national polls are wrong (or some other explanation like the increased Labour VI is concentrated among the less politically engaged who don't vote in council byelections).
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
It wouldn't. Diehard Remainers in the SNP, LDs and much of Labour would still have voted for EUref2 not EEA and Tory hardline Brexiteers would still have voted to end free movement not to stay in the EEA.
Even if it had passed, the result would have been a surge in support for Farage's Brexit Party anyway again, indeed it is possible Farage could have won more votes than May's Tories at the next general election as well as winning seats in Labour's redwall just as Boris did on a 'this is not true Brexit' ticket
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
Sorry to see you go MrEd.
Indeed, MrEd was a minority view but an important one for a site that is a betting site and therefore needs to reflect all views, even pro Trump and pro Boris ones.
The last thing we want is for it to become a left liberal echo chamber
I wouldn't say most people on here are left/liberal although a few are like Kinabalu, Gallowgate and Northern_Al More establishment centre/centre right types who have extreme/irrational hatred of both the broad Labour left and Johnson.
It's unfortunate to see MrEd go, I concur.
If not left liberal they are mainly centre right liberals yes.
MrEd was a rare hard right, populist conservative view
Reasons why Boris doesn't want to go now No 1 to 60million
Boris wants another 4-6 months to get past Brown and May - and he needs to avoid a VONC otherwise he isn't going to get there.
I still think Boris wins a VONC 55% to 45% or so for now
He'll probably beat Spencer Perceval. Unlikely he'll beat Gordon Brown.
Ah, Boris, you old duffer, it could all have been so different. You were played a hugely difficult hand - take over a party with no majority and with two wings in open rebellion, in different directions, deal with the most contentious constitutional issue of the post-war era, and then thrown off course by the biggest emergency of my lifetime. The first you managed with astonishing success, the second to no less dissatisfaction than anyone else would have achieved*, and the third better than many, with some brave calls along the way.
And then you threw it away on - what? Holding some not-very-good-parties? Evacuating someone's pets from Afghanistan? Owen Paterson? A distasteful jibe at PMQs?
I'm not trying to excuse Boris. I didn't want him in the first place and I certainly don't want him now. But he dealt with the really difficult issues quite well - certainly better than many. The first few months of his premiership when he took a fractious party without a majority which had recently polled below 10% in a national election to a landslide-ish majority was just astonishing.
He's played an astonishingly difficult hand with a surprising degree of success, and then made some really, really, really stupid and unnecessary unforced errors. Like the spy who finds the Macguffin, defeats three different sets of baddies, makes it home through no-mans land, then gets hilariously drunk on the train back from Dover, picks a fight with a bouncer and leaves the Macguffin on the tube.
*I can sense Remainer piss boiling from here when I write this. Sorry. It's hard to frame in a neutral way. But I stand by it - other solutions may or may not have been better; but any other solution would have pissed off at least as many people.
As a former remainer (meaningless term now, really) I agree completely. The options were piss off the Brexiters, piss off the Remainers or piss off everybody both extremes (something Norway-esque). Probably the last option was best for the country, but would have still greatly annoyed those on both extremes and been seen as a betrayal, for different reasons, by many. It would have required a great leader to bring people together behind it.
Actually I think most Remainers would have grabbed Norway with both hands, certainly once the initial shock of the vote was absorbed. That is certainly suggested by the parliamentary votes on this where Remainers overwhelmingly voted for it. The opposition came from Leavers who were in full on yah boo you lost mode and held out for a maximal position - which fair play to them they achieved. The least they could do now is own it instead of whining about the fact they've got everything they wanted.
The problem with the first part is that the Remainers who "overwhelmingly voted for it" came across as it being their second choice behind overturning the referendum result, so it looked like a trap.
If Remainers had been strong from June 2016 until May's election that "we lost, but only narrowly, but EEA is a reasonable outcome from the result" then plenty of Leavers would have been more than happy with that.
I think that is just a sign of Leaver paranoia.
Given how bitterly a faction of sore-loser Remainers fought to overturn the referendum result, a certain level of paranoia was quite understandable.
Not really, Leavers controlled the process at all times. The only reason that there was stalemate was that they promised something impossible (leaving the single market and customs union with no implications for the Irish border). That wasn't the fault of Remainers.
The whole Brexit process in 2017-19 was a clusterf*. I don't think ascribing blame to a bloc or party is actually the right way to look at it (though one can lay the ultimate blame at Cameron's door for putting a referendum in the manifesto in 2015).
It was a case study in prisoner's dilemma / Bullseye special prize. Each faction - both brexiteer and remainer - were weighing up options based on a gamble as to how the other side would behave.
For committed Remainers, you either compromise and get 50% of what you wanted (say customs union - EEA was almost impossible after May's red lines) but forego the opportunity to win outright, or you don't compromise and go for either outright victory (second referendum and reversal) or losing everything (second referendum that you lose, or election that you lose).
For hard Brexiteers, exactly the same: you either compromise and get 50% of what you wanted but forego the opportunity to win outright (as above), or you don't compromise and go for either outright victory or losing everything.
For middle of roaders of which there were many on the Tory and Labour benches the decision was much easier.
In the end the committed Remainers gambled and lost heavily; the hard Brexiteers gambled and won handsomely. If things had gone differently people would be blaming the Spartans for overreaching and blowing their chance.
But most Remainders voted for the Norway compromise. Certainly in my party (Labour). It was blocked by Leavers and the Tory party. What I don't understand is this: Leavers have got everything they wanted. Why are they so desperate to find someone to blame for how we got here?
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
Sorry to see you go MrEd.
Indeed, MrEd was a minority view but an important one for a site that is a betting site and therefore needs to reflect all views, even pro Trump and pro Boris ones.
The last thing we want is for it to become a left liberal echo chamber
Over 93,000 posts from your good self suggest there is little chance of that.
HYFUD counts me in the same liberal left as you, Al. His definition seems to constitute anyone who doesn't show 100% loyalty and fealty to whoever the Tory leader is on the day.
Quite a muscly Owen Jones piece here imo. His main point is we shouldn't be suckered by the Tory Party into thinking if Boris Johnson goes all is fine.
Johnson is no grotesque interloper: his behaviour and attitudes are emblematic of the British establishment. If our ruling institutions have a shared culture, it’s entitlement and shamelessness, a conviction that wrongdoing should meet consequences only if you are poor and powerless.
In some ways he's not wrong. The problem is that it is universal - we have a new upper 10,000 and they are worse than the previous lot. In the Goode Olde Days* the equivalent of Cressida Dick or the people involved in Rotherham wouldn't still be in post. After their (the old version) screwups, they actually lost their jobs in permeant ways.
We have replaced the Squirearchy with the Professionals**, who are eternally Learning Lessons.
*Which weren't good. **Who don't even appear to be as competent as CI5. They certainly aren't very Expert - in every field they seem to be utterly clueless as to real Best Practise in the real world.
There's a point here, a good one, but I don't like the macro take you draw from it. I don't think our bastions were better run in the old days of zero social mobility. And I'd say this Upper 10,000 of yours is dominated less by the Dicks of this world than it is by the Rees Moggs and Boris Johnsons and all of the money and backing behind the party through which they push their agenda - the Conservative Party.
The Goode Olde Days weren't. And we are supposed to have moved forward from there. The point was that in times past there was at least a pretence of accountability.
The same pattern followed through the New Labour years as well.
Much of this structure is quite hostile to the Conservative party - these people are, after all, the ultimate believers in Big Government.
Just as long as it is Big Government that is not accountable to anyone.
Reasons why Boris doesn't want to go now No 1 to 60million
Boris wants another 4-6 months to get past Brown and May - and he needs to avoid a VONC otherwise he isn't going to get there.
I still think Boris wins a VONC 55% to 45% or so for now
He'll probably beat Spencer Perceval. Unlikely he'll beat Gordon Brown.
Ah, Boris, you old duffer, it could all have been so different. You were played a hugely difficult hand - take over a party with no majority and with two wings in open rebellion, in different directions, deal with the most contentious constitutional issue of the post-war era, and then thrown off course by the biggest emergency of my lifetime. The first you managed with astonishing success, the second to no less dissatisfaction than anyone else would have achieved*, and the third better than many, with some brave calls along the way.
And then you threw it away on - what? Holding some not-very-good-parties? Evacuating someone's pets from Afghanistan? Owen Paterson? A distasteful jibe at PMQs?
I'm not trying to excuse Boris. I didn't want him in the first place and I certainly don't want him now. But he dealt with the really difficult issues quite well - certainly better than many. The first few months of his premiership when he took a fractious party without a majority which had recently polled below 10% in a national election to a landslide-ish majority was just astonishing.
He's played an astonishingly difficult hand with a surprising degree of success, and then made some really, really, really stupid and unnecessary unforced errors. Like the spy who finds the Macguffin, defeats three different sets of baddies, makes it home through no-mans land, then gets hilariously drunk on the train back from Dover, picks a fight with a bouncer and leaves the Macguffin on the tube.
*I can sense Remainer piss boiling from here when I write this. Sorry. It's hard to frame in a neutral way. But I stand by it - other solutions may or may not have been better; but any other solution would have pissed off at least as many people.
As a former remainer (meaningless term now, really) I agree completely. The options were piss off the Brexiters, piss off the Remainers or piss off everybody both extremes (something Norway-esque). Probably the last option was best for the country, but would have still greatly annoyed those on both extremes and been seen as a betrayal, for different reasons, by many. It would have required a great leader to bring people together behind it.
Actually I think most Remainers would have grabbed Norway with both hands, certainly once the initial shock of the vote was absorbed. That is certainly suggested by the parliamentary votes on this where Remainers overwhelmingly voted for it. The opposition came from Leavers who were in full on yah boo you lost mode and held out for a maximal position - which fair play to them they achieved. The least they could do now is own it instead of whining about the fact they've got everything they wanted.
The problem with the first part is that the Remainers who "overwhelmingly voted for it" came across as it being their second choice behind overturning the referendum result, so it looked like a trap.
If Remainers had been strong from June 2016 until May's election that "we lost, but only narrowly, but EEA is a reasonable outcome from the result" then plenty of Leavers would have been more than happy with that.
I think that is just a sign of Leaver paranoia.
Given how bitterly a faction of sore-loser Remainers fought to overturn the referendum result, a certain level of paranoia was quite understandable.
Not really, Leavers controlled the process at all times. The only reason that there was stalemate was that they promised something impossible (leaving the single market and customs union with no implications for the Irish border). That wasn't the fault of Remainers.
Remind me which way Theresa May voted in the referendum?
To say that Leavers controlled the process at all times is simply revisionist history. There was always a Remainder majority (by 2016 vote if not by 2017 manifesto pledge) in the Commons, aided and abetted by an activist Speaker who would keep or change conventions as necessary to favour the Remain side.
May embraced Leave enthusiastically post-referendum. Brexit means Brexit, remember? Or do you think she was a Remainer sleeper agent? (actually she was so inept that it's a plausible theory).
Indeed. A Norway-style bill would have passed, relatively, easily, but would never have saved her political skin, and so hence it wasn't offered. She was in a minor league of opportuniism compared to Boris though, and could never follow through on her new populist gestures - she just wasn't that sort of politician. Hence our own homegrown Trumpian-populist stepped in to fill the gap.
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
Sorry to see you go MrEd.
Indeed, MrEd was a minority view but an important one for a site that is a betting site and therefore needs to reflect all views, even pro Trump and pro Boris ones.
The last thing we want is for it to become a left liberal echo chamber
Over 93,000 posts from your good self suggest there is little chance of that.
HYFUD counts me in the same liberal left as you, Al. His definition seems to constitute anyone who doesn't show 100% loyalty and fealty to whoever the Tory leader is on the day.
No you are a fiscal conservative, centre right liberal.
However again still not hard right populist like Mr Ed
Quite a muscly Owen Jones piece here imo. His main point is we shouldn't be suckered by the Tory Party into thinking if Boris Johnson goes all is fine.
Johnson is no grotesque interloper: his behaviour and attitudes are emblematic of the British establishment. If our ruling institutions have a shared culture, it’s entitlement and shamelessness, a conviction that wrongdoing should meet consequences only if you are poor and powerless.
Not just the Conservatives but rather a general establishment problem.
After all Labour is led by the epitome of the 'gentleman in Whitehall knows best' mentality.
It's not a purely Tory problem, that's a fair comment, but take a look at the 2 front benches, compare them for 'privileged vs ordinary background' and unless you're not seeing straight you'll prefer the Labour one.
But I sense you're not seeing straight because htf is Keir Starmer the epitome of the establishment and Whitehall knows best? He's an upwardly mobile professional leading the Labour Party after a distinguished legal career in public service.
What on earth do you want as your prefect profile for a 'non establishment' senior politician? A pimlico plumber?
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
It wouldn't. Diehard Remainers in the SNP, LDs and much of Labour would still have voted for EUref2 not EEA and Tory hardline Brexiteers would still have voted to end free movement not to stay in the EEA.
Even if it had passed, the result would have been a surge in support for Farage's Brexit Party anyway again, indeed it is possible Farage could have won more votes than May's Tories at the next general election as well as winning seats in Labour's redwall just as Boris did on a 'this is not true Brexit' ticket
The certainty of the True Believer, (sorry, should that be Brexit turncoat) is a sight to be seen.
COOKE, Christian Christopher (Local Conservatives) 613 LOXTON Huw Geraint (Independent) 482 FOSTER, David Geoffrey (Labour Party Candidate) 311 Con 43.6 (-11.7) Ind 34.3 (+16.9) Lab 22.1 (-3.0)
Labour have done universally and weirdly badly in last night's elections. Can't work out whether it's a freak or the national polls are wrong (or some other explanation like the increased Labour VI is concentrated among the less politically engaged who don't vote in council byelections).
Their vote is super soft. NOTA is strong at the moment.
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
Sorry to see you go MrEd.
Indeed, MrEd was a minority view but an important one for a site that is a betting site and therefore needs to reflect all views, even pro Trump and pro Boris ones.
The last thing we want is for it to become a left liberal echo chamber
Over 93,000 posts from your good self suggest there is little chance of that.
HYFUD counts me in the same liberal left as you, Al. His definition seems to constitute anyone who doesn't show 100% loyalty and fealty to whoever the Tory leader is on the day.
Quite a muscly Owen Jones piece here imo. His main point is we shouldn't be suckered by the Tory Party into thinking if Boris Johnson goes all is fine.
Johnson is no grotesque interloper: his behaviour and attitudes are emblematic of the British establishment. If our ruling institutions have a shared culture, it’s entitlement and shamelessness, a conviction that wrongdoing should meet consequences only if you are poor and powerless.
Not just the Conservatives but rather a general establishment problem.
After all Labour is led by the epitome of the 'gentleman in Whitehall knows best' mentality.
It's not a purely Tory problem, that's a fair comment, but take a look at the 2 front benches, compare them for 'privileged vs ordinary background' and unless you're not seeing straight you'll prefer the Labour one.
But I sense you're not seeing straight because htf is Keir Starmer the epitome of the establishment and Whitehall knows best? He's an upwardly mobile professional leading the Labour Party after a distinguished legal career in public service.
What on earth do you want as your prefect profile for a 'non establishment' senior politician? A pimlico plumber?
A grafter out and about in his hi-viz jacket five days a week...oh wait, isn't that what we've got?
Quite a muscly Owen Jones piece here imo. His main point is we shouldn't be suckered by the Tory Party into thinking if Boris Johnson goes all is fine.
Johnson is no grotesque interloper: his behaviour and attitudes are emblematic of the British establishment. If our ruling institutions have a shared culture, it’s entitlement and shamelessness, a conviction that wrongdoing should meet consequences only if you are poor and powerless.
OJ is half right. The British establishment is very much as he depicts, but the British establishment is overwhelmingly centre left leaning, Remainy, and moderately woke. Oddly OJ draws attention only to Tory exemplars.
There is no single Establishment, there are just well-connected people with power - political, financial, social - these being strongly correlated. If you think the overwhelming majority of these people hold left of centre views I'd like you to send me a postcard from whatever place you're living in because it sounds exotic and rather lovely.
Hm. If the Establishment is a sliding scale from 0 to 100, I must be at least an 80. I have a public sector office job and live in a comfortable middle class suburb of a big city. The views I am surrounded by are overwhelmingly left-wing. Every voice at work (people sometimes talk about being in 'the party' - there is never any doubt which party they mean). The schools my children attend. The views expressed by my Establishment peers.
There may be right wing views in the Establishment. But apart from some noisy and ineffective froth in the political sphere, you almost never hear any right wing views expressed.
I did once hear someone confess to me, sotto voce, that having worked in a field which required European funding, he had become a little sceptical about the whole European process. And once, in a previous (non-public sector) job, someone admitted to me he had voted Conservative at the 2015 GE.
These are the only right wing views I can remember being openly expressed in the last ten years.
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
Sorry to see you go MrEd.
Indeed, MrEd was a minority view but an important one for a site that is a betting site and therefore needs to reflect all views, even pro Trump and pro Boris ones.
The last thing we want is for it to become a left liberal echo chamber
I wouldn't say most people on here are left/liberal although a few are like Kinabalu, Gallowgate and Northern_Al More establishment centre/centre right types who have extreme/irrational hatred of both the broad Labour left and Johnson.
It's unfortunate to see MrEd go, I concur.
If not left liberal they are mainly centre right liberals yes.
MrEd was a rare hard right, populist conservative view
While I don't want to lose him, if he is going to post his views he should expect them challenged. Although I do acknowledge that if you are at the more extreme you are likely to get more challenges than if you are at the centre, hence he was being challenged not only by the left on the site but also the centre and right.
Setting aside judgement on specific DPPs, quite a lot of commentary on here this morning doesn't do justice to what is a very complex debate. Anybody who's worked in a role where safeguarding is important knows that.
The problem is that historically (over centuries, and right through to the 1980s at least) too few victims of abuse were believed. It was assumed they were lying or attention-seeking, especially if their allegations related to powerful institutions such as the Catholic Church. So abusers got away with murder, both metaphorically and literally. Cover-ups were frequent and egregious.
Quite rightly, that has changed. The starting point now is to listen to 'victims' and believe what they say - notice the word 'starting'. To give them a voice. Not to start by assuming they are lying, especially if they are 'worthless' victims. But that doesn't mean that you carry on believing them if the evidence doesn't stack up. I don't think anybody reasonably could disagree with this.
So what people are really complaining about is that it's a really difficult balance to strike (for teachers, social workers, and similar as well as law enforcement), and it's hard to get it right all the time. But we live in a better time now than we did in the past, when victims of abuse were callously disregarded even when everything they alleged was, in fact, true.
You make a good point. But the key issue is not that you believe the victims. But that you listen to them properly and you investigate what they say thoroughly. So that you can do them justice.
What those who raise concerns want above all else is to be truly heard and for those concerns to be taken seriously.
That has been conflated into "you must believe" for the reasons you describe. But it is an erroneous conflation. Because there is a subtle but important distinction between the two.
That distinction has not been appreciated fully or taught effectively. The combination of empathy and a ruthless focus on evidence and facts is essential for an investigator. But hard to get right.
Some individual policemen may do so. But on the whole this is not understood or appreciated or taught or rewarded. Investigation is both art and science and becoming skilled in it is much much harder than it seems.
China has joined Russia in opposing further Nato expansion as the two countries move closer together in the face of Western pressure.
Moscow and Beijing issued a statement showcasing their agreement on a raft of issues during a visit by Russia's Vladimir Putin for the Winter Olympics.
"Friendship between [Russia and China] has no limits, there are no 'forbidden' areas of cooperation," the statement reads.
Quite a muscly Owen Jones piece here imo. His main point is we shouldn't be suckered by the Tory Party into thinking if Boris Johnson goes all is fine.
Johnson is no grotesque interloper: his behaviour and attitudes are emblematic of the British establishment. If our ruling institutions have a shared culture, it’s entitlement and shamelessness, a conviction that wrongdoing should meet consequences only if you are poor and powerless.
OJ is half right. The British establishment is very much as he depicts, but the British establishment is overwhelmingly centre left leaning, Remainy, and moderately woke. Oddly OJ draws attention only to Tory exemplars.
There is no single Establishment, there are just well-connected people with power - political, financial, social - these being strongly correlated. If you think the overwhelming majority of these people hold left of centre views I'd like you to send me a postcard from whatever place you're living in because it sounds exotic and rather lovely.
Hm. If the Establishment is a sliding scale from 0 to 100, I must be at least an 80. I have a public sector office job and live in a comfortable middle class suburb of a big city. The views I am surrounded by are overwhelmingly left-wing. Every voice at work (people sometimes talk about being in 'the party' - there is never any doubt which party they mean). The schools my children attend. The views expressed by my Establishment peers.
There may be right wing views in the Establishment. But apart from some noisy and ineffective froth in the political sphere, you almost never hear any right wing views expressed.
I did once hear someone confess to me, sotto voce, that having worked in a field which required European funding, he had become a little sceptical about the whole European process. And once, in a previous (non-public sector) job, someone admitted to me he had voted Conservative at the 2015 GE.
These are the only right wing views I can remember being openly expressed in the last ten years.
There are several other establishments, as kinabalu has mentioned.
The dinner at Lord Leach's house where various people with internationally mobile money ended supporting Brexit, and actually creating Business for Britain and Vote Leave, was an example of another establishment at work, for instance. A lot of the funding at that crucial time came from Crispin Odey and other financiers with no particular attachment to the "red wall", or any left-behind towns outside the charmed metropolitan circle.
Quite a muscly Owen Jones piece here imo. His main point is we shouldn't be suckered by the Tory Party into thinking if Boris Johnson goes all is fine.
Johnson is no grotesque interloper: his behaviour and attitudes are emblematic of the British establishment. If our ruling institutions have a shared culture, it’s entitlement and shamelessness, a conviction that wrongdoing should meet consequences only if you are poor and powerless.
OJ is half right. The British establishment is very much as he depicts, but the British establishment is overwhelmingly centre left leaning, Remainy, and moderately woke. Oddly OJ draws attention only to Tory exemplars.
There is no single Establishment, there are just well-connected people with power - political, financial, social - these being strongly correlated. If you think the overwhelming majority of these people hold left of centre views I'd like you to send me a postcard from whatever place you're living in because it sounds exotic and rather lovely.
Hm. If the Establishment is a sliding scale from 0 to 100, I must be at least an 80. I have a public sector office job and live in a comfortable middle class suburb of a big city. The views I am surrounded by are overwhelmingly left-wing. Every voice at work (people sometimes talk about being in 'the party' - there is never any doubt which party they mean). The schools my children attend. The views expressed by my Establishment peers.
There may be right wing views in the Establishment. But apart from some noisy and ineffective froth in the political sphere, you almost never hear any right wing views expressed.
I did once hear someone confess to me, sotto voce, that having worked in a field which required European funding, he had become a little sceptical about the whole European process. And once, in a previous (non-public sector) job, someone admitted to me he had voted Conservative at the 2015 GE.
These are the only right wing views I can remember being openly expressed in the last ten years.
If you work in the public sector (outside the military) as a Conservative you learn to shut up and don't mention it.
A bit like the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' the US military used to have for homosexuals in its ranks
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
Sorry to see you go MrEd.
Indeed, MrEd was a minority view but an important one for a site that is a betting site and therefore needs to reflect all views, even pro Trump and pro Boris ones.
The last thing we want is for it to become a left liberal echo chamber
Over 93,000 posts from your good self suggest there is little chance of that.
HYFUD counts me in the same liberal left as you, Al. His definition seems to constitute anyone who doesn't show 100% loyalty and fealty to whoever the Tory leader is on the day.
No you are a fiscal conservative, centre right liberal.
However again still not hard right populist like Mr Ed
It depends on the definition of liberal, I'd say I'm a traditionalist rather than a liberal, but then that corresponds to what a liberal would have been 100 years ago. For example, I was in favour of gay marriage because I think extending the tradition of marriage to all people is a net benefit to the nation and our culture, it means more two parent families and stable households, most traditionalists weren't in favour of it and liberals tend to be less in favour of marriage overall.
Reasons why Boris doesn't want to go now No 1 to 60million
Boris wants another 4-6 months to get past Brown and May - and he needs to avoid a VONC otherwise he isn't going to get there.
I still think Boris wins a VONC 55% to 45% or so for now
He'll probably beat Spencer Perceval. Unlikely he'll beat Gordon Brown.
Ah, Boris, you old duffer, it could all have been so different. You were played a hugely difficult hand - take over a party with no majority and with two wings in open rebellion, in different directions, deal with the most contentious constitutional issue of the post-war era, and then thrown off course by the biggest emergency of my lifetime. The first you managed with astonishing success, the second to no less dissatisfaction than anyone else would have achieved*, and the third better than many, with some brave calls along the way.
And then you threw it away on - what? Holding some not-very-good-parties? Evacuating someone's pets from Afghanistan? Owen Paterson? A distasteful jibe at PMQs?
I'm not trying to excuse Boris. I didn't want him in the first place and I certainly don't want him now. But he dealt with the really difficult issues quite well - certainly better than many. The first few months of his premiership when he took a fractious party without a majority which had recently polled below 10% in a national election to a landslide-ish majority was just astonishing.
He's played an astonishingly difficult hand with a surprising degree of success, and then made some really, really, really stupid and unnecessary unforced errors. Like the spy who finds the Macguffin, defeats three different sets of baddies, makes it home through no-mans land, then gets hilariously drunk on the train back from Dover, picks a fight with a bouncer and leaves the Macguffin on the tube.
*I can sense Remainer piss boiling from here when I write this. Sorry. It's hard to frame in a neutral way. But I stand by it - other solutions may or may not have been better; but any other solution would have pissed off at least as many people.
Those are my feelings, entirely. He does have unique gifts, but also unique flaws. He has been felled by the flaws before he could fulfil the gifts. It is a damn shame, but I see no way out now
I noticed this in Muniria Mizra's resignation letter:
"I have served you for fourteen years and it has been a privilege to do so. You have achieved many important things both as Prime Minister and, before that, as Mayor of London. You are a man of extraordinary abilities with a unique talent for connecting with people.
"You are a better man than many of your detractors will ever understand which is why it is desperately sad that you let yourself down by making a scurrilous accusation against the Leader of the Opposition."
Poignant. And rather sad
Alternatively, she is clever enough to realise that she needs an explanation as to why she has stood by him through so many previous and similar gaffes but walked out this time.
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
The last bit's true, but only because of the way she acted when she first took office.
If Cameron had not flounced and had gone for EEA immediately, it wouldn't have been too controversial.
Better yet if it had been on the ballot paper, of course.
Setting aside judgement on specific DPPs, quite a lot of commentary on here this morning doesn't do justice to what is a very complex debate. Anybody who's worked in a role where safeguarding is important knows that.
The problem is that historically (over centuries, and right through to the 1980s at least) too few victims of abuse were believed. It was assumed they were lying or attention-seeking, especially if their allegations related to powerful institutions such as the Catholic Church. So abusers got away with murder, both metaphorically and literally. Cover-ups were frequent and egregious.
Quite rightly, that has changed. The starting point now is to listen to 'victims' and believe what they say - notice the word 'starting'. To give them a voice. Not to start by assuming they are lying, especially if they are 'worthless' victims. But that doesn't mean that you carry on believing them if the evidence doesn't stack up. I don't think anybody reasonably could disagree with this.
So what people are really complaining about is that it's a really difficult balance to strike (for teachers, social workers, and similar as well as law enforcement), and it's hard to get it right all the time. But we live in a better time now than we did in the past, when victims of abuse were callously disregarded even when everything they alleged was, in fact, true.
You make a good point. But the key issue is not that you believe the victims. But that you listen to them properly and you investigate what they say thoroughly. So that you can do them justice.
What those who raise concerns want above all else is to be truly heard and for those concerns to be taken seriously.
That has been conflated into "you must believe" for the reasons you describe. But it is an erroneous conflation. Because there is a subtle but important distinction between the two.
That distinction has not been appreciated fully or taught effectively. The combination of empathy and a ruthless focus on evidence and facts is essential for an investigator. But hard to get right.
Some individual policemen may do so. But on the whole this is not understood or appreciated or taught or rewarded. Investigation is both art and science and becoming skilled in it is much much harder than it seems.
I personally don't think it is really a question of belief. In my experience the relevant question is whether there is a technical sufficiency to obtain a conviction if the complainer is believed. If there is then the case will proceed to court unless the complainer refuses to cooperate anymore. This means lots of cases get to trial that have serious inconsistencies in them. It is not that the police or the prosecutors are blind to these inconsistencies, it is more a default assumption that the complainer is entitled to her day in court. It is also why the conviction rate is quite low.
This policy replaced the previous policy where far too many cases of sexual assault were marked "no proceedings". If these extremes were the only choices I would say that the present is better than the past. But surely there is a middle way where prosecutors can look critically at the case that we are being asked to present and to make recommendations.
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
The last bit's true, but only because of the way she acted when she first took office.
If Cameron had not flounced and had gone for EEA immediately, it wouldn't have been too controversial.
Better yet if it had been on the ballot paper, of course.
It would have become controversial the moment the EU responded by saying, "No, you have to have a full negotiatation of a new relationship, and no negotiation without notification."
Thank you Nigel for that. I recently suggested that he was the worst PM in my lifetime (i.e. since Atlee) and got jumped on from a great height. Admittedly it was Hyufd but even so I was astonished to find that even in so broad a forum as PB there was anyone prepared to argue that he didn't rank lower than all predecessors since WW2.
But you go further. 'In history', you say? Hmmm. Boris....Lord North.....Lord North...Boris.
It's close, I'll grant.
Absurd, Boris got Brexit done, won a landslide election win, delivered one of the most successful vaccination programmes in the world and unemployment still half the level Brown's Labour left in 2010.
After Blair and Thatcher in terms of delivery Boris is the most successful PM of the last 50 years
That assumes Brexit was delivered properly and was a good thing, overeggs the size of the election win, ignores the feebleness of Corbyn and the Labour Party at the time, ignores the many failings in the handling of the pandemic and the very high rates of covid cases and deaths by any reasonable international comparison, and the very deifferent economic scenarios that Brown and Johnson had to deal with.
You also overlook his mendacity and incompetence.
I won't be around to check but I'm pretty sure history will mark him down as one of the worst ever UK PMs. I'd definitely rate him lower than any other post-war PM, and comparisons with the legendary Lord North are not far-fetched.
Peter. I'd like to get in touch with you. Is it possible you could give me your email address?
Roger, did you know Vanilla has a way of sending private messages? If you click on Peter the Punter's name, it will take you to his profile, and in the top right there is a 'message' button which will send him an email. Apologies if teaching you to suck eggs.
Reasons why Boris doesn't want to go now No 1 to 60million
Boris wants another 4-6 months to get past Brown and May - and he needs to avoid a VONC otherwise he isn't going to get there.
I still think Boris wins a VONC 55% to 45% or so for now
He'll probably beat Spencer Perceval. Unlikely he'll beat Gordon Brown.
Ah, Boris, you old duffer, it could all have been so different. You were played a hugely difficult hand - take over a party with no majority and with two wings in open rebellion, in different directions, deal with the most contentious constitutional issue of the post-war era, and then thrown off course by the biggest emergency of my lifetime. The first you managed with astonishing success, the second to no less dissatisfaction than anyone else would have achieved*, and the third better than many, with some brave calls along the way.
And then you threw it away on - what? Holding some not-very-good-parties? Evacuating someone's pets from Afghanistan? Owen Paterson? A distasteful jibe at PMQs?
I'm not trying to excuse Boris. I didn't want him in the first place and I certainly don't want him now. But he dealt with the really difficult issues quite well - certainly better than many. The first few months of his premiership when he took a fractious party without a majority which had recently polled below 10% in a national election to a landslide-ish majority was just astonishing.
He's played an astonishingly difficult hand with a surprising degree of success, and then made some really, really, really stupid and unnecessary unforced errors. Like the spy who finds the Macguffin, defeats three different sets of baddies, makes it home through no-mans land, then gets hilariously drunk on the train back from Dover, picks a fight with a bouncer and leaves the Macguffin on the tube.
*I can sense Remainer piss boiling from here when I write this. Sorry. It's hard to frame in a neutral way. But I stand by it - other solutions may or may not have been better; but any other solution would have pissed off at least as many people.
As a former remainer (meaningless term now, really) I agree completely. The options were piss off the Brexiters, piss off the Remainers or piss off everybody both extremes (something Norway-esque). Probably the last option was best for the country, but would have still greatly annoyed those on both extremes and been seen as a betrayal, for different reasons, by many. It would have required a great leader to bring people together behind it.
Actually I think most Remainers would have grabbed Norway with both hands, certainly once the initial shock of the vote was absorbed. That is certainly suggested by the parliamentary votes on this where Remainers overwhelmingly voted for it. The opposition came from Leavers who were in full on yah boo you lost mode and held out for a maximal position - which fair play to them they achieved. The least they could do now is own it instead of whining about the fact they've got everything they wanted.
The problem with the first part is that the Remainers who "overwhelmingly voted for it" came across as it being their second choice behind overturning the referendum result, so it looked like a trap.
If Remainers had been strong from June 2016 until May's election that "we lost, but only narrowly, but EEA is a reasonable outcome from the result" then plenty of Leavers would have been more than happy with that.
I think that is just a sign of Leaver paranoia.
Given how bitterly a faction of sore-loser Remainers fought to overturn the referendum result, a certain level of paranoia was quite understandable.
Not really, Leavers controlled the process at all times. The only reason that there was stalemate was that they promised something impossible (leaving the single market and customs union with no implications for the Irish border). That wasn't the fault of Remainers.
Remind me which way Theresa May voted in the referendum?
To say that Leavers controlled the process at all times is simply revisionist history. There was always a Remainder majority (by 2016 vote if not by 2017 manifesto pledge) in the Commons, aided and abetted by an activist Speaker who would keep or change conventions as necessary to favour the Remain side.
May embraced Leave enthusiastically post-referendum. Brexit means Brexit, remember? Or do you think she was a Remainer sleeper agent? (actually she was so inept that it's a plausible theory).
I think she mishandled it because she converted to the cause without ever understanding it.
Entirely off thread, and a discussion which should normally be post-Lagershed, but I've just had a pair of jeans delivered. They are more than I have ever spent on a pair of trousers - £59 - but I am delighted with them. As I get older I have more and more specific requirements for jeans (this is not just a result of ageing, it's also a result of clothing manufacturers being such neophiles that they can't let a product well alone: I'd have been perfectly happy to buy the same pair of jeans every 9 months from the age of 16, but they won't leave well alone): I want jeans to be light blue in colour (ideally slightly lighter than these turned out to be in real life), to taper slightly at the ankle, and to be 100% cotton. It's increasingly difficult to find even men's jeans without some sort of stretchy stuff woven in. I want my jeans as stiff and unyielding as cardboard. And also to be able to accommodate my unusually large legs. Anyway, weirdly, John Lewis of all places was able to provide. I blanche slightly at the price, but I am now going to order 6 more pairs which should see me comfortably through to my fifties. My taste in jeans hasn't changed for the last 30 years so I see no danger in it changing in the next four.
My wife's view was that once I got into my 50s blue jeans were strictly for garden work only. Just a thought.
On Alastair Meeks' count, hostile is up to 43... but friendly is up to 100. Still seems momentum is with Boris Johnson.
I suspect there is a lag in AM's data that may mean the friendlies are currently higher than they actually are. Were I a Tory MP I would be avoiding people at the weekend as you know what the conversations are going to be like.
I imagine we will see a slow but steady trickle of letters through until Monday when I would expect some sort of announcement.
Mps already know what their constituents think. It is now surely all about timing and positioning.
Another day breaks. Another day of Tory parliamentary majority wasted. And another day closer to the next election. There’s no refund on time, not that you would know it from the inaction of these gutless Tory MPs.
Two years is a long time in politics but I think the Conservatives may have already cooked their goose for 2024. Yesterday felt an awful lot like Black Wednesday. If you look at the polls from 1992 through 1994 when Blair took over, the damage to the Cons had already been done.
But at the moment I do have a begrudging respect for Rishi Sunak and I fear him. He's very capable and competent. I also liked his calm after the storm demeanour yesterday. Undoubtedly PM material but I think it's now or never.
Liz Truss would be my golden ticket.
No it didn't.
The Labour leads are still nothing like 1994 and absolutely nothing like the over 20% leads they had once Blair took over.
The Tories have also just won the Southern West by election with an increased voteshare on 2019. If the Tories were heading for a landslide defeat they would not have got 86% of the vote last night, no Labour and LD candidate or not
The site is, in my view, overpricing Partygate as an issue, and underpricing cost of living the same way.
If Johnson survives Partygate the call will be the storm is over, whereas in fact the storm for Johnson and all the tories will be just beginning.
Absolutely agree with this. Partygate will be meh for many. Meanwhile, I think the national expectation (whether justified or not) was for the good times to roll/roaring twenties post-pandemic.
Who did people expect was going to pay the costs of lockdowns they were demanding?
Fantastic comment and absolutely.
Public in favour of lockdowns. Public not in favour of tax rises.
*passes out in shock and surprise*
Public in favour of tax rises for the wealthy.
Where did that £8.7bn wasted on PPE go? It's sitting in somebody's bank accounts.
The public are always in favour of tax rises for the wealthy.
And wealthy always means those who have more than they do.
Without exception.
Sorry to be the exception but I'd fully expect any sensible tax increase to hit me more than those with below average incomes and/or savings.
Honestly, I am not super wealthy but like many (not all) on here I am comfortably off. I end up spending stuff on things I don't really need or worse still pushing it into savings I'll never possibly use in my lifetime.
Sure, I can give it away, and almost certainly will in the end, but I could afford to pay more taxes too.
Yes my without exception was wrong. There's you and @kinabalu and others I'm sure. But we're not talking about those who have the luxury of being wealthy enough to advocate extra taxes and that should have been made clear.
With the exception of champagne socialists some of those who are very wealthy. .
I'm with Benpointer, a bit.
I tend to oppose taxing the rich much more because: 1. My belief is that it doesn't work. The rich are not like you and me. That's why they're rich. They're motivated by increasing their wealth, rather than family, an easy life, inertia, whatever motivates most people. And they have the means to do so. If you try to tax them more, they will either go somewhere else, pay specialists to find ways of avoiding the increased liabilities, or do less of the money-making activities that are being so heavily taxed - because they are wealthy enough not to need to. So if you're objective is maximising tax revenue, raising taxes on the rich is a surprisingly poor way to do it. And 2. The rich already pay a frighteningly large proportion of the tax the exchequer receives. A narrow base to tax revenues is undesirable because it's a) fraught with risk and b) engenders a disconnect in the minds of most people between raising of funds for public spending and the outcomes of that public spending, which leads to poor understanding of values. It's like the story Nick tells about the Swiss talking about 'our bridge' and that public spending is 'ours' whereas we say 'they are building a bridge'. Public spending is a public good, but should also be a public cost; not a cost which falls upon some 'other'. (A good example: Andy Burnham can add, I think, £10 to council tax in Greater Manchester, and with it pay for the specific outcome of free public transport for 16-18 year olds. Is this a cost I think there is a benefit in? As it happens, yes, even though I have no children that age. I can see the public good in allowing that cohort wider access to education and other opportunities.)
I'm not against tax rises per se, but I'm always wary when they are narrowly targeted.
Do the rich (however you are defining that) really pay most of the total tax take in the UK?
Also, your point 1 seems to be inconsistent with point 2. If the rich have the motivation and means to avoid paying tax, it seems very unlikely that they are also providing the exchequer with most of their tax revenue.
My understanding is that the top 1% of earners pay something like 29% of income tax. I don't know how this compares internationally, mind you, but it seems top heavy to me. Any idea of the equivalent in Germany or elsewhere? I take your other point - but I think it is at an equilibrium: push up that 29%(?) to 40% and off it goes to Jersey or wherever the super rich go; drop it down to 24% and in it comes from America and Europe. Perhaps. It's possibly also a factor of the extent to which wealth and income in the UK is unequally spread, and has become more so in the last 30 years. This is all ramblings off the top of my head based on things I think I know rather than a meticulously researched piece with evidence to hand - contrary information or views welcome!
The penultimate point is important - if you have a more even income distribution then you have a wider tax-base too if you assume similar taxation policy. Of course, there are other (complicated and impossible to resolve fully) arguments about whether having more even income raises the overall mean income and overall tax take or not
Exactly. People sometimes trumpet that statistic as if somehow the very rich are doing everyone else some sort of favour, whereas in reality it simply highlights the extent to which over recent decades they have captured a huge proportion of assets, asset price growth and income, effectively ripping everyone else off in the process.
Quite a muscly Owen Jones piece here imo. His main point is we shouldn't be suckered by the Tory Party into thinking if Boris Johnson goes all is fine.
Johnson is no grotesque interloper: his behaviour and attitudes are emblematic of the British establishment. If our ruling institutions have a shared culture, it’s entitlement and shamelessness, a conviction that wrongdoing should meet consequences only if you are poor and powerless.
OJ is half right. The British establishment is very much as he depicts, but the British establishment is overwhelmingly centre left leaning, Remainy, and moderately woke. Oddly OJ draws attention only to Tory exemplars.
There is no single Establishment, there are just well-connected people with power - political, financial, social - these being strongly correlated. If you think the overwhelming majority of these people hold left of centre views I'd like you to send me a postcard from whatever place you're living in because it sounds exotic and rather lovely.
Hm. If the Establishment is a sliding scale from 0 to 100, I must be at least an 80. I have a public sector office job and live in a comfortable middle class suburb of a big city. The views I am surrounded by are overwhelmingly left-wing. Every voice at work (people sometimes talk about being in 'the party' - there is never any doubt which party they mean). The schools my children attend. The views expressed by my Establishment peers.
There may be right wing views in the Establishment. But apart from some noisy and ineffective froth in the political sphere, you almost never hear any right wing views expressed.
I did once hear someone confess to me, sotto voce, that having worked in a field which required European funding, he had become a little sceptical about the whole European process. And once, in a previous (non-public sector) job, someone admitted to me he had voted Conservative at the 2015 GE.
These are the only right wing views I can remember being openly expressed in the last ten years.
Yes.
The point that @kinabalu (and others) misses is that while the New Establishment is not hereditary*, it is still a system by which people are schooled in how to belong to it.
*Well not entirely. There is a lot of family linkage going on.
The butterfly sanctuary, part of the North American Butterfly Association, made the announcement Wednesday. The decision came just days after GOP operatives descended on the site, reviving baseless and false conspiracy theories linking the center to sex trafficking...
...The butterfly center has been the target of far-right conspiracy theories for years, after the sanctuary in 2017 sued over the Trump administration’s plans to build a border wall through the 100-acre nature preserve.
I thought the problem with butterfies is that they caused tornadoes in Texas? Maybe I got that wrong.
That’s just a single butterfly! Getting a whole load of them together in one place must be up there with all the Chinese jumping up and down at the same time.
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
It wouldn't. Diehard Remainers in the SNP, LDs and much of Labour would still have voted for EUref2 not EEA and Tory hardline Brexiteers would still have voted to end free movement not to stay in the EEA.
Even if it had passed, the result would have been a surge in support for Farage's Brexit Party anyway again, indeed it is possible Farage could have won more votes than May's Tories at the next general election as well as winning seats in Labour's redwall just as Boris did on a 'this is not true Brexit' ticket
I think a lot of people supported a referendum on the deal unenthusiasticly as a way through the impasse. I was certainly in that camp. Looking back now I think I was wrong to do so - however hopelessly flawed and dishonest the Brexit campaign was it should have been respected in the name of democracy ("the people have spoken - the bastards"). I continue to think I was right to support a SM/CU compromise though, and the fact remains that this was thwarted principally by Leavers and the Tory Party. If May had whipped her party to support it alongside Labour it would have passed. And I continue to think Labour was right not to vote for May's deal, which was shit, even though Johnson's deal is even more shit.
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
The last bit's true, but only because of the way she acted when she first took office.
If Cameron had not flounced and had gone for EEA immediately, it wouldn't have been too controversial.
Better yet if it had been on the ballot paper, of course.
It would have become controversial the moment the EU responded by saying, "No, you have to have a full negotiatation of a new relationship, and no negotiation without notification."
It's also not a very good deal, the EEA option comes with the same trade friction as the TCA but none of the divergence capability.
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
The last bit's true, but only because of the way she acted when she first took office.
If Cameron had not flounced and had gone for EEA immediately, it wouldn't have been too controversial.
Better yet if it had been on the ballot paper, of course.
It would have become controversial the moment the EU responded by saying, "No, you have to have a full negotiatation of a new relationship, and no negotiation without notification."
It's also not a very good deal, the EEA option comes with the same trade friction as the TCA but none of the divergence capability.
SM and CU combined has no trade frictions. It isn't without downsides but then neither is anything else.
Setting aside judgement on specific DPPs, quite a lot of commentary on here this morning doesn't do justice to what is a very complex debate. Anybody who's worked in a role where safeguarding is important knows that.
The problem is that historically (over centuries, and right through to the 1980s at least) too few victims of abuse were believed. It was assumed they were lying or attention-seeking, especially if their allegations related to powerful institutions such as the Catholic Church. So abusers got away with murder, both metaphorically and literally. Cover-ups were frequent and egregious.
Quite rightly, that has changed. The starting point now is to listen to 'victims' and believe what they say - notice the word 'starting'. To give them a voice. Not to start by assuming they are lying, especially if they are 'worthless' victims. But that doesn't mean that you carry on believing them if the evidence doesn't stack up. I don't think anybody reasonably could disagree with this.
So what people are really complaining about is that it's a really difficult balance to strike (for teachers, social workers, and similar as well as law enforcement), and it's hard to get it right all the time. But we live in a better time now than we did in the past, when victims of abuse were callously disregarded even when everything they alleged was, in fact, true.
You make a good point. But the key issue is not that you believe the victims. But that you listen to them properly and you investigate what they say thoroughly. So that you can do them justice.
What those who raise concerns want above all else is to be truly heard and for those concerns to be taken seriously.
That has been conflated into "you must believe" for the reasons you describe. But it is an erroneous conflation. Because there is a subtle but important distinction between the two.
That distinction has not been appreciated fully or taught effectively. The combination of empathy and a ruthless focus on evidence and facts is essential for an investigator. But hard to get right.
Some individual policemen may do so. But on the whole this is not understood or appreciated or taught or rewarded. Investigation is both art and science and becoming skilled in it is much much harder than it seems.
I personally don't think it is really a question of belief. In my experience the relevant question is whether there is a technical sufficiency to obtain a conviction if the complainer is believed. If there is then the case will proceed to court unless the complainer refuses to cooperate anymore. This means lots of cases get to trial that have serious inconsistencies in them. It is not that the police or the prosecutors are blind to these inconsistencies, it is more a default assumption that the complainer is entitled to her day in court. It is also why the conviction rate is quite low.
This policy replaced the previous policy where far too many cases of sexual assault were marked "no proceedings". If these extremes were the only choices I would say that the present is better than the past. But surely there is a middle way where prosecutors can look critically at the case that we are being asked to present and to make recommendations.
That applies I think to the CPS stage. I was thinking more of the investigative stage.
There are inconsistencies in lots of accounts. One of the tasks of an investigator is to try and understand why those arise and either explain them away or show why they don't matter.
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
The last bit's true, but only because of the way she acted when she first took office.
If Cameron had not flounced and had gone for EEA immediately, it wouldn't have been too controversial.
Better yet if it had been on the ballot paper, of course.
It would have become controversial the moment the EU responded by saying, "No, you have to have a full negotiatation of a new relationship, and no negotiation without notification."
It's also not a very good deal, the EEA option comes with the same trade friction as the TCA but none of the divergence capability.
SM and CU combined has no trade frictions. It isn't without downsides but then neither is anything else.
But that's not what is being discussed, people are talking about the EEA, not EEA+CU, which was never really on the table.
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
Sorry to see you go MrEd.
Indeed, MrEd was a minority view but an important one for a site that is a betting site and therefore needs to reflect all views, even pro Trump and pro Boris ones.
The last thing we want is for it to become a left liberal echo chamber
Over 93,000 posts from your good self suggest there is little chance of that.
HYFUD counts me in the same liberal left as you, Al. His definition seems to constitute anyone who doesn't show 100% loyalty and fealty to whoever the Tory leader is on the day.
No you are a fiscal conservative, centre right liberal.
However again still not hard right populist like Mr Ed
Oh how would you compare Max to me then @hyufd. I'm interested.
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
The last bit's true, but only because of the way she acted when she first took office.
If Cameron had not flounced and had gone for EEA immediately, it wouldn't have been too controversial.
Better yet if it had been on the ballot paper, of course.
It would have become controversial the moment the EU responded by saying, "No, you have to have a full negotiatation of a new relationship, and no negotiation without notification."
Then he notifies with the intention to negotiate an EEA-type solution - in which case, would the EU really have been so vindictive as to prefer "no deal"? Remember that in this universe unlike ours, the bitter sore-loser Remainer faction, whilst they might still have dripped poison in Brussels' ears, would have been much less effective in doing so as there wouldn't have been a significant UK "no deal" faction.
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
The last bit's true, but only because of the way she acted when she first took office.
If Cameron had not flounced and had gone for EEA immediately, it wouldn't have been too controversial.
Better yet if it had been on the ballot paper, of course.
It would have become controversial the moment the EU responded by saying, "No, you have to have a full negotiatation of a new relationship, and no negotiation without notification."
It's also not a very good deal, the EEA option comes with the same trade friction as the TCA but none of the divergence capability.
SM and CU combined has no trade frictions. It isn't without downsides but then neither is anything else.
But that's not what is being discussed, people are talking about the EEA, not EEA+CU, which was never really on the table.
If the SM and CU options had both passed in the meaningful votes then perhaps that's where we would have ended up. Unfortunately we will never know because the Tories voted them down.
COOKE, Christian Christopher (Local Conservatives) 613 LOXTON Huw Geraint (Independent) 482 FOSTER, David Geoffrey (Labour Party Candidate) 311 Con 43.6 (-11.7) Ind 34.3 (+16.9) Lab 22.1 (-3.0)
Labour have done universally and weirdly badly in last night's elections. Can't work out whether it's a freak or the national polls are wrong (or some other explanation like the increased Labour VI is concentrated among the less politically engaged who don't vote in council byelections).
Agree entirely - last weeks elections were "good" for the Tories as well - doesn't tie in with national polls
The discussion about Alison Saunders, Starmer and the CPS is all very interesting. But what you are missing is that the Met - and other police forces - are still operating on the basis of the flawed assumptions about uncritical belief in what a victim alleges, despite Sir Richard Henriques pointing out all the wrongheadedness of this in his report following Operation Midland.
That report was written 3 years ago.
Nothing has been done to implement his recommendations. The police have simply waved 2 fingers at him. The government in charge while all this has been happening has been led by one Boris Johnson and the Home Secretary throughout has been Priti Patel.
So wondering whether Saunders or Starmer could have done their jobs better in the past is a diversion from the fact that this gruesome duo (Johnson and Patel) are not doing their jobs well in this regard now. The injustices are continuing now.
One curiosity of modern policing is how the SMT is so willing to overlook grooming gangs, push Yewtree on minimal evidence, celebrate Pride week, yet has developed a canteen culture of misogyny and racism as seen in Charing Cross Station.
Perhaps just a reflection of wider society, but even so.
Misogyny explains in part the attitude to the girls raped by grooming gangs.
Yewtree - this is easily explained by incompetence and a desire to please political masters.
Pride - no work involved. Turn up at a parade, wear a few badges & get lots of praise for doing nothing substantive.
So basically old attitudes, sucking up to your boss & doing easy stuff that gets you a pat on the back but involves no work.
I don't find it that puzzling.
Yes, with the Rotherham and similar, there's much heard about how it was allowed to go on because of cultural cringe to muslim sensibilities, and that's a valid and important observation, but I also (like you) think a part of it was the dismissal of the victims because they were working class girls. So class and gender - or sex! - in there too.
And as for rocking up at Pride, that looks particularly sick in the light of the Stephen Port case. Did you see the report and the various progs on that? What an absolute scandal. 3 gay men murdered due to the police deciding the death of the 1st one was no big deal.
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
The last bit's true, but only because of the way she acted when she first took office.
If Cameron had not flounced and had gone for EEA immediately, it wouldn't have been too controversial.
Better yet if it had been on the ballot paper, of course.
It would have become controversial the moment the EU responded by saying, "No, you have to have a full negotiatation of a new relationship, and no negotiation without notification."
It's also not a very good deal, the EEA option comes with the same trade friction as the TCA but none of the divergence capability.
SM and CU combined has no trade frictions. It isn't without downsides but then neither is anything else.
But that's not what is being discussed, people are talking about the EEA, not EEA+CU, which was never really on the table.
If the SM and CU options had both passed in the meaningful votes then perhaps that's where we would have ended up. Unfortunately we will never know because the Tories voted them down.
Because, by the time of the indicative votes (the "meaningful votes" were something else IIRC), May's unilateral actions had taken SM and CU off the table.
COOKE, Christian Christopher (Local Conservatives) 613 LOXTON Huw Geraint (Independent) 482 FOSTER, David Geoffrey (Labour Party Candidate) 311 Con 43.6 (-11.7) Ind 34.3 (+16.9) Lab 22.1 (-3.0)
Labour have done universally and weirdly badly in last night's elections. Can't work out whether it's a freak or the national polls are wrong (or some other explanation like the increased Labour VI is concentrated among the less politically engaged who don't vote in council byelections).
Their vote is super soft. NOTA is strong at the moment.
Well it doesn't seem like 1995 were there was a genuine enthusiasm for Blair, and it was only a matter of time before the Tories were turfed out office. If the Tories ditch Boris and actually got someone pretty decent they'd have a good chance of winning the next election.
Sajid Javid says that Sir Keir Starmer did "a good job" as director of public prosecutions and insists Boris Johnson has "clarified" his accusation that he had failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile.
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
The last bit's true, but only because of the way she acted when she first took office.
If Cameron had not flounced and had gone for EEA immediately, it wouldn't have been too controversial.
Better yet if it had been on the ballot paper, of course.
It would have become controversial the moment the EU responded by saying, "No, you have to have a full negotiatation of a new relationship, and no negotiation without notification."
Then he notifies with the intention to negotiate an EEA-type solution - in which case, would the EU really have been so vindictive as to prefer "no deal"? Remember that in this universe unlike ours, the bitter sore-loser Remainer faction, whilst they might still have dripped poison in Brussels' ears, would have been much less effective in doing so as there wouldn't have been a significant UK "no deal" faction.
As soon as you enter into any kind of negotiation, the temptation to say "no deal is better than a bad deal" would be overwhelming, and then you plunge both factions into the same purity spiral.
The butterfly sanctuary, part of the North American Butterfly Association, made the announcement Wednesday. The decision came just days after GOP operatives descended on the site, reviving baseless and false conspiracy theories linking the center to sex trafficking...
...The butterfly center has been the target of far-right conspiracy theories for years, after the sanctuary in 2017 sued over the Trump administration’s plans to build a border wall through the 100-acre nature preserve.
I thought the problem with butterfies is that they caused tornadoes in Texas? Maybe I got that wrong.
That’s just a single butterfly! Getting a whole load of them together in one place must be up there with all the Chinese jumping up and down at the same time.
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
Sorry to see you go MrEd.
Indeed, MrEd was a minority view but an important one for a site that is a betting site and therefore needs to reflect all views, even pro Trump and pro Boris ones.
The last thing we want is for it to become a left liberal echo chamber
Over 93,000 posts from your good self suggest there is little chance of that.
HYFUD counts me in the same liberal left as you, Al. His definition seems to constitute anyone who doesn't show 100% loyalty and fealty to whoever the Tory leader is on the day.
No you are a fiscal conservative, centre right liberal.
However again still not hard right populist like Mr Ed
It depends on the definition of liberal, I'd say I'm a traditionalist rather than a liberal, but then that corresponds to what a liberal would have been 100 years ago. For example, I was in favour of gay marriage because I think extending the tradition of marriage to all people is a net benefit to the nation and our culture, it means more two parent families and stable households, most traditionalists weren't in favour of it and liberals tend to be less in favour of marriage overall.
I did wonder when HYUFD posted that hence my question to him. I definitely remember you tearing me off a strip or two a few months ago and the difference I would say does come down to you being more of traditionalist than a liberal compared to me.
COOKE, Christian Christopher (Local Conservatives) 613 LOXTON Huw Geraint (Independent) 482 FOSTER, David Geoffrey (Labour Party Candidate) 311 Con 43.6 (-11.7) Ind 34.3 (+16.9) Lab 22.1 (-3.0)
Labour have done universally and weirdly badly in last night's elections. Can't work out whether it's a freak or the national polls are wrong (or some other explanation like the increased Labour VI is concentrated among the less politically engaged who don't vote in council byelections).
A small factor is that we’re in the six month period during which those councils with elections in May - which are predominantly urban - can’t have by-elections. So those we do have are self-selected to Labour’s weaker areas.
But I also agree with others that Labour are still miles from having sold any sort of deal with the electorate. They are benefitting from looking a little more clued up and professional just as the government has fallen apart. Doing better remains work in progress for Labour - but of course oppositions don’t need to be popular to win, if the government becomes sufficiently unpopular.
If anyone fancies a cheap holiday, head off to Turkey. Just counted out wads and wads of lira for some work colleagues. Took ages.
However, according to FCDO advice: “The wearing of masks is mandatory at all times outside the home throughout Turkey. This includes, but is not limited to, all public places, including streets, side streets, parks, gardens, picnic areas, markets, sea side and public transportation including Metro, buses, taxis and ferries. Masks are also mandatory in all shops, restaurants, hairdressers and barber shops.” So you'll be coming back with a very peculiar tan.
On Alastair Meeks' count, hostile is up to 43... but friendly is up to 100. Still seems momentum is with Boris Johnson.
I suspect there is a lag in AM's data that may mean the friendlies are currently higher than they actually are. Were I a Tory MP I would be avoiding people at the weekend as you know what the conversations are going to be like.
I imagine we will see a slow but steady trickle of letters through until Monday when I would expect some sort of announcement.
Mps already know what their constituents think. It is now surely all about timing and positioning.
Another day breaks. Another day of Tory parliamentary majority wasted. And another day closer to the next election. There’s no refund on time, not that you would know it from the inaction of these gutless Tory MPs.
Two years is a long time in politics but I think the Conservatives may have already cooked their goose for 2024. Yesterday felt an awful lot like Black Wednesday. If you look at the polls from 1992 through 1994 when Blair took over, the damage to the Cons had already been done.
But at the moment I do have a begrudging respect for Rishi Sunak and I fear him. He's very capable and competent. I also liked his calm after the storm demeanour yesterday. Undoubtedly PM material but I think it's now or never.
Liz Truss would be my golden ticket.
No it didn't.
The Labour leads are still nothing like 1994 and absolutely nothing like the over 20% leads they had once Blair took over.
The Tories have also just won the Southern West by election with an increased voteshare on 2019. If the Tories were heading for a landslide defeat they would not have got 86% of the vote last night, no Labour and LD candidate or not
The site is, in my view, overpricing Partygate as an issue, and underpricing cost of living the same way.
If Johnson survives Partygate the call will be the storm is over, whereas in fact the storm for Johnson and all the tories will be just beginning.
Absolutely agree with this. Partygate will be meh for many. Meanwhile, I think the national expectation (whether justified or not) was for the good times to roll/roaring twenties post-pandemic.
Who did people expect was going to pay the costs of lockdowns they were demanding?
Fantastic comment and absolutely.
Public in favour of lockdowns. Public not in favour of tax rises.
*passes out in shock and surprise*
Public in favour of tax rises for the wealthy.
Where did that £8.7bn wasted on PPE go? It's sitting in somebody's bank accounts.
The public are always in favour of tax rises for the wealthy.
And wealthy always means those who have more than they do.
Without exception.
Sorry to be the exception but I'd fully expect any sensible tax increase to hit me more than those with below average incomes and/or savings.
Honestly, I am not super wealthy but like many (not all) on here I am comfortably off. I end up spending stuff on things I don't really need or worse still pushing it into savings I'll never possibly use in my lifetime.
Sure, I can give it away, and almost certainly will in the end, but I could afford to pay more taxes too.
Yes my without exception was wrong. There's you and @kinabalu and others I'm sure. But we're not talking about those who have the luxury of being wealthy enough to advocate extra taxes and that should have been made clear.
With the exception of champagne socialists some of those who are very wealthy. .
I'm with Benpointer, a bit.
I tend to oppose taxing the rich much more because: 1. My belief is that it doesn't work. The rich are not like you and me. That's why they're rich. They're motivated by increasing their wealth, rather than family, an easy life, inertia, whatever motivates most people. And they have the means to do so. If you try to tax them more, they will either go somewhere else, pay specialists to find ways of avoiding the increased liabilities, or do less of the money-making activities that are being so heavily taxed - because they are wealthy enough not to need to. So if you're objective is maximising tax revenue, raising taxes on the rich is a surprisingly poor way to do it. And 2. The rich already pay a frighteningly large proportion of the tax the exchequer receives. A narrow base to tax revenues is undesirable because it's a) fraught with risk and b) engenders a disconnect in the minds of most people between raising of funds for public spending and the outcomes of that public spending, which leads to poor understanding of values. It's like the story Nick tells about the Swiss talking about 'our bridge' and that public spending is 'ours' whereas we say 'they are building a bridge'. Public spending is a public good, but should also be a public cost; not a cost which falls upon some 'other'. (A good example: Andy Burnham can add, I think, £10 to council tax in Greater Manchester, and with it pay for the specific outcome of free public transport for 16-18 year olds. Is this a cost I think there is a benefit in? As it happens, yes, even though I have no children that age. I can see the public good in allowing that cohort wider access to education and other opportunities.)
I'm not against tax rises per se, but I'm always wary when they are narrowly targeted.
I was actually physically present when a rich (owned a house whose garden actually opened onto Wentworth Golf course) relative fired his tax lawyers and decided to simply pay the income tax.
This was when Maggie dropped the rates.
The comment I've heard from a number of such people is that while paying tax is OK, over 50% they feel motivated to extreme measures to reduce the bill.
Yep the laffer curve is a real thing.
And our current tax rates are at the very top end of it and in some cases as @BartholomewRoberts claims as it comes to working while on Universal Credit probably well beyond that point.
Marginal rates of over 100% were (in effect) applied to some poor souls getting jobs while on benefits - that is the benefits were cut faster than the increase in income from the job.
If that isn't a disincentive to work, then I am at a loss to think of one.
While this was uncommon, effective rates of 70%+ were not.
Effective 70% rate is the existing rate today simply for UC withdrawal combined with Income Tax and National Insurance.
That's without considering anything else like potentially having to pay dental costs, Council Tax support or anything similar that I'm not fully sure how it works. Also not even counting employer's NI either.
Just a basic addition of the three primary rates gets you to 70% today. At least its not 100% anymore, or 75% as it was this time last year before the cut in the last Budget . . . but still, anyone who thinks a 70% tax rate isn't a disincentive to work, or an incentive to work cash in hand is simply deluding themselves.
What's especially pernicious is once you include Employers NIC its over 80% so for cash businesses that can get away with it, the government is seriously incentivising tax evasion with an 80% real effective tax rate.
I used to know an employer with a lot of employees who would pay £300 per week through the books, with £100 cash in hand on top. Since VAT was probably dodged to get the £100 cash per employee too you're probably looking at close to 100% tax rate on that money evaded.
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
The last bit's true, but only because of the way she acted when she first took office.
If Cameron had not flounced and had gone for EEA immediately, it wouldn't have been too controversial.
Better yet if it had been on the ballot paper, of course.
It would have become controversial the moment the EU responded by saying, "No, you have to have a full negotiatation of a new relationship, and no negotiation without notification."
Then he notifies with the intention to negotiate an EEA-type solution - in which case, would the EU really have been so vindictive as to prefer "no deal"? Remember that in this universe unlike ours, the bitter sore-loser Remainer faction, whilst they might still have dripped poison in Brussels' ears, would have been much less effective in doing so as there wouldn't have been a significant UK "no deal" faction.
As soon as you enter into any kind of negotiation, the temptation to say "no deal is better than a bad deal" would be overwhelming, and then you plunge both factions into the same purity spiral.
In my postulated universe, there aren't two roughly-equally strong factions...
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
The last bit's true, but only because of the way she acted when she first took office.
If Cameron had not flounced and had gone for EEA immediately, it wouldn't have been too controversial.
Better yet if it had been on the ballot paper, of course.
It would have become controversial the moment the EU responded by saying, "No, you have to have a full negotiatation of a new relationship, and no negotiation without notification."
It's also not a very good deal, the EEA option comes with the same trade friction as the TCA but none of the divergence capability.
SM and CU combined has no trade frictions. It isn't without downsides but then neither is anything else.
But that's not what is being discussed, people are talking about the EEA, not EEA+CU, which was never really on the table.
If the SM and CU options had both passed in the meaningful votes then perhaps that's where we would have ended up. Unfortunately we will never know because the Tories voted them down.
Nah, we would have had a GE, Boris would have won and repealed it all. There was no path to any of this, the TCA was, ultimately, the only version of Brexit that was going to happen. As a nation we should have been preparing for it from 2016 so when we finally got to leaving the CU there would be no border mess. That includes moving our EU export destination to Belgium and the Netherlands rather than France, which is now happening but the French are still causing unnecessary issues that Belgians and Dutch don't.
China has joined Russia in opposing further Nato expansion as the two countries move closer together in the face of Western pressure.
Moscow and Beijing issued a statement showcasing their agreement on a raft of issues during a visit by Russia's Vladimir Putin for the Winter Olympics.
"Friendship between [Russia and China] has no limits, there are no 'forbidden' areas of cooperation," the statement reads.
What do they think might encourage NATO expansion but military willy waving and posturing on their end (China seems to be a fan of NK diplomatic shit talking)? I refuse to believe they are too silly to not see that, so presume they want it to expand, as an excuse.
Reasons why Boris doesn't want to go now No 1 to 60million
Boris wants another 4-6 months to get past Brown and May - and he needs to avoid a VONC otherwise he isn't going to get there.
I still think Boris wins a VONC 55% to 45% or so for now
He'll probably beat Spencer Perceval. Unlikely he'll beat Gordon Brown.
Ah, Boris, you old duffer, it could all have been so different. You were played a hugely difficult hand - take over a party with no majority and with two wings in open rebellion, in different directions, deal with the most contentious constitutional issue of the post-war era, and then thrown off course by the biggest emergency of my lifetime. The first you managed with astonishing success, the second to no less dissatisfaction than anyone else would have achieved*, and the third better than many, with some brave calls along the way.
And then you threw it away on - what? Holding some not-very-good-parties? Evacuating someone's pets from Afghanistan? Owen Paterson? A distasteful jibe at PMQs?
I'm not trying to excuse Boris. I didn't want him in the first place and I certainly don't want him now. But he dealt with the really difficult issues quite well - certainly better than many. The first few months of his premiership when he took a fractious party without a majority which had recently polled below 10% in a national election to a landslide-ish majority was just astonishing.
He's played an astonishingly difficult hand with a surprising degree of success, and then made some really, really, really stupid and unnecessary unforced errors. Like the spy who finds the Macguffin, defeats three different sets of baddies, makes it home through no-mans land, then gets hilariously drunk on the train back from Dover, picks a fight with a bouncer and leaves the Macguffin on the tube.
*I can sense Remainer piss boiling from here when I write this. Sorry. It's hard to frame in a neutral way. But I stand by it - other solutions may or may not have been better; but any other solution would have pissed off at least as many people.
As a former remainer (meaningless term now, really) I agree completely. The options were piss off the Brexiters, piss off the Remainers or piss off everybody both extremes (something Norway-esque). Probably the last option was best for the country, but would have still greatly annoyed those on both extremes and been seen as a betrayal, for different reasons, by many. It would have required a great leader to bring people together behind it.
Actually I think most Remainers would have grabbed Norway with both hands, certainly once the initial shock of the vote was absorbed. That is certainly suggested by the parliamentary votes on this where Remainers overwhelmingly voted for it. The opposition came from Leavers who were in full on yah boo you lost mode and held out for a maximal position - which fair play to them they achieved. The least they could do now is own it instead of whining about the fact they've got everything they wanted.
The problem with the first part is that the Remainers who "overwhelmingly voted for it" came across as it being their second choice behind overturning the referendum result, so it looked like a trap.
If Remainers had been strong from June 2016 until May's election that "we lost, but only narrowly, but EEA is a reasonable outcome from the result" then plenty of Leavers would have been more than happy with that.
I think that is just a sign of Leaver paranoia.
Given how bitterly a faction of sore-loser Remainers fought to overturn the referendum result, a certain level of paranoia was quite understandable.
Not really, Leavers controlled the process at all times. The only reason that there was stalemate was that they promised something impossible (leaving the single market and customs union with no implications for the Irish border). That wasn't the fault of Remainers.
I wonder what the DUP were thinking when they campaigned for Brexit? Were they (secretly and sordidly) hoping it would lead to a hard border between NI and the Republic? Or were they assuming the whole of the UK would stay in the Single Market? It's quite hard to fathom.
COOKE, Christian Christopher (Local Conservatives) 613 LOXTON Huw Geraint (Independent) 482 FOSTER, David Geoffrey (Labour Party Candidate) 311 Con 43.6 (-11.7) Ind 34.3 (+16.9) Lab 22.1 (-3.0)
Labour have done universally and weirdly badly in last night's elections. Can't work out whether it's a freak or the national polls are wrong (or some other explanation like the increased Labour VI is concentrated among the less politically engaged who don't vote in council byelections).
Their vote is super soft. NOTA is strong at the moment.
Well it doesn't seem like 1995 were there was a genuine enthusiasm for Blair, and it was only a matter of time before the Tories were turfed out office. If the Tories ditch Boris and actually got someone pretty decent they'd have a good chance of winning the next election.
This is true. However, the cost of living crisis hasn't hit yet. I commented yesterday that 1992 was a one -two punch. The election of a credible LOTO was the first. Black Wednesday was the knockout. The economic picture is truly dire.
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
Sorry to see you go MrEd.
Indeed, MrEd was a minority view but an important one for a site that is a betting site and therefore needs to reflect all views, even pro Trump and pro Boris ones.
The last thing we want is for it to become a left liberal echo chamber
Over 93,000 posts from your good self suggest there is little chance of that.
HYFUD counts me in the same liberal left as you, Al. His definition seems to constitute anyone who doesn't show 100% loyalty and fealty to whoever the Tory leader is on the day.
Chris Patten was in the radio just now, explaining it. He says that while he still sees himself as a conservative, the party has become an English-nationalist cult, which both repels him and he sees as the root of many of our political problems. In particular he blames the nature of the modern party as much as the personality of the leader as the underlying problem.
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
Sorry to see you go MrEd.
Indeed, MrEd was a minority view but an important one for a site that is a betting site and therefore needs to reflect all views, even pro Trump and pro Boris ones.
The last thing we want is for it to become a left liberal echo chamber
Over 93,000 posts from your good self suggest there is little chance of that.
HYFUD counts me in the same liberal left as you, Al. His definition seems to constitute anyone who doesn't show 100% loyalty and fealty to whoever the Tory leader is on the day.
No you are a fiscal conservative, centre right liberal.
However again still not hard right populist like Mr Ed
Oh how would you compare Max to me then @hyufd. I'm interested.
You are a centrist liberal, Max is a centre right liberal.
Chaps, I am coming off this website. After this morning, I've just decided the downsides are far greater than the upsides re info, betting tips. Good luck to the many decent individuals on here and thanks for all the betting tips you have given over the years.
Sorry to see you go MrEd.
Indeed, MrEd was a minority view but an important one for a site that is a betting site and therefore needs to reflect all views, even pro Trump and pro Boris ones.
The last thing we want is for it to become a left liberal echo chamber
Over 93,000 posts from your good self suggest there is little chance of that.
HYFUD counts me in the same liberal left as you, Al. His definition seems to constitute anyone who doesn't show 100% loyalty and fealty to whoever the Tory leader is on the day.
No you are a fiscal conservative, centre right liberal.
However again still not hard right populist like Mr Ed
Oh how would you compare Max to me then @hyufd. I'm interested.
You are a centrist liberal, Max is a centre right liberal.
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
It wouldn't. Diehard Remainers in the SNP, LDs and much of Labour would still have voted for EUref2 not EEA and Tory hardline Brexiteers would still have voted to end free movement not to stay in the EEA.
Even if it had passed, the result would have been a surge in support for Farage's Brexit Party anyway again, indeed it is possible Farage could have won more votes than May's Tories at the next general election as well as winning seats in Labour's redwall just as Boris did on a 'this is not true Brexit' ticket
I think a lot of people supported a referendum on the deal unenthusiasticly as a way through the impasse. I was certainly in that camp. Looking back now I think I was wrong to do so - however hopelessly flawed and dishonest the Brexit campaign was it should have been respected in the name of democracy ("the people have spoken - the bastards"). I continue to think I was right to support a SM/CU compromise though, and the fact remains that this was thwarted principally by Leavers and the Tory Party. If May had whipped her party to support it alongside Labour it would have passed. And I continue to think Labour was right not to vote for May's deal, which was shit, even though Johnson's deal is even more shit.
I agree with a lot of you say there, but not the democracy aspect. May was moving further and further away from the prospectus advertised, while claming there was only one Brexit, which is clearly anti-democratic. One of the strangest roles in all this, as mentioned previously, is played by Daniel Hannan, co-creator of Vote Leave itself , and claiming from the beginning to now to be pursuing the goal of soft Brexit, and yet celebrating Boris Johnson's Brexit deal as "extraordinary" two or three years ago now.
Mr. Boy, your assertion leavers continually controlled the process is not accurate.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
If May had put a Norway style deal to the House it would have passed easily. She couldn't get a majority for her deal because it was shit. And she couldn't put forward a Norway deal because it would have split her party down the middle.
The last bit's true, but only because of the way she acted when she first took office.
If Cameron had not flounced and had gone for EEA immediately, it wouldn't have been too controversial.
Better yet if it had been on the ballot paper, of course.
It would have become controversial the moment the EU responded by saying, "No, you have to have a full negotiatation of a new relationship, and no negotiation without notification."
Then he notifies with the intention to negotiate an EEA-type solution - in which case, would the EU really have been so vindictive as to prefer "no deal"? Remember that in this universe unlike ours, the bitter sore-loser Remainer faction, whilst they might still have dripped poison in Brussels' ears, would have been much less effective in doing so as there wouldn't have been a significant UK "no deal" faction.
As soon as you enter into any kind of negotiation, the temptation to say "no deal is better than a bad deal" would be overwhelming, and then you plunge both factions into the same purity spiral.
In my postulated universe, there aren't two roughly-equally strong factions...
I think your postulated universe could only have existed if Vote Leave hadn't been boxed in on the single market question during the referendum campaign. Having won the vote on the basis of leaving the SM/CU, it would have been asking a lot to expect the people who saw that kind of Brexit as pointless to hold their tongue throughout the whole process.
Entirely off thread, and a discussion which should normally be post-Lagershed, but I've just had a pair of jeans delivered. They are more than I have ever spent on a pair of trousers - £59 - but I am delighted with them. As I get older I have more and more specific requirements for jeans (this is not just a result of ageing, it's also a result of clothing manufacturers being such neophiles that they can't let a product well alone: I'd have been perfectly happy to buy the same pair of jeans every 9 months from the age of 16, but they won't leave well alone): I want jeans to be light blue in colour (ideally slightly lighter than these turned out to be in real life), to taper slightly at the ankle, and to be 100% cotton. It's increasingly difficult to find even men's jeans without some sort of stretchy stuff woven in. I want my jeans as stiff and unyielding as cardboard. And also to be able to accommodate my unusually large legs. Anyway, weirdly, John Lewis of all places was able to provide. I blanche slightly at the price, but I am now going to order 6 more pairs which should see me comfortably through to my fifties. My taste in jeans hasn't changed for the last 30 years so I see no danger in it changing in the next four.
Try Yoga pants. They stretch.
I don't want my trousers to stretch! Too many of them do stretch. I want them to be entirely rigid, like nature intended.
Yes, but jeans do stretch while wearing them, indeed that is why they are so comfortable, and also why you shouldn't wash them too often as they lose their acquired shape.
Someone needs to watch some vintage Levi's adverts
Reasons why Boris doesn't want to go now No 1 to 60million
Boris wants another 4-6 months to get past Brown and May - and he needs to avoid a VONC otherwise he isn't going to get there.
I still think Boris wins a VONC 55% to 45% or so for now
He'll probably beat Spencer Perceval. Unlikely he'll beat Gordon Brown.
Ah, Boris, you old duffer, it could all have been so different. You were played a hugely difficult hand - take over a party with no majority and with two wings in open rebellion, in different directions, deal with the most contentious constitutional issue of the post-war era, and then thrown off course by the biggest emergency of my lifetime. The first you managed with astonishing success, the second to no less dissatisfaction than anyone else would have achieved*, and the third better than many, with some brave calls along the way.
And then you threw it away on - what? Holding some not-very-good-parties? Evacuating someone's pets from Afghanistan? Owen Paterson? A distasteful jibe at PMQs?
I'm not trying to excuse Boris. I didn't want him in the first place and I certainly don't want him now. But he dealt with the really difficult issues quite well - certainly better than many. The first few months of his premiership when he took a fractious party without a majority which had recently polled below 10% in a national election to a landslide-ish majority was just astonishing.
He's played an astonishingly difficult hand with a surprising degree of success, and then made some really, really, really stupid and unnecessary unforced errors. Like the spy who finds the Macguffin, defeats three different sets of baddies, makes it home through no-mans land, then gets hilariously drunk on the train back from Dover, picks a fight with a bouncer and leaves the Macguffin on the tube.
*I can sense Remainer piss boiling from here when I write this. Sorry. It's hard to frame in a neutral way. But I stand by it - other solutions may or may not have been better; but any other solution would have pissed off at least as many people.
As a former remainer (meaningless term now, really) I agree completely. The options were piss off the Brexiters, piss off the Remainers or piss off everybody both extremes (something Norway-esque). Probably the last option was best for the country, but would have still greatly annoyed those on both extremes and been seen as a betrayal, for different reasons, by many. It would have required a great leader to bring people together behind it.
Actually I think most Remainers would have grabbed Norway with both hands, certainly once the initial shock of the vote was absorbed. That is certainly suggested by the parliamentary votes on this where Remainers overwhelmingly voted for it. The opposition came from Leavers who were in full on yah boo you lost mode and held out for a maximal position - which fair play to them they achieved. The least they could do now is own it instead of whining about the fact they've got everything they wanted.
The problem with the first part is that the Remainers who "overwhelmingly voted for it" came across as it being their second choice behind overturning the referendum result, so it looked like a trap.
If Remainers had been strong from June 2016 until May's election that "we lost, but only narrowly, but EEA is a reasonable outcome from the result" then plenty of Leavers would have been more than happy with that.
I think that is just a sign of Leaver paranoia.
Given how bitterly a faction of sore-loser Remainers fought to overturn the referendum result, a certain level of paranoia was quite understandable.
Not really, Leavers controlled the process at all times. The only reason that there was stalemate was that they promised something impossible (leaving the single market and customs union with no implications for the Irish border). That wasn't the fault of Remainers.
I wonder what the DUP were thinking when they campaigned for Brexit? Were they (secretly and sordidly) hoping it would lead to a hard border between NI and the Republic? Or were they assuming the whole of the UK would stay in the Single Market? It's quite hard to fathom.
Ironically it is probably better for the DUP now that Starmer wins the next general election.
Starmer would align the whole UK closer to a CU and the EEA than either Boris or Sunak would (hence solving much of the NIP and Irish Sea border issue by default anyway). Plus unlike Corbyn, Starmer has said he wants to keep Northern Ireland in the UK
I've never noticed a difference whether I salt pasta or not, can't see what the big deal is.
Fair play to the Italians for setting out their own standards on traditionally italian dishes, but it's all about the cultural appropriation, and everyone can make their own pizza and pasta derived dishes to their own tastes.
Reasons why Boris doesn't want to go now No 1 to 60million
Boris wants another 4-6 months to get past Brown and May - and he needs to avoid a VONC otherwise he isn't going to get there.
I still think Boris wins a VONC 55% to 45% or so for now
He'll probably beat Spencer Perceval. Unlikely he'll beat Gordon Brown.
Ah, Boris, you old duffer, it could all have been so different. You were played a hugely difficult hand - take over a party with no majority and with two wings in open rebellion, in different directions, deal with the most contentious constitutional issue of the post-war era, and then thrown off course by the biggest emergency of my lifetime. The first you managed with astonishing success, the second to no less dissatisfaction than anyone else would have achieved*, and the third better than many, with some brave calls along the way.
And then you threw it away on - what? Holding some not-very-good-parties? Evacuating someone's pets from Afghanistan? Owen Paterson? A distasteful jibe at PMQs?
I'm not trying to excuse Boris. I didn't want him in the first place and I certainly don't want him now. But he dealt with the really difficult issues quite well - certainly better than many. The first few months of his premiership when he took a fractious party without a majority which had recently polled below 10% in a national election to a landslide-ish majority was just astonishing.
He's played an astonishingly difficult hand with a surprising degree of success, and then made some really, really, really stupid and unnecessary unforced errors. Like the spy who finds the Macguffin, defeats three different sets of baddies, makes it home through no-mans land, then gets hilariously drunk on the train back from Dover, picks a fight with a bouncer and leaves the Macguffin on the tube.
*I can sense Remainer piss boiling from here when I write this. Sorry. It's hard to frame in a neutral way. But I stand by it - other solutions may or may not have been better; but any other solution would have pissed off at least as many people.
As a former remainer (meaningless term now, really) I agree completely. The options were piss off the Brexiters, piss off the Remainers or piss off everybody both extremes (something Norway-esque). Probably the last option was best for the country, but would have still greatly annoyed those on both extremes and been seen as a betrayal, for different reasons, by many. It would have required a great leader to bring people together behind it.
Actually I think most Remainers would have grabbed Norway with both hands, certainly once the initial shock of the vote was absorbed. That is certainly suggested by the parliamentary votes on this where Remainers overwhelmingly voted for it. The opposition came from Leavers who were in full on yah boo you lost mode and held out for a maximal position - which fair play to them they achieved. The least they could do now is own it instead of whining about the fact they've got everything they wanted.
The problem with the first part is that the Remainers who "overwhelmingly voted for it" came across as it being their second choice behind overturning the referendum result, so it looked like a trap.
If Remainers had been strong from June 2016 until May's election that "we lost, but only narrowly, but EEA is a reasonable outcome from the result" then plenty of Leavers would have been more than happy with that.
I think that is just a sign of Leaver paranoia.
Given how bitterly a faction of sore-loser Remainers fought to overturn the referendum result, a certain level of paranoia was quite understandable.
Not really, Leavers controlled the process at all times. The only reason that there was stalemate was that they promised something impossible (leaving the single market and customs union with no implications for the Irish border). That wasn't the fault of Remainers.
I wonder what the DUP were thinking when they campaigned for Brexit? Were they (secretly and sordidly) hoping it would lead to a hard border between NI and the Republic? Or were they assuming the whole of the UK would stay in the Single Market? It's quite hard to fathom.
The DUP ought to be reminded that 56% of NI voted to Remain in 2016.
Comments
The site does have ups and downs, and is better for those who prefer things a little more civil being here.
(I'm going for a suck up award, but I fully expect the PM to use that line soon).
All the best.
Yewtree - this is easily explained by incompetence and a desire to please political masters.
Pride - no work involved. Turn up at a parade, wear a few badges & get lots of praise for doing nothing substantive.
So basically old attitudes, sucking up to your boss & doing easy stuff that gets you a pat on the back but involves no work.
I don't find it that puzzling.
Enjoy your retirement in Mar-a-Lago.
2 - Simplifying the tax system is more important - less loopholes. Get rid of NI and merge into Income tax. Tax all income at the same rate.
3 - Nice idea. The problem is that people will see that as coming for their houses. Most people who have a house don't feel rich. The only way out of this is deflating house prices so that they are no longer a ridiculous multiple of income and dominate personal spending.
To say that Leavers controlled the process at all times is simply revisionist history. There was always a Remainder majority (by 2016 vote if not by 2017 manifesto pledge) in the Commons, aided and abetted by an activist Speaker who would keep or change conventions as necessary to favour the Remain side.
Thrice May's deal came before Parliament. It was thwarted on the votes of pro-EU Labour (and other) MPs.
COOKE, Christian Christopher (Local Conservatives) 613
LOXTON Huw Geraint (Independent) 482
FOSTER, David Geoffrey (Labour Party Candidate) 311
Con 43.6 (-11.7)
Ind 34.3 (+16.9)
Lab 22.1 (-3.0)
It's unfortunate to see MrEd go, I concur.
I think it was a combination of
- The victims were considered gutter trash
- The perpetrators were, in a number of cases, from minorities. The instinctive racism of "they are like that" + fear of being *seen* to be racist.
It was a case study in prisoner's dilemma / Bullseye special prize. Each faction - both brexiteer and remainer - were weighing up options based on a gamble as to how the other side would behave.
For committed Remainers, you either compromise and get 50% of what you wanted (say customs union - EEA was almost impossible after May's red lines) but forego the opportunity to win outright, or you don't compromise and go for either outright victory (second referendum and reversal) or losing everything (second referendum that you lose, or election that you lose).
For hard Brexiteers, exactly the same: you either compromise and get 50% of what you wanted but forego the opportunity to win outright (as above), or you don't compromise and go for either outright victory or losing everything.
For middle of roaders of which there were many on the Tory and Labour benches the decision was much easier.
In the end the committed Remainers gambled and lost heavily; the hard Brexiteers gambled and won handsomely. If things had gone differently people would be blaming the Spartans for overreaching and blowing their chance.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/03/lockdown-establishment-will-never-accept-disastrous-policy-failed/
Even if it had passed, the result would have been a surge in support for Farage's Brexit Party anyway again, indeed it is possible Farage could have won more votes than May's Tories at the next general election as well as winning seats in Labour's redwall just as Boris did on a 'this is not true Brexit' ticket
MrEd was a rare hard right, populist conservative view
- A VOC by summer recess - 85
- BJ loses - 65
- Sunak v Truss - 22
- RS - 16, LT - 6
- Sunak v old hand (Hunt, May) - 4
- RS 3, OH 1
- Sunak v Gove - 6
- RS 5, MG 1
- Sunak v mid rank (Zahawi, Javid) - 15
- RS 8, MR 7
- Sunak v CRG (e.g. Baker) - 10
- RS 7, CRG 3
- non Sunak contest - 8
- LT 3, MR 3, MG 1, CRG 1
- BJ wins - 20
- A further VOC by GE - 8
- BJ loses 5
- RS 1, LT 1, MR 3
- BJ wins 3
- A first VOC held later in parl - 9
- BJ loses - 6
- RS 2, LT 1, MR 3
- BJ wins - 3
- No VOC in this parl - 6
To tot up.in a reply
What I don't understand is this: Leavers have got everything they wanted. Why are they so desperate to find someone to blame for how we got here?
The same pattern followed through the New Labour years as well.
Much of this structure is quite hostile to the Conservative party - these people are, after all, the ultimate believers in Big Government.
Just as long as it is Big Government that is not accountable to anyone.
However again still not hard right populist like Mr Ed
But I sense you're not seeing straight because htf is Keir Starmer the epitome of the establishment and Whitehall knows best? He's an upwardly mobile professional leading the Labour Party after a distinguished legal career in public service.
What on earth do you want as your prefect profile for a 'non establishment' senior politician? A pimlico plumber?
BJ PM at next GE - 24 (SKS next PM - ca16)
RS PM at next GE - 42
LT PM - 11
Old hand PM - 1
Gove PM - 2
Mid-rank cabinet PM - 16
CRG PM - 4
NOTA is strong at the moment.
If the Establishment is a sliding scale from 0 to 100, I must be at least an 80. I have a public sector office job and live in a comfortable middle class suburb of a big city. The views I am surrounded by are overwhelmingly left-wing. Every voice at work (people sometimes talk about being in 'the party' - there is never any doubt which party they mean). The schools my children attend. The views expressed by my Establishment peers.
There may be right wing views in the Establishment. But apart from some noisy and ineffective froth in the political sphere, you almost never hear any right wing views expressed.
I did once hear someone confess to me, sotto voce, that having worked in a field which required European funding, he had become a little sceptical about the whole European process. And once, in a previous (non-public sector) job, someone admitted to me he had voted Conservative at the 2015 GE.
These are the only right wing views I can remember being openly expressed in the last ten years.
What those who raise concerns want above all else is to be truly heard and for those concerns to be taken seriously.
That has been conflated into "you must believe" for the reasons you describe. But it is an erroneous conflation. Because there is a subtle but important distinction between the two.
That distinction has not been appreciated fully or taught effectively. The combination of empathy and a ruthless focus on evidence and facts is essential for an investigator. But hard to get right.
Some individual policemen may do so. But on the whole this is not understood or appreciated or taught or rewarded. Investigation is both art and science and becoming skilled in it is much much harder than it seems.
“God bless America.” https://nyti.ms/3306M3q https://twitter.com/nytopinion/status/1489566060328198148/video/1
China has joined Russia in opposing further Nato expansion as the two countries move closer together in the face of Western pressure.
Moscow and Beijing issued a statement showcasing their agreement on a raft of issues during a visit by Russia's Vladimir Putin for the Winter Olympics.
"Friendship between [Russia and China] has no limits, there are no 'forbidden' areas of cooperation," the statement reads.
The dinner at Lord Leach's house where various people with internationally mobile money ended supporting Brexit, and actually creating Business for Britain and Vote Leave, was an example of another establishment at work, for instance. A lot of the funding at that crucial time came from Crispin Odey and other financiers with no particular attachment to the "red wall", or any left-behind towns outside the charmed metropolitan circle.
A bit like the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' the US military used to have for homosexuals in its ranks
If Cameron had not flounced and had gone for EEA immediately, it wouldn't have been too controversial.
Better yet if it had been on the ballot paper, of course.
France the only country other than Italy anti pineapple on pizza.
I didn't realise there was any controversy about garlic bread with pasta..
This policy replaced the previous policy where far too many cases of sexual assault were marked "no proceedings". If these extremes were the only choices I would say that the present is better than the past. But surely there is a middle way where prosecutors can look critically at the case that we are being asked to present and to make recommendations.
The point that @kinabalu (and others) misses is that while the New Establishment is not hereditary*, it is still a system by which people are schooled in how to belong to it.
*Well not entirely. There is a lot of family linkage going on.
Changing PM's, PM?
There are inconsistencies in lots of accounts. One of the tasks of an investigator is to try and understand why those arise and either explain them away or show why they don't matter.
https://www.quora.com/Do-Italians-eat-garlic-bread-with-their-pasta
And as for rocking up at Pride, that looks particularly sick in the light of the Stephen Port case. Did you see the report and the various progs on that? What an absolute scandal. 3 gay men murdered due to the police deciding the death of the 1st one was no big deal.
Sajid Javid says that Sir Keir Starmer did "a good job" as director of public prosecutions and insists Boris Johnson has "clarified" his accusation that he had failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile.
Latest politics: https://news.sky.com/politics https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1489591161958379525/video/1
But I also agree with others that Labour are still miles from having sold any sort of deal with the electorate. They are benefitting from looking a little more clued up and professional just as the government has fallen apart. Doing better remains work in progress for Labour - but of course oppositions don’t need to be popular to win, if the government becomes sufficiently unpopular.
So you'll be coming back with a very peculiar tan.
That's without considering anything else like potentially having to pay dental costs, Council Tax support or anything similar that I'm not fully sure how it works. Also not even counting employer's NI either.
Just a basic addition of the three primary rates gets you to 70% today. At least its not 100% anymore, or 75% as it was this time last year before the cut in the last Budget . . . but still, anyone who thinks a 70% tax rate isn't a disincentive to work, or an incentive to work cash in hand is simply deluding themselves.
What's especially pernicious is once you include Employers NIC its over 80% so for cash businesses that can get away with it, the government is seriously incentivising tax evasion with an 80% real effective tax rate.
I used to know an employer with a lot of employees who would pay £300 per week through the books, with £100 cash in hand on top. Since VAT was probably dodged to get the £100 cash per employee too you're probably looking at close to 100% tax rate on that money evaded.
However, the cost of living crisis hasn't hit yet. I commented yesterday that 1992 was a one -two punch.
The election of a credible LOTO was the first. Black Wednesday was the knockout. The economic picture is truly dire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvoQAUmB7g0
Starmer would align the whole UK closer to a CU and the EEA than either Boris or Sunak would (hence solving much of the NIP and Irish Sea border issue by default anyway). Plus unlike Corbyn, Starmer has said he wants to keep Northern Ireland in the UK
Fair play to the Italians for setting out their own standards on traditionally italian dishes, but it's all about the cultural appropriation, and everyone can make their own pizza and pasta derived dishes to their own tastes.
And what do they have against garlic bread?