In all of this chaos we have not heard from David Cameron. He must be furious and if I was him I would make a commitment now to lead the party into the 2020 election and beyond. It would have several effects in so far as any threat to Cameron's position would lose because he is greatly liked by the membership and would easily win an election for leader, it would close down the race for his succession and he would decimate Corbyn. Probably wont happen but if Cameron is angry enough who knows.
We have heard from Cameron, his answer is t***s and s**t.
As for Cameron doing an even more extreme u-turn on the leadership would be really terminal for the Tories, the other ministers and the MP's who are waiting and planning for a long time for Cameron's departure are not Gordon Brown you know, if Cameron changes his mind over leaving his own plotting ministers will throw him overboard anyway
Maybe but those who need time in the cabinet may quite like the idea of several years of stability
You can't call this stability anymore. Mild civil war yes, but stability no.
Can you imagine the present infighting going on for years ?
In all of this chaos we have not heard from David Cameron. He must be furious and if I was him I would make a commitment now to lead the party into the 2020 election and beyond. It would have several effects in so far as any threat to Cameron's position would lose because he is greatly liked by the membership and would easily win an election for leader, it would close down the race for his succession and he would decimate Corbyn. Probably wont happen but if Cameron is angry enough who knows.
Till Patel challenges him and Heathite history repeats itself.
Cameron would win as he will be re-elected by the Membership
How? After the EU referendum whatever the result the membership would want a euroskeptic to tone the infighting down a bit.
You talk for the membership now - Cameron would win the vote
In all of this chaos we have not heard from David Cameron. He must be furious and if I was him I would make a commitment now to lead the party into the 2020 election and beyond. It would have several effects in so far as any threat to Cameron's position would lose because he is greatly liked by the membership and would easily win an election for leader, it would close down the race for his succession and he would decimate Corbyn. Probably wont happen but if Cameron is angry enough who knows.
Prior to all this Europe unpleasantness there were some voices raised who wanted Cameron to lead the party in 2020, but even then it looked like a bridge too far if he u-turned. His rivals were expecting their chance to come, and wouldn't accept it.
And now they certainly wouldn't, nor is it as obvious he would win any challenge, or win by enough to shut down dissent. The anti-Cameroons were already energised by the referendum, and increased in number, and IDS has now made it an even more personal fight and many have sided with him. Plenty want Cameron gone now, not even waiting as they were before, and those people won't go away even if Cameron reverses his stance on not carrying on.
Off topic, but I am willing to bet that the 2020 election will be fought on the same constituency boundaries as 2015.
We've just seen how willing to rebel Tory MPs are, and boundary changes will be particularly contentious since some Tory MPs (probably 10 or more) would be being asked to vote themselves into redundancy.
There will be a few retirees, with a handful of "K"s and "P"s for those who need a little more encouragement to go quietly.
Oh, and a 3 line whip on the vote, with a definite deselection with no honours for any that dissent!
Off topic, but I am willing to bet that the 2020 election will be fought on the same constituency boundaries as 2015.
We've just seen how willing to rebel Tory MPs are, and boundary changes will be particularly contentious since some Tory MPs (probably 10 or more) would be being asked to vote themselves into redundancy.
Agreed.
And austerity is over. Every time a cut is suggested a vocal group of half a dozen Tory MPs will emerge to prevent it. Osborne's borrowing targets are for the birds.
Yep. IDS put caveats on why these cuts now were wrong, but anyone could claim the thing they don't want to cut is subject to the same principle of defiance.
Off topic, but I am willing to bet that the 2020 election will be fought on the same constituency boundaries as 2015.
We've just seen how willing to rebel Tory MPs are, and boundary changes will be particularly contentious since some Tory MPs (probably 10 or more) would be being asked to vote themselves into redundancy.
Agreed.
And austerity is over. Every time a cut is suggested a vocal group of half a dozen Tory MPs will emerge to prevent it. Osborne's borrowing targets are for the birds.
I adore pubs. I live in Italy. A bottle of supermarket peroni in Italy costs me 30p, and a pint in the local pub (OK it is Italy, but it is very lovely, authentic, Irish pub) a half mile, uphill walk costs me £5. Guess what, I walk through hail, snow, sweeping wind storms just to pay that £5 for a pint. It is the highlight of my day. Everyday. Each and everyday. I think if I had to pay double or treble for that one beer I would do it. I always tip the barman 2 Euros and spend a leisurely and lovely half an hour enjoying that pint, reading, or talking to whoever.
When I come back to the UK, my highlight is going to the pub for one beer, eating an Indian (king prawn madras plus papadams) and going to the cinema (picturehouse) in that order, finished off by watching MoD. That is my perfect day. Bliss...
One of the things that pisses me off most about successive governments is their failure to help pubs survive.
I've enjoyed some of the best moments of my life in pubs and made some great friends.. sad to see so many closing. It depresses me that my kids won't get to grow up in an era like the one I did, when - even before mobile phones made communication simpler - about two dozen friends would automatically gather together in a pub, and slam money into a good jukebox.
The world will be a less colourful place when they all close.
In all of this chaos we have not heard from David Cameron. He must be furious and if I was him I would make a commitment now to lead the party into the 2020 election and beyond. It would have several effects in so far as any threat to Cameron's position would lose because he is greatly liked by the membership and would easily win an election for leader, it would close down the race for his succession and he would decimate Corbyn. Probably wont happen but if Cameron is angry enough who knows.
We have heard from Cameron, his answer is t***s and s**t.
As for Cameron doing an even more extreme u-turn on the leadership would be really terminal for the Tories, the other ministers and the MP's who are waiting and planning for a long time for Cameron's departure are not Gordon Brown you know, if Cameron changes his mind over leaving his own plotting ministers will throw him overboard anyway
Maybe but those who need time in the cabinet may quite like the idea of several years of stability
You can't call this stability anymore. Mild civil war yes, but stability no.
Can you imagine the present infighting going on for years ?
After 23rd June the party will have to form a new cabinet from all the factions and a very different Government will follow. Osborne will not be chancellor as his place will be taken by Gove. Other eurosceptics will be in the cabinet including Boris, Patel and possibly Grayling
"Based on asset sale forecasts from the Office of Budget Responsibility, the Government is proposing to sell the remaining shares in RBS at a loss of almost £22 billion – recouping barely half the £45.5bn poured in to save the bank from collapsing in 2008."
"To put this scandalous loss in context, Gordon Brown lost the British public around £2 billion with his sale of British gold reserves in the early noughties. The episode is still remembered with apoplexy and anger, and is often touted as a sign of Labour’s profligacy and economic ineptitude.
By comparison, Osborne’s proposed losses on RBS are almost 11 times as great, and yet almost no one has batted an eyelid."
"Based on asset sale forecasts from the Office of Budget Responsibility, the Government is proposing to sell the remaining shares in RBS at a loss of almost £22 billion – recouping barely half the £45.5bn poured in to save the bank from collapsing in 2008."
"To put this scandalous loss in context, Gordon Brown lost the British public around £2 billion with his sale of British gold reserves in the early noughties. The episode is still remembered with apoplexy and anger, and is often touted as a sign of Labour’s profligacy and economic ineptitude.
By comparison, Osborne’s proposed losses on RBS are almost 11 times as great, and yet almost no one has batted an eyelid."
I think the real question is, is there any realistic prospect of RBS ever being worth much more? I don't know the answer to that, but it doesn't seem like the share price of the government own banks have been improving.
In all of this chaos we have not heard from David Cameron. He must be furious and if I was him I would make a commitment now to lead the party into the 2020 election and beyond. It would have several effects in so far as any threat to Cameron's position would lose because he is greatly liked by the membership and would easily win an election for leader, it would close down the race for his succession and he would decimate Corbyn. Probably wont happen but if Cameron is angry enough who knows.
We have heard from Cameron, his answer is t***s and s**t.
As for Cameron doing an even more extreme u-turn on the leadership would be really terminal for the Tories, the other ministers and the MP's who are waiting and planning for a long time for Cameron's departure are not Gordon Brown you know, if Cameron changes his mind over leaving his own plotting ministers will throw him overboard anyway
Maybe but those who need time in the cabinet may quite like the idea of several years of stability
You can't call this stability anymore. Mild civil war yes, but stability no.
Can you imagine the present infighting going on for years ?
After 23rd June the party will have to form a new cabinet from all the factions and a very different Government will follow. Osborne will not be chancellor as his place will be taken by Gove. Other eurosceptics will be in the cabinet including Boris, Patel and possibly Grayling
If any indication were needed as to why Leave are not doing so well, the fact that there might be three who can get into a weak and divided cabinet may help.
Off topic, but I am willing to bet that the 2020 election will be fought on the same constituency boundaries as 2015.
We've just seen how willing to rebel Tory MPs are, and boundary changes will be particularly contentious since some Tory MPs (probably 10 or more) would be being asked to vote themselves into redundancy.
Agreed.
And austerity is over. Every time a cut is suggested a vocal group of half a dozen Tory MPs will emerge to prevent it. Osborne's borrowing targets are for the birds.
Yep. IDS put caveats on why these cuts now were wrong, but anyone could claim the thing they don't want to cut is subject to the same principle of defiance.
Off topic, but I am willing to bet that the 2020 election will be fought on the same constituency boundaries as 2015.
We've just seen how willing to rebel Tory MPs are, and boundary changes will be particularly contentious since some Tory MPs (probably 10 or more) would be being asked to vote themselves into redundancy.
Agreed.
And austerity is over. Every time a cut is suggested a vocal group of half a dozen Tory MPs will emerge to prevent it. Osborne's borrowing targets are for the birds.
What austerity?
The vocal commitment to austerity is over then.
Not really - the debts are huge and austerity will continue but I would expect pensioner benefits will be in the firing line and some compromise on PIPS will be agreed with Charities and others to address the recent independent report. Also I would not rule out increases in fuel duty and 1p on tax
In all of this chaos we have not heard from David Cameron. He must be furious and if I was him I would make a commitment now to lead the party into the 2020 election and beyond. It would have several effects in so far as any threat to Cameron's position would lose because he is greatly liked by the membership and would easily win an election for leader, it would close down the race for his succession and he would decimate Corbyn. Probably wont happen but if Cameron is angry enough who knows.
We have heard from Cameron, his answer is t***s and s**t.
As for Cameron doing an even more extreme u-turn on the leadership would be really terminal for the Tories, the other ministers and the MP's who are waiting and planning for a long time for Cameron's departure are not Gordon Brown you know, if Cameron changes his mind over leaving his own plotting ministers will throw him overboard anyway
Maybe but those who need time in the cabinet may quite like the idea of several years of stability
You can't call this stability anymore. Mild civil war yes, but stability no.
Can you imagine the present infighting going on for years ?
After 23rd June the party will have to form a new cabinet from all the factions and a very different Government will follow. Osborne will not be chancellor as his place will be taken by Gove. Other eurosceptics will be in the cabinet including Boris, Patel and possibly Grayling
Extracting the "Osborne will not be chancellor after the 23rd June" from you is like extracting teeth, but it's well worth it.
I'm very surprised that with all the patronage of his office a whole day has gone by without IDS being slaughtered. In fact he seems to have been given a free pass to do and say whatever he fancies without rebuttal.
Perhaps they're working on the basis that given enough rope he'll hang himself. A very risky strategy given how difficult vampires are to destroy
Osborne wont be there for long, not after this fiasco, so why would someone risk their neck for him.
I'm not sure what Osborne is supposed to have done? His budget was well received by his party and even dumping on the disabled was only objected to by a tiny fringe. Why are we assuming that because a single not very bright minister is having a spat with him that his capital has suddenly reduced to zero?
"Based on asset sale forecasts from the Office of Budget Responsibility, the Government is proposing to sell the remaining shares in RBS at a loss of almost £22 billion – recouping barely half the £45.5bn poured in to save the bank from collapsing in 2008."
"To put this scandalous loss in context, Gordon Brown lost the British public around £2 billion with his sale of British gold reserves in the early noughties. The episode is still remembered with apoplexy and anger, and is often touted as a sign of Labour’s profligacy and economic ineptitude.
By comparison, Osborne’s proposed losses on RBS are almost 11 times as great, and yet almost no one has batted an eyelid."
When it rains it pours.
But Osborne didn't buy RBS at an inflated price. If you hold a stock that is unlikely to pay a dividend and which you MUST by law sell eventually, then you might as well sell it immediately and cut your losses.
In all of this chaos we have not heard from David Cameron. He must be furious and if I was him I would make a commitment now to lead the party into the 2020 election and beyond. It would have several effects in so far as any threat to Cameron's position would lose because he is greatly liked by the membership and would easily win an election for leader, it would close down the race for his succession and he would decimate Corbyn. Probably wont happen but if Cameron is angry enough who knows.
We have heard from Cameron, his answer is t***s and s**t.
As for Cameron doing an even more extreme u-turn on the leadership would be really terminal for the Tories, the other ministers and the MP's who are waiting and planning for a long time for Cameron's departure are not Gordon Brown you know, if Cameron changes his mind over leaving his own plotting ministers will throw him overboard anyway
Maybe but those who need time in the cabinet may quite like the idea of several years of stability
You can't call this stability anymore. Mild civil war yes, but stability no.
Can you imagine the present infighting going on for years ?
After 23rd June the party will have to form a new cabinet from all the factions and a very different Government will follow. Osborne will not be chancellor as his place will be taken by Gove. Other eurosceptics will be in the cabinet including Boris, Patel and possibly Grayling
Extracting the "Osborne will not be chancellor after the 23rd June" from you is like extracting teeth, but it's well worth it.
I have been saying that for some weeks and very much saying neither Osborne or Boris will be next PM
"Based on asset sale forecasts from the Office of Budget Responsibility, the Government is proposing to sell the remaining shares in RBS at a loss of almost £22 billion – recouping barely half the £45.5bn poured in to save the bank from collapsing in 2008."
"To put this scandalous loss in context, Gordon Brown lost the British public around £2 billion with his sale of British gold reserves in the early noughties. The episode is still remembered with apoplexy and anger, and is often touted as a sign of Labour’s profligacy and economic ineptitude.
By comparison, Osborne’s proposed losses on RBS are almost 11 times as great, and yet almost no one has batted an eyelid."
When it rains it pours.
years back.
I pointed put the taxpayer would never recoup the loss and the best thing was to break up the bank to create more competition in the current oligopoly. ThIs at least would have the effect of improving competitvness in the economy.
Needless to say the cameroons all insisted we;d get our money back and more.
I'm very surprised that with all the patronage of his office a whole day has gone by without IDS being slaughtered. In fact he seems to have been given a free pass to do and say whatever he fancies without rebuttal.
Perhaps they're working on the basis that given enough rope he'll hang himself. A very risky strategy given how difficult vampires are to destroy
Osborne wont be there for long, not after this fiasco, so why would someone risk their neck for him.
I'm not sure what Osborne is supposed to have done? His budget was well received by his party and even dumping on the disabled was only objected to by a tiny fringe. Why are we assuming that because a single not very bright minister is having a spat with him that his capital has suddenly reduced to zero?
One of the things that pisses me off most about successive governments is their failure to help pubs survive.
I've enjoyed some of the best moments of my life in pubs and made some great friends.. sad to see so many closing. It depresses me that my kids won't get to grow up in an era like the one I did, when - even before mobile phones made communication simpler - about two dozen friends would automatically gather together in a pub, and slam money into a good jukebox.
The world will be a less colourful place when they all close.
Social and economic change I'm afraid - we young folk don't drink as much, believe it or not, but that's what the stats say, and not just because more of us are Muslims etc.
A lot of it has to do with people commuting further to work, I suspect.
Plus: cafés - I don't mean what the Americans call diners - there are far more of them now perhaps because caffeine "addiction" is seen as vaguely positive while frequent alcohol use is naff Plus: if you are a young person facing job competition from millions of other young people, you will probably not be eager to booze mid-week or to be known to. It seems to fall off immediately after uni Plus: less cooking skills combined with hyper-awareness about junk food means if people are going to drink they might like food too, and not necessarily greasy chips
One of the things that pisses me off most about successive governments is their failure to help pubs survive.
I've enjoyed some of the best moments of my life in pubs and made some great friends.. sad to see so many closing. It depresses me that my kids won't get to grow up in an era like the one I did, when - even before mobile phones made communication simpler - about two dozen friends would automatically gather together in a pub, and slam money into a good jukebox.
The world will be a less colourful place when they all close.
Social and economic change I'm afraid - we young folk don't drink as much, believe it or not, but that's what the stats say, and not just because more of us are Muslims etc.
A lot of it has to do with people commuting further to work, I suspect.
Plus: cafés - I don't mean what the Americans call diners - there are far more of them now perhaps because caffeine "addiction" is seen as vaguely positive while frequent alcohol use is naff Plus: if you are a young person facing job competition from millions of other young people, you will probably not be eager to booze mid-week or to be known to. It seems to fall off immediately after uni Plus: less cooking skills combined with hyper-awareness about junk food means if people are going to drink they might like food too, and not necessarily greasy chips
The cafe / coffee shop / restaurant point is very valid point. Think how massive the likes of Costa and Nandos have become.
There is also a definite sizable percentage of youngsters that are overly concerned about how they look, and spend hours in the gym and don't want to ruin their "shred" by boozing every week...instead they save it for the summer holidays.
The Tories have wrapped up the next election in a beautiful parcel, put it on a gold plate and presented it to Labour. Labour has said "No thanks, we're in the middle of a very important argument about Trident renewal, we have no time to run the country".
TSE is correct, of course: Labour would be streets ahead with a credible leader. This is like post-92 election time, except the Tories can fight to their hearts' content. With Corbyn in charge of the opposition they have nothing to fear. It's very bad for the country though.
I have no idea who the new leader would be but I do think there will be an attempt to get the PLP to agree on someone - rather like the Tories agreed on Howard in 2003. I have been told that there is widespread agreement in the PLP that something has to be done.
I read that there are rule changes afoot which would lower the number of MPs required to nominate and clarify that the sitting leader doesn't need to be nominated to stand? Don't know what the prospect of those going through is.
An aside in this article says that Labour nomination rules have already changed.
In all of this chaos we have not heard from David Cameron. He must be furious and if I was him I would make a commitment now to lead the party into the 2020 election and beyond. It would have several effects in so far as any threat to Cameron's position would lose because he is greatly liked by the membership and would easily win an election for leader, it would close down the race for his succession and he would decimate Corbyn. Probably wont happen but if Cameron is angry enough who knows.
Till Patel challenges him and Heathite history repeats itself.
Cameron would win as he will be re-elected by the Membership
Cameron is not certain to get into a final two of a leadership challenge. And after the Deal, I'm not sure he would win Membership support. Nor would be be likely to bother....
I persuaded another 4 members to vote Cameron last time. He has even lost me as a supporter.
The Tories have wrapped up the next election in a beautiful parcel, put it on a gold plate and presented it to Labour. Labour has said "No thanks, we're in the middle of a very important argument about Trident renewal, we have no time to run the country".
TSE is correct, of course: Labour would be streets ahead with a credible leader. This is like post-92 election time, except the Tories can fight to their hearts' content. With Corbyn in charge of the opposition they have nothing to fear. It's very bad for the country though.
I think a narrow Tory victory, something like the reverse of 2005 is more likely now, than a repeat of the last election that I expected for 2020.
"Based on asset sale forecasts from the Office of Budget Responsibility, the Government is proposing to sell the remaining shares in RBS at a loss of almost £22 billion – recouping barely half the £45.5bn poured in to save the bank from collapsing in 2008."
"To put this scandalous loss in context, Gordon Brown lost the British public around £2 billion with his sale of British gold reserves in the early noughties. The episode is still remembered with apoplexy and anger, and is often touted as a sign of Labour’s profligacy and economic ineptitude.
By comparison, Osborne’s proposed losses on RBS are almost 11 times as great, and yet almost no one has batted an eyelid."
The Tories have wrapped up the next election in a beautiful parcel, put it on a gold plate and presented it to Labour. Labour has said "No thanks, we're in the middle of a very important argument about Trident renewal, we have no time to run the country".
TSE is correct, of course: Labour would be streets ahead with a credible leader. This is like post-92 election time, except the Tories can fight to their hearts' content. With Corbyn in charge of the opposition they have nothing to fear. It's very bad for the country though.
Cameron's reputation now lies in ruins,
No it isn't, not yet. Among more Tories than was previously the case, yes, but unlike Osborne, who is relying purely on luck on the world economy to salvage any of his reputation, Cameron still has a chance to win the referendum and see off the internal threats to his position and salvage his reputation. I think he will fail, and you will respond by saying he will be judged like Blair is now by most Labour supporters, but Cameron still has the chance for several more years, precisely because his reputation is not yet ruined. It may get there, but I think it is overreaching to suggest it is already.
One of the things that pisses me off most about successive governments is their failure to help pubs survive.
I've enjoyed some of the best moments of my life in pubs and made some great friends.. sad to see so many closing. It depresses me that my kids won't get to grow up in an era like the one I did, when - even before mobile phones made communication simpler - about two dozen friends would automatically gather together in a pub, and slam money into a good jukebox.
The world will be a less colourful place when they all close.
The trouble is so many of them are tennent landlords so the parent company sees more money in the pub as a property than as a pub.
The same happened to lots of city centre petrol stations a decade and a bit ago, they were profitable but their property value made them far more valuable to sell for the land.
I wouldn't worry too much Mortimer about persuading other Tories about the merits of keeping Cameron. Judging about how unpleasant, vile and just how damned insensitive you were the other night, I guess most sane folks give you the widest of widest berths.
So go persuading as many people as you like how to think. I doubt very many of them would be truthful to you anyhow.
In all of this chaos we have not heard from David Cameron. He must be furious and if I was him I would make a commitment now to lead the party into the 2020 election and beyond. It would have several effects in so far as any threat to Cameron's position would lose because he is greatly liked by the membership and would easily win an election for leader, it would close down the race for his succession and he would decimate Corbyn. Probably wont happen but if Cameron is angry enough who knows.
Till Patel challenges him and Heathite history repeats itself.
Cameron would win as he will be re-elected by the Membership
Cameron is not certain to get into a final two of a leadership challenge. And after the Deal, I'm not sure he would win Membership support. Nor would be be likely to bother....
I persuaded another 4 members to vote Cameron last time. He has even lost me as a supporter.
In all of this chaos we have not heard from David Cameron. He must be furious and if I was him I would make a commitment now to lead the party into the 2020 election and beyond. It would have several effects in so far as any threat to Cameron's position would lose because he is greatly liked by the membership and would easily win an election for leader, it would close down the race for his succession and he would decimate Corbyn. Probably wont happen but if Cameron is angry enough who knows.
Till Patel challenges him and Heathite history repeats itself.
Cameron would win as he will be re-elected by the Membership
Cameron is not certain to get into a final two of a leadership challenge. And after the Deal, I'm not sure he would win Membership support. Nor would be be likely to bother....
I persuaded another 4 members to vote Cameron last time. He has even lost me as a supporter.
The Tories have wrapped up the next election in a beautiful parcel, put it on a gold plate and presented it to Labour. Labour has said "No thanks, we're in the middle of a very important argument about Trident renewal, we have no time to run the country".
TSE is correct, of course: Labour would be streets ahead with a credible leader. This is like post-92 election time, except the Tories can fight to their hearts' content. With Corbyn in charge of the opposition they have nothing to fear. It's very bad for the country though.
It is extraordinary how the Tories have imploded. Cameron's reputation now lies in ruins, Osborne's has been actually levelled, and they've brought it all on themselves with appallingly bad political decisions, awful optics, inexcusable errors.
And they might still LOSE this referendum.
It's a very difficult tightrope for Cameron to walk: keeping his party together, and winning the referendum for Remain.
Right now, some are trying to grab hold and jiggle him off it, and he's deliberately jumping up and down on it, wobbling the rope back, hoping he can force them to let go.
"Based on asset sale forecasts from the Office of Budget Responsibility, the Government is proposing to sell the remaining shares in RBS at a loss of almost £22 billion – recouping barely half the £45.5bn poured in to save the bank from collapsing in 2008."
"To put this scandalous loss in context, Gordon Brown lost the British public around £2 billion with his sale of British gold reserves in the early noughties. The episode is still remembered with apoplexy and anger, and is often touted as a sign of Labour’s profligacy and economic ineptitude.
By comparison, Osborne’s proposed losses on RBS are almost 11 times as great, and yet almost no one has batted an eyelid."
When it rains it pours.
Who, we should ask, were the idiots who let Fred Goodwin's RBS accumulate all its bad loans and pay way over the odds for bad banks (Citizens, ING) and cap it all by using £billions of taxpayers' money to buy into this crock-of-sh*t?
Don't focus too much on what it is now worth - this is not G. Osborne's fault: as it states in George Stigler's 'Theory of Price' "historical costs holds powerful sway over untutored minds". If a man pays £250,000 for what he perceives is a diamond and it turns out to be a polished stone of much lower value, does he spend years trying to sell it for £250,000, or accept a much lower price and move on. With RBS (a share I lost a lorra money on), it may bbe time to move on.
One of the things that pisses me off most about successive governments is their failure to help pubs survive.
I've enjoyed some of the best moments of my life in pubs and made some great friends.. sad to see so many closing. It depresses me that my kids won't get to grow up in an era like the one I did, when - even before mobile phones made communication simpler - about two dozen friends would automatically gather together in a pub, and slam money into a good jukebox.
The world will be a less colourful place when they all close.
The trouble is so many of them are tennent landlords so the parent company sees more money in the pub as a property than as a pub.
The same happened to lots of city centre petrol stations a decade and a bit ago, they were profitable but their property value made them far more valuable to sell for the land.
Very true. It's really sad to have seen so many pubs closed that I have frequented at various points over the years. My home town Potters Bar on it's own has lost about 5 in the last few years,
"Based on asset sale forecasts from the Office of Budget Responsibility, the Government is proposing to sell the remaining shares in RBS at a loss of almost £22 billion – recouping barely half the £45.5bn poured in to save the bank from collapsing in 2008."
"To put this scandalous loss in context, Gordon Brown lost the British public around £2 billion with his sale of British gold reserves in the early noughties. The episode is still remembered with apoplexy and anger, and is often touted as a sign of Labour’s profligacy and economic ineptitude.
By comparison, Osborne’s proposed losses on RBS are almost 11 times as great, and yet almost no one has batted an eyelid."
When it rains it pours.
Who, we should ask, were the idiots who let Fred Goodwin's RBS accumulate all its bad loans and pay way over the odds for bad banks (Citizens, ING) and cap it all by using £billions of taxpayers' money to buy into this crock-of-sh*t?
Don't focus too much on what it is now worth - this is not G. Osborne's fault: as it states in George Stigler's 'Theory of Price' "historical costs holds powerful sway over untutored minds". If a man pays £250,000 for what he perceives is a diamond and it turns out to be a polished stone of much lower value, does he spend years trying to sell it for £250,000, or accept a much lower price and move on. With RBS (a share I lost a lorra money on), it may bbe time to move on.
Lloyds, Northern Rock and RBS need to be looked at in the round wrt sale and purchase price from the Gov't.
What this weekend has shown is that Osborne's parliamentary support is a mile wide but an inch deep.
His position seemed impregnable and impressive less than six months ago, but that was based on the fact he was the heir apparent with vast powers of patronage.
He's never really answered the question of what he offered as a candidate in his own right, (perhaps he didn't think it necessary other than being the obvious continuity-Cameroon choice) and therefore never built up a positive cadre of parliamentary support, with advocates for his agenda.
Too late now: if he doesn't look like he can win, he won't.
Corbyn is not as strong as Momentum, and the tory press, would like you to believe - they both have their own reasons for creating an aura of invincibility around him which is not borne out by events at the grassroots. The anti-Corbyn forces are now much more organised amongst the membership, and they have most MPs, Councillors and the party organisation on their side. A new leadership contest would not be a shoo-in for McDonnell or another Corbynite candidate.
I have a thread coming up on this in a day or two. I agree that a new leadership election wouldn't be a shoo-in. But it's entirely clear IMO that a PLP coup (in the sense of forcing a leadership election and keeping Corbyn off the ballot) would be resisted by the overwhelming majority of members - in fact, it's the only thing that would trigger a massive wave of deselections. Forcing a fresh election and excluding the current elected leader who got 60% is Thailand style politics.
I wouldn't worry too much Mortimer about persuading other Tories about the merits of keeping Cameron. Judging about how unpleasant, vile and just how damned insensitive you were the other night, I guess most sane folks give you the widest of widest berths.
So go persuading as many people as you like how to think. I doubt very many of them would be truthful to you anyhow.
In all of this chaos we have not heard from David Cameron. He must be furious and if I was him I would make a commitment now to lead the party into the 2020 election and beyond. It would have several effects in so far as any threat to Cameron's position would lose because he is greatly liked by the membership and would easily win an election for leader, it would close down the race for his succession and he would decimate Corbyn. Probably wont happen but if Cameron is angry enough who knows.
Till Patel challenges him and Heathite history repeats itself.
Cameron would win as he will be re-elected by the Membership
Cameron is not certain to get into a final two of a leadership challenge. And after the Deal, I'm not sure he would win Membership support. Nor would be be likely to bother....
I persuaded another 4 members to vote Cameron last time. He has even lost me as a supporter.
In all of this chaos we have not heard from David Cameron. He must be furious and if I was ...
Till Patel challenges him and Heathite history repeats itself.
Cameron would win as he will be re-elected by the Membership
Cameron is not certain to get into a final two of a leadership challenge. And after the Deal, I'm not sure he would win Membership support. Nor would be be likely to bother....
I persuaded another 4 members to vote Cameron last time. He has even lost me as a supporter.
That is how far his stock has fallen.
Tyson - I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.
You replied to a comment of mine about the NHS. You were understandably upset because of your circumstances (which I of course knew noting about until you replied quite upset to my comment).
I sent my condolences, which I meant and continue to mean heartfully. Our dialogue was then concluded.
Corbyn is not as strong as Momentum, and the tory press, would like you to believe - they both have their own reasons for creating an aura of invincibility around him which is not borne out by events at the grassroots. The anti-Corbyn forces are now much more organised amongst the membership, and they have most MPs, Councillors and the party organisation on their side. A new leadership contest would not be a shoo-in for McDonnell or another Corbynite candidate.
I have a thread coming up on this in a day or two. I agree that a new leadership election wouldn't be a shoo-in. But it's entirely clear IMO that a PLP coup (in the sense of forcing a leadership election and keeping Corbyn off the ballot) would be resisted by the overwhelming majority of members - in fact, it's the only thing that would trigger a massive wave of deselections. Forcing a fresh election and excluding the current elected leader who got 60% is Thailand style politics.
I'm not Labour but that seems intuitively right. Forcing an election for no particular reason would risky; trying to exclude the current leader is surely unthinkable; having only one candidate would be preposterous. Which ever way the candidates would have to face essentially the same electorate which elected Corbyn in the first place.
What this weekend has shown is that Osborne's parliamentary support is a mile wide but an inch deep.
His position seemed impregnable and impressive less than six months ago, but that was based on the fact he was the heir apparent with vast powers of patronage.
He's never really answered the question of what he offered as a candidate in his own right, (perhaps he didn't think it necessary other than being the obvious continuity-Cameroon choice) and therefore never built up a positive cadre of parliamentary support, with advocates for his agenda.
Too late now: if he doesn't look like he can win, he won't.
I am betting accordingly.
His descent from 'near perfect' to 'sub optimal' in such a short space of time has been remarkable.
To win the referendum, the government must look strong. There doesn't seem much chance of that. Expect surprises, but it's hard to envisage surprises that will help Remain. Most or all of the shocks, the headlines that get special attention, will help Leave.
The result of the 8 May elections is likely to be a haemorrhage for the Tories and big gains for UKIP. But even if that doesn't happen and the Tories do quite well, there's another feature of 8 May that's at least as important as the result: the Tory party - its local machines and networks - will be very active in the run-up to that date, and on the day itself. Its hardworking activists and its occasional activists will be fired up. They'll talk to each other; they'll share an experience; their identity as Tories will be renewed and revelled in. And since these people are overwhelmingly pro-Leave, I just can't imagine how Remain are going to get to the finishing line first. The Tory Leaveniks will be enthusiastic. One more push and we're out of the EU! Pull out all the stops! Let's show those darkies and single mothers once and for all! Them and those communists at the BBC too!
The probability of Leave implied by the Betfair exchange is back up to 33%, but the price of Leave looks amazingly attractive still.
Apologies Mortimer. I haven't revisited that night's posts, so I think I've probably been too quick to jump to judgements. I am really am sorry if I have misrepresented you which I appear to have done.
Tyson - I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.
You replied to a comment of mine about the NHS. You were understandably upset because of your circumstances (which I of course knew noting about until you replied quite upset to my comment).
I sent my condolences, which I meant and continue to mean heartfully. Our dialogue was then concluded.
Apologies Mortimer. I haven't revisited that night's posts, so I think I've probably been too quick to jump to judgements. I am really am sorry if I have misrepresented you which I appear to have done.
Tyson - I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.
You replied to a comment of mine about the NHS. You were understandably upset because of your circumstances (which I of course knew noting about until you replied quite upset to my comment).
I sent my condolences, which I meant and continue to mean heartfully. Our dialogue was then concluded.
No problem at all sir - I can well understand that you were upset, and your reluctance to revisit.
If we can't forgive the grieving, we're not much of a society at all. Nothing more needs to be said.
The same happened to lots of city centre petrol stations a decade and a bit ago, they were profitable but their property value made them far more valuable to sell for the land.
Most of the former petrol stations I see are being run as downmarket van hire or car wash places by impoverished Albanian or Romanian immigrants who live in them, keep chickens out the back, and have agreed some kind of non-aggression treaty with white gangsters.
"How delightfully this country has been run for the last 30 years!" I think to myself. The financial Babels reach ever higher in the "international" City of London, as the rest of the country sinks into the Third World. I mean, seriously, can anyone actually deny this?
The exceptions are only a very very few towns - Basingstoke, Reading, Cambridge, Stratford-on-Avon, Guildford, and not many others.
Britain would be safer if its defence policy was to have “cups of tea” with Isil terrorists rather than bomb them, one of Jeremy Corbyn’s key allies on Labour’s ruling body has said.
Christine Shawcroft, who sits on the party's National Executive Committee and is a senior figure in Momentum, said that soldiers should “get the teabags out” to solve the Syrian crisis rather than resorting to air strikes.
Can anyone recommend a book on American politics that is entertaining and informative, like a Bill Bryson style, accessible to someone whose only knowledge of the topic is having watched The West Wing? For my sister. Thanks
"What's the matter with America?" (apparently published as "What's the matter with Kansas?" in the USA) is quite an easy yet illuminating read. It centres on the rise of blue collar conservatism, particularly looking at how this formerly left wing populist state has become one of the staunchest Republican ones.
Very good but obviously a liberal perspective. Equally from one side, but very good is Obama's book during his first Senate term, Audacity of Hope.
Frank is from Kansas originally so he is unusually sympathetic for a WSJ writer, and does critique the Democrats in the book too. It is not a tirade against the US Right but rather an exploration of why it has attractions to poor Americans. One of its opening points is that the poorest county in the USA (in West Nebraska) voted 80% Republican.
Some of its conclusions are applicable to our own kippers too. I can recommend it, even though it is a decade old.
Britain would be safer if its defence policy was to have “cups of tea” with Isil terrorists rather than bomb them, one of Jeremy Corbyn’s key allies on Labour’s ruling body has said.
Christine Shawcroft, who sits on the party's National Executive Committee and is a senior figure in Momentum, said that soldiers should “get the teabags out” to solve the Syrian crisis rather than resorting to air strikes.
The feisty competition to be the Stupidest Political Party in the UK continues to intensify.
This is why some Tories think they are going to win in 2020.
Ok electorate, we might be heartless bastards who shaft the poor and are obsessed about the EU, but we're not loonies and a national security risk like that Corbyn chap
Can anyone recommend a book on American politics that is entertaining and informative, like a Bill Bryson style, accessible to someone whose only knowledge of the topic is having watched The West Wing? For my sister. Thanks
"What's the matter with America?" (apparently published as "What's the matter with Kansas?" in the USA) is quite an easy yet illuminating read. It centres on the rise of blue collar conservatism, particularly looking at how this formerly left wing populist state has become one of the staunchest Republican ones.
Very good but obviously a liberal perspective. Equally from one side, but very good is Obama's book during his first Senate term, Audacity of Hope.
Frank is from Kansas originally so he is unusually sympathetic for a WSJ writer, and does critique the Democrats in the book too. It is not a tirade against the US Right but rather an exploration of why it has attractions to poor Americans. One of its opening points is that the poorest county in the USA (in West Nebraska) voted 80% Republican.
Some of its conclusions are applicable to our own kippers too. I can recommend it, even though it is a decade old.
Thanks all!
It's not quite what you were after, but can I recommend Robert Caro's biographies of LBJ.
The same happened to lots of city centre petrol stations a decade and a bit ago, they were profitable but their property value made them far more valuable to sell for the land.
Most of the former petrol stations I see are being run as downmarket van hire or car wash places by impoverished Albanian or Romanian immigrants who live in them, keep chickens out the back, and have agreed some kind of non-aggression treaty with white gangsters.
"How delightfully this country has been run for the last 30 years!" I think to myself. The financial Babels reach ever higher in the "international" City of London, as the rest of the country sinks into the Third World. I mean, seriously, can anyone actually deny this?
The exceptions are only a very very few towns - Basingstoke, Reading, Cambridge, Stratford-on-Avon, Guildford, and not many others.
I have to say that the "Kosovar car wash" on Humberstone rd in Leicester does an excellent job at a bargain price. Not worth getting my own sponge out.
Very true. It's really sad to have seen so many pubs closed that I have frequented at various points over the years. My home town Potters Bar on it's own has lost about 5 in the last few years,
They're suffering like most forms of collective enjoyment - for instance, football crowds are well down on what they were in my youth. There's not exactly a shortage -there can't be many places without a pub in walking distance - but the choice is narrowing.
I saw it seriously claimed recently that research shows that teenage pregnancy is falling partly because kids mostly socialise through social media these days, and you can't get pregnant that way. I should like to see the data on that before I believed it, but the general trend is clear.
Very true. It's really sad to have seen so many pubs closed that I have frequented at various points over the years. My home town Potters Bar on it's own has lost about 5 in the last few years,
I saw it seriously claimed recently that research shows that teenage pregnancy is falling partly because kids mostly socialise through social media these days, and you can't get pregnant that way. I should like to see the data on that before I believed it
It is a funny idea. I suppose since people don't have to meet up to speak to each other, it reduces the opportunity for, shall we say, spontaneous happenings
Britain would be safer if its defence policy was to have “cups of tea” with Isil terrorists rather than bomb them, one of Jeremy Corbyn’s key allies on Labour’s ruling body has said.
Christine Shawcroft, who sits on the party's National Executive Committee and is a senior figure in Momentum, said that soldiers should “get the teabags out” to solve the Syrian crisis rather than resorting to air strikes.
Britain would be safer if its defence policy was to have “cups of tea” with Isil terrorists rather than bomb them, one of Jeremy Corbyn’s key allies on Labour’s ruling body has said.
Christine Shawcroft, who sits on the party's National Executive Committee and is a senior figure in Momentum, said that soldiers should “get the teabags out” to solve the Syrian crisis rather than resorting to air strikes.
Can anyone recommend a book on American politics that is entertaining and informative, like a Bill Bryson style, accessible to someone whose only knowledge of the topic is having watched The West Wing? For my sister. Thanks
Bit late, but I would recommend:
Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government by P. J. O'Rourke
Very funny, but as it is O'Rourke I suppose I ought to warn that he's not exactly afraid of offending people.
Corbyn is not as strong as Momentum, and the tory press, would like you to believe - they both have their own reasons for creating an aura of invincibility around him which is not borne out by events at the grassroots. The anti-Corbyn forces are now much more organised amongst the membership, and they have most MPs, Councillors and the party organisation on their side. A new leadership contest would not be a shoo-in for McDonnell or another Corbynite candidate.
I have a thread coming up on this in a day or two. I agree that a new leadership election wouldn't be a shoo-in. But it's entirely clear IMO that a PLP coup (in the sense of forcing a leadership election and keeping Corbyn off the ballot) would be resisted by the overwhelming majority of members - in fact, it's the only thing that would trigger a massive wave of deselections. Forcing a fresh election and excluding the current elected leader who got 60% is Thailand style politics.
I think that some sort of staged contest without Corbyn (assuming that he would contest) would be totally destructive for the party. Corbyns successor, whenever that is, has to have the broad backing of the party to be viable. A hunger to be back in power and an agenda of what that means are essential precursors. That is what got the party behind New Labour.
Simply being a nicer version of Cameron was not enough for the 3 alternatives to Corbyn (though actually being a nicer version of any PM is not a bad start). It is possible that a major bust up in the Tories, putting some nasty Little Englander into number 10 could be an excellent foil for a compassionate centre-left candidate. I can see some merit in a Labour contest taking place after the Tory one, which seems inevitable later this year.
But this is not new - IDS pals said that other cuts to non-pension welfare will replace them
+1... The reason why IDS resigned was not the fact PIP was a bad idea but that the £1.2bn saved was written into the budget and DWP's budget had been cut by £1.2bn.
Now that budget cut was still in place but PIP couldn't be used as the source of this £1.2bn saving. Given that pensioners are excluded from any cuts in benefits Mr Crabb is going to have a very hide time finding that amount of money....
The same happened to lots of city centre petrol stations a decade and a bit ago, they were profitable but their property value made them far more valuable to sell for the land.
Most of the former petrol stations I see are being run as downmarket van hire or car wash places by impoverished Albanian or Romanian immigrants who live in them, keep chickens out the back, and have agreed some kind of non-aggression treaty with white gangsters.
"How delightfully this country has been run for the last 30 years!" I think to myself. The financial Babels reach ever higher in the "international" City of London, as the rest of the country sinks into the Third World. I mean, seriously, can anyone actually deny this?
The exceptions are only a very very few towns - Basingstoke, Reading, Cambridge, Stratford-on-Avon, Guildford, and not many others.
I have to say that the "Kosovar car wash" on Humberstone rd in Leicester does an excellent job at a bargain price. Not worth getting my own sponge out.
There was a car wash in Maryhill up the street from me while I lived in Glasgow that I had always assumed was a front for drug sales so busy both day and night (queues into the road after dark). But according to nearby car owning friends they just offered the very best car wash in the town at a bargain price.
Britain would be safer if its defence policy was to have “cups of tea” with Isil terrorists rather than bomb them, one of Jeremy Corbyn’s key allies on Labour’s ruling body has said.
Christine Shawcroft, who sits on the party's National Executive Committee and is a senior figure in Momentum, said that soldiers should “get the teabags out” to solve the Syrian crisis rather than resorting to air strikes.
The same happened to lots of city centre petrol stations a decade and a bit ago, they were profitable but their property value made them far more valuable to sell for the land.
Most of the former petrol stations I see are being run as downmarket van hire or car wash places by impoverished Albanian or Romanian immigrants who live in them, keep chickens out the back, and have agreed some kind of non-aggression treaty with white gangsters.
"How delightfully this country has been run for the last 30 years!" I think to myself. The financial Babels reach ever higher in the "international" City of London, as the rest of the country sinks into the Third World. I mean, seriously, can anyone actually deny this?
The exceptions are only a very very few towns - Basingstoke, Reading, Cambridge, Stratford-on-Avon, Guildford, and not many others.
I have to say that the "Kosovar car wash" on Humberstone rd in Leicester does an excellent job at a bargain price. Not worth getting my own sponge out.
I always find it a tough one.
If I use a hand car wash I know the washers are exploited. I don't want to encourage that.
If I don't use them, they are worse off.
It is a no win situation, but in balance I keep a dirty car.
Can anyone recommend a book on American politics that is entertaining and informative, like a Bill Bryson style, accessible to someone whose only knowledge of the topic is having watched The West Wing? For my sister. Thanks
Bit late, but I would recommend:
Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government by P. J. O'Rourke
Very funny, but as it is O'Rourke I suppose I ought to warn that he's not exactly afraid of offending people.
Is that from his early good phase or from his later embittered looney phase?
Very true. It's really sad to have seen so many pubs closed that I have frequented at various points over the years. My home town Potters Bar on it's own has lost about 5 in the last few years,
They're suffering like most forms of collective enjoyment - for instance, football crowds are well down on what they were in my youth. There's not exactly a shortage -there can't be many places without a pub in walking distance - but the choice is narrowing.
I saw it seriously claimed recently that research shows that teenage pregnancy is falling partly because kids mostly socialise through social media these days, and you can't get pregnant that way. I should like to see the data on that before I believed it, but the general trend is clear.
Football crowds are certainly not "down on what they were in your youth".
Attendance at English football grounds troughed in the 1970s. Since the reforms of the 80s (Thatcher-led!) there has been almost continuous growth, and the biggest clubs now have enormous stadiums - MUFC average 75,000 for a home game
And its not just in the Premiership. The Championship has the fifth highest attendances in Europe.
The rugby in Leicester often sells out too. Cricket gets good crowds for 2020 matches, even as county cricket dies.
Summer music festivals (despite our climate!) take place almost every weekend in the summer with attendances in the 5 or 6 figures.
Set-piece events seem more popular than ever, it is the smaller scale spontaneous social events that are struggling.
* peak football attendances were in the 1940s or so. Leicester City had 48 000 plus at Filbert st in 1948, compared to 32000 now. There were limited other entertainments then though!
Can anyone recommend a book on American politics that is entertaining and informative, like a Bill Bryson style, accessible to someone whose only knowledge of the topic is having watched The West Wing? For my sister. Thanks
Bit late, but I would recommend:
Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government by P. J. O'Rourke
Very funny, but as it is O'Rourke I suppose I ought to warn that he's not exactly afraid of offending people.
Is that from his early good phase or from his later embittered looney phase?
Early. And very funny. Came out around the same time as Holidays in Hell I think.
But this is not new - IDS pals said that other cuts to non-pension welfare will replace them
+1... The reason why IDS resigned was not the fact PIP was a bad idea but that the £1.2bn saved was written into the budget and DWP's budget had been cut by £1.2bn.
Now that budget cut was still in place but PIP couldn't be used as the source of this £1.2bn saving. Given that pensioners are excluded from any cuts in benefits Mr Crabb is going to have a very hide time finding that amount of money....
Paul Johnson of the IFS has just said on the news that it can be absorbed as it is a small amount in the context of Government spending. If that is the case why did GO and IDS bother.
It's worth remembering that it was not the - principally - the shareholders or bankers of RBS who were bailed out, but the depositors. Imagine your company has its bank account with RBS: suddenly your account has been frozen and you can't pay salaries! The knock-on effects throughout the economy would have been horrendous.
The 44 billions spent on RBS, and the similarly huge sums spent on Lloyds, Northern Rock and others, were spent because the alternative - a complete freezing of the banking system would have been horrendous. It's important to remember that money in the bank is nothing of the sort. When you deposit money with your bank, you have become an unsecured creditor of a highly leveraged financial corporation. You gain convenience, and (in the old days at least) a smidgen of interest, but you also take on credit risk.
Very true. It's really sad to have seen so many pubs closed that I have frequented at various points over the years. My home town Potters Bar on it's own has lost about 5 in the last few years,
They're suffering like most forms of collective enjoyment - for instance, football crowds are well down on what they were in my youth. There's not exactly a shortage -there can't be many places without a pub in walking distance - but the choice is narrowing.
I saw it seriously claimed recently that research shows that teenage pregnancy is falling partly because kids mostly socialise through social media these days, and you can't get pregnant that way. I should like to see the data on that before I believed it, but the general trend is clear.
Football crowds are certainly not "down on what they were in your youth".
Attendance at English football grounds troughed in the 1970s. Since the reforms of the 80s (Thatcher-led!) there has been almost continuous growth, and the biggest clubs now have enormous stadiums - MUFC average 75,000 for a home game
And its not just in the Premiership. The Championship has the fifth highest attendances in Europe.
The rugby in Leicester often sells out too. Cricket gets good crowds for 2020 matches, even as county cricket dies.
Summer music festivals (despite our climate!) take place almost every weekend in the summer with attendances in the 5 or 6 figures.
Set-piece events seem more popular than ever, it is the smaller scale spontaneous social events that are struggling.
* peak football attendances were in the 1940s or so. Leicester City had 48 000 plus at Filbert st in 1948, compared to 32000 now. There were limited other entertainments then though!
Speedway and greyhound racing were popular in those days too.
Can anyone recommend a book on American politics that is entertaining and informative, like a Bill Bryson style, accessible to someone whose only knowledge of the topic is having watched The West Wing? For my sister. Thanks
Bit late, but I would recommend:
Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government by P. J. O'Rourke
Very funny, but as it is O'Rourke I suppose I ought to warn that he's not exactly afraid of offending people.
Is that from his early good phase or from his later embittered looney phase?
Early. And very funny. Came out around the same time as Holidays in Hell I think.
But this is not new - IDS pals said that other cuts to non-pension welfare will replace them
+1... The reason why IDS resigned was not the fact PIP was a bad idea but that the £1.2bn saved was written into the budget and DWP's budget had been cut by £1.2bn.
Now that budget cut was still in place but PIP couldn't be used as the source of this £1.2bn saving. Given that pensioners are excluded from any cuts in benefits Mr Crabb is going to have a very hide time finding that amount of money....
Paul Johnson of the IFS has just said on the news that it can be absorbed as it is a small amount in the context of Government spending. If that is the case why did GO and IDS bother.
Because if the DWP have to make cuts they can only come from a very limited set of options.
Supposedly the problem is that while the DWP could make the £1.2bn in Pip cuts (and had a justification for doing it - which ironically seems to be due to a EU court) the fact they are explicitly included in the budget meant that GO would have to change his budget.
What I guess happened is decision made to bin the cut. IDS says that GO needed to amend the DWP budget, GO said no and IDS resigned rather than argue further...
IDS gets to walk away before the Universal Credit reports come out and attack GO at the same time...
Can anyone recommend a book on American politics that is entertaining and informative, like a Bill Bryson style, accessible to someone whose only knowledge of the topic is having watched The West Wing? For my sister. Thanks
Bit late, but I would recommend:
Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government by P. J. O'Rourke
Very funny, but as it is O'Rourke I suppose I ought to warn that he's not exactly afraid of offending people.
Is that from his early good phase or from his later embittered looney phase?
It came out in 1991 so I'd put it in the early good phase, and second to only Holidays in Hell.
I'm very surprised that with all the patronage of his office a whole day has gone by without IDS being slaughtered. In fact he seems to have been given a free pass to do and say whatever he fancies without rebuttal.
Perhaps they're working on the basis that given enough rope he'll hang himself. A very risky strategy given how difficult vampires are to destroy
More likely he is right in what he is saying and any denial by No 10 or No 11 would become a hostage to fortune.
Corbyn is not as strong as Momentum, and the tory press, would like you to believe - they both have their own reasons for creating an aura of invincibility around him which is not borne out by events at the grassroots. The anti-Corbyn forces are now much more organised amongst the membership, and they have most MPs, Councillors and the party organisation on their side. A new leadership contest would not be a shoo-in for McDonnell or another Corbynite candidate.
I have a thread coming up on this in a day or two. I agree that a new leadership election wouldn't be a shoo-in. But it's entirely clear IMO that a PLP coup (in the sense of forcing a leadership election and keeping Corbyn off the ballot) would be resisted by the overwhelming majority of members - in fact, it's the only thing that would trigger a massive wave of deselections. Forcing a fresh election and excluding the current elected leader who got 60% is Thailand style politics.
I disagree. The new members are merely a political flashmob who have done nothing for the party apart from foist Corbyn on it. They are not engaged in campaigning or active in any other way. There is no mechanism by which they could resist a single candidate agreed by the PLP. Maybe they would resign their membership but since they don't do anything for the party anyway they would not be missed. In fact the sooner they go the better.
It's worth remembering that it was not the - principally - the shareholders or bankers of RBS who were bailed out, but the depositors. Imagine your company has its bank account with RBS: suddenly your account has been frozen and you can't pay salaries! The knock-on effects throughout the economy would have been horrendous.
The 44 billions spent on RBS, and the similarly huge sums spent on Lloyds, Northern Rock and others, were spent because the alternative - a complete freezing of the banking system would have been horrendous. It's important to remember that money in the bank is nothing of the sort. When you deposit money with your bank, you have become an unsecured creditor of a highly leveraged financial corporation. You gain convenience, and (in the old days at least) a smidgen of interest, but you also take on credit risk.
As RBS was about to go under, it probably did need govt intervention, and investing in whatever form in such a company fraught with risk of losses.
The Criticism of Osborne for what it is worth now is much less valid than criticism of Labour for allowing such a state of affairs to develop and then paying too much. They could probably had it for free if they had waited a couple of days longer.
Can anyone recommend a book on American politics that is entertaining and informative, like a Bill Bryson style, accessible to someone whose only knowledge of the topic is having watched The West Wing? For my sister. Thanks
Bit late, but I would recommend:
Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government by P. J. O'Rourke
Very funny, but as it is O'Rourke I suppose I ought to warn that he's not exactly afraid of offending people.
Is that from his early good phase or from his later embittered looney phase?
It came out in 1991 so I'd put it in the early good phase, and second to only Holidays in Hell.
His description of Heritage America in Holidays in Hell is one of the best bits of writing I have ever read:
Dorothy and I came to scoff – but went away converted.
Unfortunately we were converted to Satanism. Now we’re up half he night going to witch’s sabbaths and have to spend our free time reciting the Lord’s Prayer backward and scouring the neighbourhood for black dogs to sacrifice. Frankly, it’s a nuisance, but if it keeps us from going to the Heritage USA part of heaven, it will be worth it.
It's worth remembering that it was not the - principally - the shareholders or bankers of RBS who were bailed out, but the depositors. Imagine your company has its bank account with RBS: suddenly your account has been frozen and you can't pay salaries! The knock-on effects throughout the economy would have been horrendous.
The 44 billions spent on RBS, and the similarly huge sums spent on Lloyds, Northern Rock and others, were spent because the alternative - a complete freezing of the banking system would have been horrendous. It's important to remember that money in the bank is nothing of the sort. When you deposit money with your bank, you have become an unsecured creditor of a highly leveraged financial corporation. You gain convenience, and (in the old days at least) a smidgen of interest, but you also take on credit risk.
As RBS was about to go under, it probably did need govt intervention, and investing in whatever form in such a company fraught with risk of losses.
The Criticism of Osborne for what it is worth now is much less valid than criticism of Labour for allowing such a state of affairs to develop and then paying too much. They could probably had it for free if they had waited a couple of days longer.
While that's possibly true, they own 92% of RBS and all the money that was spent was spent on keeping it afloat. They would have saved 8% if they have bought it - a la Northern Rock - from the administrators.
Corbyn is not as strong as Momentum, and the tory press, would like you to believe - they both have their own reasons for creating an aura of invincibility around him which is not borne out by events at the grassroots. The anti-Corbyn forces are now much more organised amongst the membership, and they have most MPs, Councillors and the party organisation on their side. A new leadership contest would not be a shoo-in for McDonnell or another Corbynite candidate.
I have a thread coming up on this in a day or two. I agree that a new leadership election wouldn't be a shoo-in. But it's entirely clear IMO that a PLP coup (in the sense of forcing a leadership election and keeping Corbyn off the ballot) would be resisted by the overwhelming majority of members - in fact, it's the only thing that would trigger a massive wave of deselections. Forcing a fresh election and excluding the current elected leader who got 60% is Thailand style politics.
I disagree. The new members are merely a political flashmob who have done nothing for the party apart from foist Corbyn on it. They are not engaged in campaigning or active in any other way. There is no mechanism by which they could resist a single candidate agreed by the PLP. Maybe they would resign their membership but since they don't do anything for the party anyway they would not be missed. In fact the sooner they go the better.
Not true. Corbyn did well with the 3 quidders but won with the existing members too. Allowing members to join in order to vote was daft, but not the cause.
There was a desire for fresh faces and away from the duplicity of the New Labour years. While some never bought into New Labour in the first place, others had grown to despise the people and machine rather than centralist ideas.
But this is not new - IDS pals said that other cuts to non-pension welfare will replace them
+1... The reason why IDS resigned was not the fact PIP was a bad idea but that the £1.2bn saved was written into the budget and DWP's budget had been cut by £1.2bn.
Now that budget cut was still in place but PIP couldn't be used as the source of this £1.2bn saving. Given that pensioners are excluded from any cuts in benefits Mr Crabb is going to have a very hide time finding that amount of money....
Paul Johnson of the IFS has just said on the news that it can be absorbed as it is a small amount in the context of Government spending. If that is the case why did GO and IDS bother.
Because if the DWP have to make cuts they can only come from a very limited set of options.
Supposedly the problem is that while the DWP could make the £1.2bn in Pip cuts (and had a justification for doing it - which ironically seems to be due to a EU court) the fact they are explicitly included in the budget meant that GO would have to change his budget.
What I guess happened is decision made to bin the cut. IDS says that GO needed to amend the DWP budget, GO said no and IDS resigned rather than argue further...
IDS gets to walk away before the Universal Credit reports come out and attack GO at the same time...
Yes that is a good explanation but Paul Johnson seemed to suggest to forget the £1.2bn altogether
Britain would be safer if its defence policy was to have “cups of tea” with Isil terrorists rather than bomb them, one of Jeremy Corbyn’s key allies on Labour’s ruling body has said.
Christine Shawcroft, who sits on the party's National Executive Committee and is a senior figure in Momentum, said that soldiers should “get the teabags out” to solve the Syrian crisis rather than resorting to air strikes.
The feisty competition to be the Stupidest Political Party in the UK continues to intensify.
This is why some Tories think they are going to win in 2020.
Ok electorate, we might be heartless bastards who shaft the poor and are obsessed about the EU, but we're not loonies and a national security risk like that Corbyn chap
All these shenanigans by both Tories and Labour will make UKIP look good in the near term. Now theres a thing.
Britain would be safer if its defence policy was to have “cups of tea” with Isil terrorists rather than bomb them, one of Jeremy Corbyn’s key allies on Labour’s ruling body has said.
Christine Shawcroft, who sits on the party's National Executive Committee and is a senior figure in Momentum, said that soldiers should “get the teabags out” to solve the Syrian crisis rather than resorting to air strikes.
The feisty competition to be the Stupidest Political Party in the UK continues to intensify.
This is why some Tories think they are going to win in 2020.
Ok electorate, we might be heartless bastards who shaft the poor and are obsessed about the EU, but we're not loonies and a national security risk like that Corbyn chap
But this is not new - IDS pals said that other cuts to non-pension welfare will replace them
+1... The reason why IDS resigned was not the fact PIP was a bad idea but that the £1.2bn saved was written into the budget and DWP's budget had been cut by £1.2bn.
Now that budget cut was still in place but PIP couldn't be used as the source of this £1.2bn saving. Given that pensioners are excluded from any cuts in benefits Mr Crabb is going to have a very hide time finding that amount of money....
Paul Johnson of the IFS has just said on the news that it can be absorbed as it is a small amount in the context of Government spending. If that is the case why did GO and IDS bother.
Because if the DWP have to make cuts they can only come from a very limited set of options.
Supposedly the problem is that while the DWP could make the £1.2bn in Pip cuts (and had a justification for doing it - which ironically seems to be due to a EU court) the fact they are explicitly included in the budget meant that GO would have to change his budget.
What I guess happened is decision made to bin the cut. IDS says that GO needed to amend the DWP budget, GO said no and IDS resigned rather than argue further...
IDS gets to walk away before the Universal Credit reports come out and attack GO at the same time...
Yes that is a good explanation but Paul Johnson seemed to suggest to forget the £1.2bn altogether
But I think that shows why GO had to amend the budget.
Don't forget that the DWP expenditure is covered by the welfare cap and if GO reduced that cap by £1.2bn to reflect the PIP changes (as he supposedly did) forgetting PIP without changing the cap back to the original figure means that that £1.2bn has to found in other parts of the welfare budget....
I'm very surprised that with all the patronage of his office a whole day has gone by without IDS being slaughtered. In fact he seems to have been given a free pass to do and say whatever he fancies without rebuttal.
Perhaps they're working on the basis that given enough rope he'll hang himself. A very risky strategy given how difficult vampires are to destroy
More likely he is right in what he is saying and any denial by No 10 or No 11 would become a hostage to fortune.
May be the words of Graham Brady chair of the 1922 has been heeded and sense has prevailed?
But this is not new - IDS pals said that other cuts to non-pension welfare will replace them
+1... The reason why IDS resigned was not the fact PIP was a bad idea but that the £1.2bn saved was written into the budget and DWP's budget had been cut by £1.2bn.
Now that budget cut was still in place but PIP couldn't be used as the source of this £1.2bn saving. Given that pensioners are excluded from any cuts in benefits Mr Crabb is going to have a very hide time finding that amount of money....
Paul Johnson of the IFS has just said on the news that it can be absorbed as it is a small amount in the context of Government spending. If that is the case why did GO and IDS bother.
Because if the DWP have to make cuts they can only come from a very limited set of options.
Supposedly the problem is that while the DWP could make the £1.2bn in Pip cuts (and had a justification for doing it - which ironically seems to be due to a EU court) the fact they are explicitly included in the budget meant that GO would have to change his budget.
What I guess happened is decision made to bin the cut. IDS says that GO needed to amend the DWP budget, GO said no and IDS resigned rather than argue further...
IDS gets to walk away before the Universal Credit reports come out and attack GO at the same time...
Yes that is a good explanation but Paul Johnson seemed to suggest to forget the £1.2bn altogether
But I think that shows why GO to amend the budget.
Don't forget that the DWP expenditure is covered by the welfare cap and if GO reduced that cap by £1.2bn to reflect the PIP changes (as he supposedly did) forgetting PIP without changing the cap back to the original figure means that that £1.2bn has to found in other parts of the welfare budget....
Britain would be safer if its defence policy was to have “cups of tea” with Isil terrorists rather than bomb them, one of Jeremy Corbyn’s key allies on Labour’s ruling body has said.
Christine Shawcroft, who sits on the party's National Executive Committee and is a senior figure in Momentum, said that soldiers should “get the teabags out” to solve the Syrian crisis rather than resorting to air strikes.
The feisty competition to be the Stupidest Political Party in the UK continues to intensify.
This is why some Tories think they are going to win in 2020.
Ok electorate, we might be heartless bastards who shaft the poor and are obsessed about the EU, but we're not loonies and a national security risk like that Corbyn chap
TSE = Tedious Tory Twat
I'm surprised how many repeats there are on the Sunil_Prasannan broadcasting service...
But I'd expect Cameron to survive it - damaged. The assumption is that the bulk of the Brexiter MPs will vote for his head. But I think that assumption is fundamentally flawed.
The alternative is not clear, so he'll get c. 60-70 MPs voting against him, another 20-30 abstentions, and a couple of hundred backing him.
He'd need to lose more than half the backbenches to fall, IMHO - about 115+MPs voting against him, including plenty of those in marginal seats.
Corbyn is not as strong as Momentum, and the tory press, would like you to believe - they both have their own reasons for creating an aura of invincibility around him which is not borne out by events at the grassroots. The anti-Corbyn forces are now much more organised amongst the membership, and they have most MPs, Councillors and the party organisation on their side. A new leadership contest would not be a shoo-in for McDonnell or another Corbynite candidate.
I have a thread coming up on this in a day or two. I agree that a new leadership election wouldn't be a shoo-in. But it's entirely clear IMO that a PLP coup (in the sense of forcing a leadership election and keeping Corbyn off the ballot) would be resisted by the overwhelming majority of members - in fact, it's the only thing that would trigger a massive wave of deselections. Forcing a fresh election and excluding the current elected leader who got 60% is Thailand style politics.
I disagree. The new members are merely a political flashmob who have done nothing for the party apart from foist Corbyn on it. They are not engaged in campaigning or active in any other way. There is no mechanism by which they could resist a single candidate agreed by the PLP. Maybe they would resign their membership but since they don't do anything for the party anyway they would not be missed. In fact the sooner they go the better.
Not true. Corbyn did well with the 3 quidders but won with the existing members too. Allowing members to join in order to vote was daft, but not the cause.
There was a desire for fresh faces and away from the duplicity of the New Labour years. While some never bought into New Labour in the first place, others had grown to despise the people and machine rather than centralist ideas.
Corbyn got just under 50% of first preferences of all members, both new and old - no doubt he did better amongst new members and worse amongst old ones but there is no hard data on this. His final percentage was boosted by his vote amongst registered supporters, which he won by an overwhelming margin. However he does not have the support of key activists, particularly councillors, who have been alienated by threats of deselection made by his supporters. No one seriously supposes he can win an election and I do not think a coup against him would be met with much resistance from the party structure, since most of it does not support him anyway.
The Tories have wrapped up the next election in a beautiful parcel, put it on a gold plate and presented it to Labour. Labour has said "No thanks, we're in the middle of a very important argument about Trident renewal, we have no time to run the country".
TSE is correct, of course: Labour would be streets ahead with a credible leader. This is like post-92 election time, except the Tories can fight to their hearts' content. With Corbyn in charge of the opposition they have nothing to fear. It's very bad for the country though.
Cameron's reputation now lies in ruins,
indeed, you are quite correct (I typed my comment while talking to someone else)
I should have said Cameron's reputation with A LARGE PART OF THE TORY PARTY lies in ruins, which I think it does.
With the rest of the party and the wider electorate he has a chance of salvaging something, if he wins the referendum comfortably (still very possible), neutralises the Tory civil war by promoting Boris and Gove etc (I think he will have to be magnanimous to quell the tensions), and then handing over in 2018 in a judicious way, probably to Boris or some other skeptic.
If he does all that he will still be seen as a reasonably good PM who made some shocking mistakes in his second term, but on the whole, not bad. Coulda been a lot worse. Macmillian of his day. Etc.
But it's now quite a difficult path from here to there - and he needs the economy to stay strong, as well. He has certainly made things very much harder for himself.
That EU "deal" was the killer. Just awful. How could he not have seen that? Everything stems from the deal. So many Tories wanted him to come home with something good, and they'd now be loyal REMAINIANS. Not only did he come home with a piece of dreck, he then insulted everyone by pretending he'd won the diplomatic battle of the century.
Grotesque misjudgement.
As bad as that was, he could have survived it. But he then piled on by gagging Leave ministers, while touring the studios himself. Then agreeing he wouldn't do that any more, and then did it a bit more. Then stopping Leave ministers from accessing information about the EU. Then suggesting Boris was just being careerist in backing Leave. Then using jungle camps in Kent nonsense. Then claiming Norway had no input on EU rules. Then claiming Leavers think there will be job losses and don't care.
Cameron seems to think his subordinates in the Tory party are like his fags at Eton that he can abuse at will.
But I'd expect Cameron to survive it - damaged. The assumption is that the bulk of the Brexiter MPs will vote for his head. But I think that assumption is fundamentally flawed.
The alternative is not clear, so he'll get c. 60-70 MPs voting against him, another 20-30 abstentions, and a couple of hundred backing him.
He'd need to lose more than half the backbenches to fall, IMHO - about 115+MPs voting against him, including plenty of those in marginal seats.
It is not going to be a quiet summer no matter what happens.
Comments
Mild civil war yes, but stability no.
Can you imagine the present infighting going on for years ?
And now they certainly wouldn't, nor is it as obvious he would win any challenge, or win by enough to shut down dissent. The anti-Cameroons were already energised by the referendum, and increased in number, and IDS has now made it an even more personal fight and many have sided with him. Plenty want Cameron gone now, not even waiting as they were before, and those people won't go away even if Cameron reverses his stance on not carrying on.
Oh, and a 3 line whip on the vote, with a definite deselection with no honours for any that dissent!
I adore pubs. I live in Italy. A bottle of supermarket peroni in Italy costs me 30p, and a pint in the local pub (OK it is Italy, but it is very lovely, authentic, Irish pub) a half mile, uphill walk costs me £5. Guess what, I walk through hail, snow, sweeping wind storms just to pay that £5 for a pint. It is the highlight of my day. Everyday. Each and everyday. I think if I had to pay double or treble for that one beer I would do it. I always tip the barman 2 Euros and spend a leisurely and lovely half an hour enjoying that pint, reading, or talking to whoever.
When I come back to the UK, my highlight is going to the pub for one beer, eating an Indian (king prawn madras plus papadams) and going to the cinema (picturehouse) in that order, finished off by watching MoD. That is my perfect day. Bliss...
http://moveyourmoney.org.uk/budget-2016/
"Based on asset sale forecasts from the Office of Budget Responsibility, the Government is proposing to sell the remaining shares in RBS at a loss of almost £22 billion – recouping barely half the £45.5bn poured in to save the bank from collapsing in 2008."
"To put this scandalous loss in context, Gordon Brown lost the British public around £2 billion with his sale of British gold reserves in the early noughties. The episode is still remembered with apoplexy and anger, and is often touted as a sign of Labour’s profligacy and economic ineptitude.
By comparison, Osborne’s proposed losses on RBS are almost 11 times as great, and yet almost no one has batted an eyelid."
When it rains it pours.
https://vimeo.com/159671084
I pointed put the taxpayer would never recoup the loss and the best thing was to break up the bank to create more competition in the current oligopoly. ThIs at least would have the effect of improving competitvness in the economy.
Needless to say the cameroons all insisted we;d get our money back and more.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/george-osborne-is-the-most-over-rated-politician-in-britain/
Plus: if you are a young person facing job competition from millions of other young people, you will probably not be eager to booze mid-week or to be known to. It seems to fall off immediately after uni
Plus: less cooking skills combined with hyper-awareness about junk food means if people are going to drink they might like food too, and not necessarily greasy chips
There is also a definite sizable percentage of youngsters that are overly concerned about how they look, and spend hours in the gym and don't want to ruin their "shred" by boozing every week...instead they save it for the summer holidays.
http://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
TSE is correct, of course: Labour would be streets ahead with a credible leader. This is like post-92 election time, except the Tories can fight to their hearts' content. With Corbyn in charge of the opposition they have nothing to fear. It's very bad for the country though.
http://tinyurl.com/zbqcned
I persuaded another 4 members to vote Cameron last time. He has even lost me as a supporter.
That is how far his stock has fallen.
The same happened to lots of city centre petrol stations a decade and a bit ago, they were profitable but their property value made them far more valuable to sell for the land.
So go persuading as many people as you like how to think. I doubt very many of them would be truthful to you anyhow.
Right now, some are trying to grab hold and jiggle him off it, and he's deliberately jumping up and down on it, wobbling the rope back, hoping he can force them to let go.
And he's about to fall off it.
Don't focus too much on what it is now worth - this is not G. Osborne's fault: as it states in George Stigler's 'Theory of Price' "historical costs holds powerful sway over untutored minds". If a man pays £250,000 for what he perceives is a diamond and it turns out to be a polished stone of much lower value, does he spend years trying to sell it for £250,000, or accept a much lower price and move on. With RBS (a share I lost a lorra money on), it may bbe time to move on.
It's really sad to have seen so many pubs closed that I have frequented at various points over the years.
My home town Potters Bar on it's own has lost about 5 in the last few years,
His position seemed impregnable and impressive less than six months ago, but that was based on the fact he was the heir apparent with vast powers of patronage.
He's never really answered the question of what he offered as a candidate in his own right, (perhaps he didn't think it necessary other than being the obvious continuity-Cameroon choice) and therefore never built up a positive cadre of parliamentary support, with advocates for his agenda.
Too late now: if he doesn't look like he can win, he won't.
I am betting accordingly.
Tyson - I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.
You replied to a comment of mine about the NHS. You were understandably upset because of your circumstances (which I of course knew noting about until you replied quite upset to my comment).
I sent my condolences, which I meant and continue to mean heartfully. Our dialogue was then concluded.
Jeremy Corbyn allies call for second reshuffle ahead of Labour party conference
Some Labour MPs are calling for the sacking of Hilary Benn
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-allies-call-for-second-reshuffle-ahead-of-labour-party-conference-a6941476.html
The result of the 8 May elections is likely to be a haemorrhage for the Tories and big gains for UKIP. But even if that doesn't happen and the Tories do quite well, there's another feature of 8 May that's at least as important as the result: the Tory party - its local machines and networks - will be very active in the run-up to that date, and on the day itself. Its hardworking activists and its occasional activists will be fired up. They'll talk to each other; they'll share an experience; their identity as Tories will be renewed and revelled in. And since these people are overwhelmingly pro-Leave, I just can't imagine how Remain are going to get to the finishing line first. The Tory Leaveniks will be enthusiastic. One more push and we're out of the EU! Pull out all the stops! Let's show those darkies and single mothers once and for all! Them and those communists at the BBC too!
The probability of Leave implied by the Betfair exchange is back up to 33%, but the price of Leave looks amazingly attractive still.
Tyson - I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.
You replied to a comment of mine about the NHS. You were understandably upset because of your circumstances (which I of course knew noting about until you replied quite upset to my comment).
I sent my condolences, which I meant and continue to mean heartfully. Our dialogue was then concluded.
No problem at all sir - I can well understand that you were upset, and your reluctance to revisit.
If we can't forgive the grieving, we're not much of a society at all. Nothing more needs to be said.
"How delightfully this country has been run for the last 30 years!" I think to myself. The financial Babels reach ever higher in the "international" City of London, as the rest of the country sinks into the Third World. I mean, seriously, can anyone actually deny this?
The exceptions are only a very very few towns - Basingstoke, Reading, Cambridge, Stratford-on-Avon, Guildford, and not many others.
Christine Shawcroft, who sits on the party's National Executive Committee and is a senior figure in Momentum, said that soldiers should “get the teabags out” to solve the Syrian crisis rather than resorting to air strikes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12199570/British-soldiers-should-have-cups-of-tea-with-Islamic-State-terrorists-says-Jeremy-Corbyn-ally.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Ok electorate, we might be heartless bastards who shaft the poor and are obsessed about the EU, but we're not loonies and a national security risk like that Corbyn chap
I saw it seriously claimed recently that research shows that teenage pregnancy is falling partly because kids mostly socialise through social media these days, and you can't get pregnant that way. I should like to see the data on that before I believed it, but the general trend is clear.
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/711665167680086016
Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government by P. J. O'Rourke
Very funny, but as it is O'Rourke I suppose I ought to warn that he's not exactly afraid of offending people.
Simply being a nicer version of Cameron was not enough for the 3 alternatives to Corbyn (though actually being a nicer version of any PM is not a bad start). It is possible that a major bust up in the Tories, putting some nasty Little Englander into number 10 could be an excellent foil for a compassionate centre-left candidate. I can see some merit in a Labour contest taking place after the Tory one, which seems inevitable later this year.
Now that budget cut was still in place but PIP couldn't be used as the source of this £1.2bn saving. Given that pensioners are excluded from any cuts in benefits Mr Crabb is going to have a very hide time finding that amount of money....
If I use a hand car wash I know the washers are exploited. I don't want to encourage that.
If I don't use them, they are worse off.
It is a no win situation, but in balance I keep a dirty car.
The rugby in Leicester often sells out too. Cricket gets good crowds for 2020 matches, even as county cricket dies.
Summer music festivals (despite our climate!) take place almost every weekend in the summer with attendances in the 5 or 6 figures.
Set-piece events seem more popular than ever, it is the smaller scale spontaneous social events that are struggling.
* peak football attendances were in the 1940s or so. Leicester City had 48 000 plus at Filbert st in 1948, compared to 32000 now. There were limited other entertainments then though!
All aboard Boaty McBoatface. God Bless all who sail in her:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/rrs-boaty-mcboatface_uk_56edbec3e4b030d552ef678a
It's worth remembering that it was not the - principally - the shareholders or bankers of RBS who were bailed out, but the depositors. Imagine your company has its bank account with RBS: suddenly your account has been frozen and you can't pay salaries! The knock-on effects throughout the economy would have been horrendous.
The 44 billions spent on RBS, and the similarly huge sums spent on Lloyds, Northern Rock and others, were spent because the alternative - a complete freezing of the banking system would have been horrendous. It's important to remember that money in the bank is nothing of the sort. When you deposit money with your bank, you have become an unsecured creditor of a highly leveraged financial corporation. You gain convenience, and (in the old days at least) a smidgen of interest, but you also take on credit risk.
Well worth it.
Supposedly the problem is that while the DWP could make the £1.2bn in Pip cuts (and had a justification for doing it - which ironically seems to be due to a EU court) the fact they are explicitly included in the budget meant that GO would have to change his budget.
What I guess happened is decision made to bin the cut. IDS says that GO needed to amend the DWP budget, GO said no and IDS resigned rather than argue further...
IDS gets to walk away before the Universal Credit reports come out and attack GO at the same time...
The Criticism of Osborne for what it is worth now is much less valid than criticism of Labour for allowing such a state of affairs to develop and then paying too much. They could probably had it for free if they had waited a couple of days longer.
Dorothy and I came to scoff – but went away converted.
Unfortunately we were converted to Satanism. Now we’re up half he night going to witch’s sabbaths and have to spend our free time reciting the Lord’s Prayer backward and scouring the neighbourhood for black dogs to sacrifice. Frankly, it’s a nuisance, but if it keeps us from going to the Heritage USA part of heaven, it will be worth it.
There was a desire for fresh faces and away from the duplicity of the New Labour years. While some never bought into New Labour in the first place, others had grown to despise the people and machine rather than centralist ideas.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/03/ros-altmann-should-be-sacked.html
But Goodman (rightly) points out the critical and calming nature of Gove - if No.10 listen:
http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/03/enough-time-to-restore-cabinet-government-and-make-gove-deputy-prime-minister.html
Don't forget that the DWP expenditure is covered by the welfare cap and if GO reduced that cap by £1.2bn to reflect the PIP changes (as he supposedly did) forgetting PIP without changing the cap back to the original figure means that that £1.2bn has to found in other parts of the welfare budget....
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/711679846418669570
This Labour party and Momentum member of the NEC looks as dotty as her proposals.
But I'd expect Cameron to survive it - damaged. The assumption is that the bulk of the Brexiter MPs will vote for his head. But I think that assumption is fundamentally flawed.
The alternative is not clear, so he'll get c. 60-70 MPs voting against him, another 20-30 abstentions, and a couple of hundred backing him.
He'd need to lose more than half the backbenches to fall, IMHO - about 115+MPs voting against him, including plenty of those in marginal seats.
Cameron seems to think his subordinates in the Tory party are like his fags at Eton that he can abuse at will.
Osborne's days are numbered.
Still doesn't trust the public to handle this information??