Golly. Cameron has just been publicly admonished by the head of the 1922.
" Graham Brady, Conservative chairman of the 1922 committee of backbenchers who will be the returning officer in any leadership election, said Mr Cameron had lost authority as party leader by throwing his hat in with the in campaign ahead of the June 23 referendum. Mr Cameron should have stayed above the fray in the 1975 referendum, he said, adding: “If had done he would have come out of it smelling of roses “Instead climbing into the trench and having a go at everybody does not allow him to remain above it all as a leader of the Conservative party. “He is placing himself in a position of leadership within the party – by seeking to place himself in a position of leadership of one campaign which is not one that is supported by the majority of the Conservative party he is sacrificing that opportunity.” " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/12199776/Tensions-between-David-Cameron-and-George-Osborne-set-to-emerge-after-Iain-Duncan-Smiths-resignation.html
I think the Conservatives are severely underestimating how much their relative popularity depends on the leadership of Cameron/Osborne. I also believe they're overestimating the extent to which Corbyn is off putting to previous Labour voters.
Without the current leadership I see no reason why the new voters the Tories picked up in 2015 will stay with them even if facing Corbyn. Why would they hitch their wagon to a pig in a poke when at least with Corbyn they know roughly what they're getting
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
I think the Conservatives are severely underestimating how much their relative popularity depends on the leadership of Cameron/Osborne. I also believe they're overestimating the extent to which Corbyn is off putting to previous Labour voters.
Without the current leadership I see no reason why the new voters the Tories picked up in 2015 will stay with them even if facing Corbyn. Why would they hitch their wagon to a pig in a poke when at least with Corbyn they know roughly what they're getting
Golly. Cameron has just been publicly admonished by the head of the 1922.
" Graham Brady, Conservative chairman of the 1922 committee of backbenchers who will be the returning officer in any leadership election, said Mr Cameron had lost authority as party leader by throwing his hat in with the in campaign ahead of the June 23 referendum. Mr Cameron should have stayed above the fray in the 1975 referendum, he said, adding: “If had done he would have come out of it smelling of roses “Instead climbing into the trench and having a go at everybody does not allow him to remain above it all as a leader of the Conservative party. “He is placing himself in a position of leadership within the party – by seeking to place himself in a position of leadership of one campaign which is not one that is supported by the majority of the Conservative party he is sacrificing that opportunity.” " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/12199776/Tensions-between-David-Cameron-and-George-Osborne-set-to-emerge-after-Iain-Duncan-Smiths-resignation.html
Cameron has lost control of the party.
It is in the best interests of the party to have Cameron, Feldman and Osborne resign.
I think the Conservatives are severely underestimating how much their relative popularity depends on the leadership of Cameron/Osborne. I also believe they're overestimating the extent to which Corbyn is off putting to previous Labour voters.
Without the current leadership I see no reason why the new voters the Tories picked up in 2015 will stay with them even if facing Corbyn. Why would they hitch their wagon to a pig in a poke when at least with Corbyn they know roughly what they're getting
Corbyn's own ratings with the voters are pretty clear.
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
If only I took up Mike's advice and started laying Osborne in the run up to the budget. It is a really profitable strategy.
Golly. Cameron has just been publicly admonished by the head of the 1922.
" Graham Brady, Conservative chairman of the 1922 committee of backbenchers who will be the returning officer in any leadership election, said Mr Cameron had lost authority as party leader by throwing his hat in with the in campaign ahead of the June 23 referendum. Mr Cameron should have stayed above the fray in the 1975 referendum, he said, adding: “If had done he would have come out of it smelling of roses “Instead climbing into the trench and having a go at everybody does not allow him to remain above it all as a leader of the Conservative party. “He is placing himself in a position of leadership within the party – by seeking to place himself in a position of leadership of one campaign which is not one that is supported by the majority of the Conservative party he is sacrificing that opportunity.” " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/12199776/Tensions-between-David-Cameron-and-George-Osborne-set-to-emerge-after-Iain-Duncan-Smiths-resignation.html
Cameron has lost control of the party.
It is in the best interests of the party to have Cameron, Feldman and Osborne resign.
I think the Conservatives are severely underestimating how much their relative popularity depends on the leadership of Cameron/Osborne. I also believe they're overestimating the extent to which Corbyn is off putting to previous Labour voters.
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
You have to admit the fall out is one massive dead cat to hide the missed golden rules...
I think the Conservatives are severely underestimating how much their relative popularity depends on the leadership of Cameron/Osborne. I also believe they're overestimating the extent to which Corbyn is off putting to previous Labour voters.
Without the current leadership I see no reason why the new voters the Tories picked up in 2015 will stay with them even if facing Corbyn. Why would they hitch their wagon to a pig in a poke when at least with Corbyn they know roughly what they're getting
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
Well said. IDS's comments were intended to viciously wound Cameron and Osborne. Much can be said about the "balance" of the budget but there were indeed many good points which have been smothered by the press coverage of the resignation. But Press and TV don't make a living by informing us, they want to boost their incomes by sensational reporting. We should beware of politicians with messianic attitudes. When they don't get their way they destroy the building.
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
You have to admit the fall out is one massive dead cat to hide the missed golden rules...
The only thing that is certain in this mess is that it will still be a conservative government on the 24th June though the make up of the cabinet would be worth a competition
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
Well said. IDS's comments were intended to viciously wound Cameron and Osborne. Much can be said about the "balance" of the budget but there were indeed many good points which have been smothered by the press coverage of the resignation. But Press and TV don't make a living by informing us, they want to boost their incomes by sensational reporting. We should beware of politicians with messianic attitudes. When they don't get their way they destroy the building.
The original omnishambles budget when you think about it in the cold light of day, the MASSSSSIVVEEEEE I mean MASSSSSIVVEEEE outcry was that greggs pasties were going to cost 20% more, and pensioners who had an extra special allowance would find that over the following years that would go to parity with everybody else.
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.
Reports on that differ - it's not my general experience either in Broxtowe or in London,though of course some of the new members are passive. But in any case, an attempt to impose a single candidate by the PLP to the exclusion of the current leader would outrage many longstanding members too as a matter of principle, and in addition would be siubject to extensive legal challenge - we'd be fighting over it for years, and the 2020 election would come and go while the battle raged on, with every MP involved challenged for deselection.
Work to change the direction of the party by all means (if the new members are so passive you shouldn't find it that hard), but don't try to do it in a PLP coup. The idea is bonkers and it frankly won't work. And I'm saying that as someone who has worked with every wing of the party in every election since 1966 and has friends right across the movement.
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
Looked like a whole lot of incoherent headline grabbing to me.
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
As I have said for some years, Osborne is a political chancellor whose measures are geared to the re-election chances of his party, his own personal political ambitions and meet the needs of the Country only by coincidence. He is Brown MKII, though less obviously bonkers.
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...
Golly. Cameron has just been publicly admonished by the head of the 1922.
" Graham Brady, Conservative chairman of the 1922 committee of backbenchers who will be the returning officer in any leadership election, said Mr Cameron had lost authority as party leader by throwing his hat in with the in campaign ahead of the June 23 referendum. Mr Cameron should have stayed above the fray in the 1975 referendum, he said, adding: “If had done he would have come out of it smelling of roses “Instead climbing into the trench and having a go at everybody does not allow him to remain above it all as a leader of the Conservative party. “He is placing himself in a position of leadership within the party – by seeking to place himself in a position of leadership of one campaign which is not one that is supported by the majority of the Conservative party he is sacrificing that opportunity.” " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/12199776/Tensions-between-David-Cameron-and-George-Osborne-set-to-emerge-after-Iain-Duncan-Smiths-resignation.html
If Cameron had not taken a position on the referendum he would have been accused of being chicken and sitting on the fence. It is the job of a PM to provide leadership even if not everyone agrees with him.
Golly. Cameron has just been publicly admonished by the head of the 1922.
" Graham Brady, Conservative chairman of the 1922 committee of backbenchers who will be the returning officer in any leadership election, said Mr Cameron had lost authority as party leader by throwing his hat in with the in campaign ahead of the June 23 referendum. Mr Cameron should have stayed above the fray in the 1975 referendum, he said, adding: “If had done he would have come out of it smelling of roses “Instead climbing into the trench and having a go at everybody does not allow him to remain above it all as a leader of the Conservative party. “He is placing himself in a position of leadership within the party – by seeking to place himself in a position of leadership of one campaign which is not one that is supported by the majority of the Conservative party he is sacrificing that opportunity.” " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/12199776/Tensions-between-David-Cameron-and-George-Osborne-set-to-emerge-after-Iain-Duncan-Smiths-resignation.html
If Cameron had not taken a position on the referendum he would have been accused of being chicken and sitting on the fence. It is the job of a PM to provide leadership even if not everyone agrees with him.
The 10/1 or even better that you can get on Theresa May as next PM is fantastic value IMO. I don't think Osborne will stand, Boris is Boris, Javid seems to have petered out, Mrs May is seen as competent and is acceptable to pretty much everyone. She should be favourite.
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
Looked like a whole lot of incoherent headline grabbing to me.
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
As I have said for some years, Osborne is a political chancellor whose measures are geared to the re-election chances of his party, his own personal political ambitions and meet the needs of the Country only by coincidence. He is Brown MKII, though less obviously bonkers.
The sugar tax was irrelevant to me. The increase in tax allowance to £11,500 + the uplift in the 40p allowance was long overdue. The life time under 40 ISAS and the freezing of fuel duties were well received. But most of all the shift of rate relief for small and medium sized business was inspired. Give credit where it is due
Golly. Cameron has just been publicly admonished by the head of the 1922.
" Graham Brady, Conservative chairman of the 1922 committee of backbenchers who will be the returning officer in any leadership election, said Mr Cameron had lost authority as party leader by throwing his hat in with the in campaign ahead of the June 23 referendum. Mr Cameron should have stayed above the fray in the 1975 referendum, he said, hs-resignation.html
Cameron has lost control of the party.
It is in the best interests of the party to have Cameron, Feldman and Osborne resign.
It's your party (I presume), but given it is far from clear who will win the referendum, or who might take over, and what things they might change, I don't know that an immediate resignation is something that would bring stability and improve the interests of the party right now. Maybe wait until after Leave win? It's much clearer then what Tory voters, who will be crucial to the outcome, actually want and how much.
Which does not change the fact that Cameron would have been criticised if he had not. The idea he would have come out smelling of roses by staying above the fray, as Brady suggests, is not to put it too bluntly, a crock of sh*t. From back when I was a reluctant remainer arguing with Leavers that they had a shot at winning even if Cameron called a referendum and led the campaign against Out, plenty of people were predicting any referendum would lose due to dirty tricks or media bias or etc etc etc, setting out the reasons for failure well in advance (they are more optimistic now, as we, Leave, as I predicted are in with a shout), and that included already accusing Cameron of various things (I wouldn't be surprised if that's one reason he has acted as he has - he knew he'd be criticised, so decided what the hell, just go for it).
Cameron has made his position worse by various actions (I implore people to note that sentence before kneejerk assumptions about how I am casting blame around are made). But he was getting dragged into the trench no matter what, and Brady is being disingenuous in pretending otherwise.
Golly. Cameron has just been publicly admonished by the head of the 1922.
" Graham Brady, Conservative chairman of the 1922 committee of backbenchers who will be the returning officer in any leadership election, said Mr Cameron had lost authority as party leader by throwing his hat in with the in campaign ahead of the June 23 referendum. Mr Cameron should have stayed above the fray in the 1975 referendum, he said, adding: “If had done he would have come out of it smelling of roses “Instead climbing into the trench and having a go at everybody does not allow him to remain above it all as a leader of the Conservative party. “He is placing himself in a position of leadership within the party – by seeking to place himself in a position of leadership of one campaign which is not one that is supported by the majority of the Conservative party he is sacrificing that opportunity.” " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/12199776/Tensions-between-David-Cameron-and-George-Osborne-set-to-emerge-after-Iain-Duncan-Smiths-resignation.html
If Cameron had not taken a position on the referendum he would have been accused of being chicken and sitting on the fence. It is the job of a PM to provide leadership even if not everyone agrees with him.
Not so, Mr. Perdix. He could have opened his history books and seen how Wilson managed to hold his equally fractured party together through a very similar campaign.
I don't know but I suspect Cameron is just to arrogant to learn from others. He doesn't do detail by all accounts and he certainly can't do leadership. If he could then he would have seen the IDS thing coming, not be "puzzled" after it had happened.
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
Presumably the reasoning is that the disgusting sugary drinks promoted by large companies account for a lot of obesity. Makes pretty good sense.
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
Looked like a whole lot of incoherent headline grabbing to me.
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
As I have said for some years, Osborne is a political chancellor whose measures are geared to the re-election chances of his party, his own personal political ambitions and meet the needs of the Country only by coincidence. He is Brown MKII, though less obviously bonkers.
The sense of it as a starter is surely fairly obvious - consuming large amounts of refined sugar is inimical to health. By and large the less one consumes the healthier one is, so 'starting somewhere', in this case with one of the most damaging sources of refined sugar in the UK diet, isn't an illogical step.
Labour MPs are not going to depose Corbyn. Why? They're too weak to even get rid of John Cryer as chair of the PLP. Until he's been got rid of I can't take seriously any talk about coups.
Slightly odd piece by D'Ancona in the Observer - very pro-Cameroon as you might expect but also claiming that the Brexiters are rallying around Boris. Why? Sheer anger at Cameron over the referendum and Boris is the nearest thing to hand? Do these people actually believe in BoJo or is he just a tool for hurting Dave?
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
Looked like a whole lot of incoherent headline grabbing to me.
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
As I have said for some years, Osborne is a political chancellor whose measures are geared to the re-election chances of his party, his own personal political ambitions and meet the needs of the Country only by coincidence. He is Brown MKII, though less obviously bonkers.
The sense of it as a starter is surely fairly obvious - consuming large amounts of refined sugar is inimical to health. By and large the less one consumes the healthier one is, so 'starting somewhere', in this case with one of the most damaging sources of refined sugar in the UK diet, isn't an illogical step.
Drinks Companies announce tonight they are considering taking it to the Courts
Matthew Parris posited the theory some weeks ago that whichever side (of the Tory Party) wins the referendum, they have to crush the losers.
What IDS has done is potentially move that to before the referendum instead of after.
Brexiteers are clearly hoping that Osborne's career is over (although that has been predicted here more often than SeanT changes his mind) and IDS has lobbed a grenade in that direction. The danger is that the shrapnel hits Boris/Gove/Patel instead.
Going to be a fun few weeks.
And these threads will be Gold come the 24th of June.
Matthew Parris posited the theory some weeks ago that whichever side (of the Tory Party) wins the referendum, they have to crush the losers.
What IDS has done is potentially move that to before the referendum instead of after.
Brexiteers are clearly hoping that Osborne's career is over (although that has been predicted here more often than SeanT changes his mind) and IDS has lobbed a grenade in that direction. The danger is that the shrapnel hits Boris/Gove/Patel instead.
Going to be a fun few weeks.
And these threads will be Gold come the 24th of June.
Think this may be fun, if you can call it that, for the next few months even till the autumn
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
Looked like a whole lot of incoherent headline grabbing to me.
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
As I have said for some years, Osborne is a political chancellor whose measures are geared to the re-election chances of his party, his own personal political ambitions and meet the needs of the Country only by coincidence. He is Brown MKII, though less obviously bonkers.
The sense of it as a starter is surely fairly obvious - consuming large amounts of refined sugar is inimical to health. By and large the less one consumes the healthier one is, so 'starting somewhere', in this case with one of the most damaging sources of refined sugar in the UK diet, isn't an illogical step.
Drinks Companies announce tonight they are considering taking it to the Courts
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
Presumably the reasoning is that the disgusting sugary drinks promoted by large companies account for a lot of obesity. Makes pretty good sense.
No, it doesn't. If sugar consumption is bad then it is bad whether the company selling the product has a turnover of ten million of ten hundred. Do we tax tobacco companies differently depending on their size?
So if I have glass of lemonade what so so uniquely awful about that that it has to be taxed (but only f the company is big enough), but if I consume the same amount of sugar in a bit of confectionary it does not need to be taxed?
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
Looked like a whole lot of incoherent headline grabbing to me.
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
As I have said for some years, Osborne is a political chancellor whose measures are geared to the re-election chances of his party, his own personal political ambitions and meet the needs of the Country only by coincidence. He is Brown MKII, though less obviously bonkers.
The sense of it as a starter is surely fairly obvious - consuming large amounts of refined sugar is inimical to health. By and large the less one consumes the healthier one is, so 'starting somewhere', in this case with one of the most damaging sources of refined sugar in the UK diet, isn't an illogical step.
Drinks Companies announce tonight they are considering taking it to the Courts
It's also apparently going to cost the Government more to implement than it will bring in #MasterStrategist , but the basic principle is sound in my opinion.
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
Presumably the reasoning is that the disgusting sugary drinks promoted by large companies account for a lot of obesity. Makes pretty good sense.
No, it doesn't. If sugar consumption is bad then it is bad whether the company selling the product has a turnover of ten million of ten hundred. Do we tax tobacco companies differently depending on their size?
So if I have glass of lemonade what so so uniquely awful about that that it has to be taxed (but only f the company is big enough), but if I consume the same amount of sugar in a bit of confectionary it does not need to be taxed?
Think it is more to do with children's consumption
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
Looked like a whole lot of incoherent headline grabbing to me.
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
As I have said for some years, Osborne is a political chancellor whose measures are geared to the re-election chances of his party, his own personal political ambitions and meet the needs of the Country only by coincidence. He is Brown MKII, though less obviously bonkers.
The sense of it as a starter is surely fairly obvious - consuming large amounts of refined sugar is inimical to health. By and large the less one consumes the healthier one is, so 'starting somewhere', in this case with one of the most damaging sources of refined sugar in the UK diet, isn't an illogical step.
Drinks Companies announce tonight they are considering taking it to the Courts
It's also apparently going to cost the Government more to implement than it will bring in #MasterStrategist , but the basic principle is sound in my opinion.
Just wondering, how is it going to cost anything? Surely it should be dead easy to implement. You just collect it like VAT.
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
Looked like a whole lot of incoherent headline grabbing to me.
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
As I have said for some years, Osborne is a political chancellor whose measures are geared to the re-election chances of his party, his own personal political ambitions and meet the needs of the Country only by coincidence. He is Brown MKII, though less obviously bonkers.
The sense of it as a starter is surely fairly obvious - consuming large amounts of refined sugar is inimical to health. By and large the less one consumes the healthier one is, so 'starting somewhere', in this case with one of the most damaging sources of refined sugar in the UK diet, isn't an illogical step.
Drinks Companies announce tonight they are considering taking it to the Courts
I'm surprised at how many pro-IDS comments I am hearing and reading from people who are no fans of the Tories.
If Leave/Remain becomes a battle between two sets of Tories - Cameron/Osborne and Boris/IDS - my guess is that a lot of non-Tories suddenly find themselves preferring Boris/IDS for reasons that have nothing to do with the EU.
I'm surprised at how many pro-IDS comments I am hearing and reading from people who are no fans of the Tories.
Temporary convenience I think, as it allows them to attack Cameron / Osborne. Remember whenever Boris used to utter anything different to Cameron, people would latch onto Boris.
I'm surprised at how many pro-IDS comments I am hearing and reading from people who are no fans of the Tories.
If Leave/Remain becomes a battle between two sets of Tories - Cameron/Osborne and Boris/IDS - my guess is that a lot of non-Tories suddenly find themselves preferring Boris/IDS for reasons that have nothing to do with the EU.
There are all kinds of permutations for the referendum including lots of tactical voting which makes it almost impossible to call. Also rising demands in France and Germany tonight for their own referendums. The World order has gone mad in more ways than one
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
Looked like a whole lot of incoherent headline grabbing to me.
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
As I have said for some years, Osborne is a political chancellor whose measures are geared to the re-election chances of his party, his own personal political ambitions and meet the needs of the Country only by coincidence. He is Brown MKII, though less obviously bonkers.
The sense of it as a starter is surely fairly obvious - consuming large amounts of refined sugar is inimical to health. By and large the less one consumes the healthier one is, so 'starting somewhere', in this case with one of the most damaging sources of refined sugar in the UK diet, isn't an illogical step.
Drinks Companies announce tonight they are considering taking it to the Courts
It's also apparently going to cost the Government more to implement than it will bring in #MasterStrategist , but the basic principle is sound in my opinion.
Just wondering, how is it going to cost anything? Surely it should be dead easy to implement. You just collect it like VAT.
On the Sky paper review they were suggesting that because it would increase inflation, the extra interest payable on government bonds would significantly outweigh the revenue from the levy.
I'm surprised at how many pro-IDS comments I am hearing and reading from people who are no fans of the Tories.
If Leave/Remain becomes a battle between two sets of Tories - Cameron/Osborne and Boris/IDS - my guess is that a lot of non-Tories suddenly find themselves preferring Boris/IDS for reasons that have nothing to do with the EU.
I think there's always something rather exciting and noble about an honourable resignation (especially in this day and age when most resignations are due to sleaze and scandal)
What came through loud and clear in IDS's interview is that he is thoroughly decent chap who has deeply held convictions and wants to implement reforms and policies he thinks will help people's lives... And in so doing he has been laid low by a pair of careerist spivs who hold no convictions other than their own ambition and success...
Time to say good-night. Glad I am retired otherwise I would not have time to keep up with everything. Indeed I said to my wife tonight that this forum will be my new occupation for the next few months till I go to Tuscany with all my children and grand children in July when I will leave my tablet behind
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
Presumably the reasoning is that the disgusting sugary drinks promoted by large companies account for a lot of obesity. Makes pretty good sense.
No, it doesn't. If sugar consumption is bad then it is bad whether the company selling the product has a turnover of ten million of ten hundred. Do we tax tobacco companies differently depending on their size?
So if I have glass of lemonade what so so uniquely awful about that that it has to be taxed (but only f the company is big enough), but if I consume the same amount of sugar in a bit of confectionary it does not need to be taxed?
Well since you asked, the sugar in the lemonade will be absorbed into your blood almost immediately, causing your body to respond with an insulin spike that will push the energy into the cells as fat. Consistently abusing your body's defence mechanisms in this way can result not only in obesity but in insulin resistance, leading to type 2 diabetes. Sugar has also been implicated in cancer, heart disease, dementia, weak teeth and bones, and a host of other complaints.
A piece of confectionery, whilst also likely to be bad for you, may be slightly improved by the fact it takes longer to digest, and thus releases its sugar into the blood stream slower, causing a less pronounced effect. It may also (as in the case of chocolate), contain some complementary minerals and fats that aid the digestion of the sugars contained therein (though this is a slim possibility).
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
Looked like a whole lot of incoherent headline grabbing to me.
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
As I have said for some years, Osborne is a political chancellor whose measures are geared to the re-election chances of his party, his own personal political ambitions and meet the needs of the Country only by coincidence. He is Brown MKII, though less obviously bonkers.
The sense of it as a starter is surely fairly obvious - consuming large amounts of refined sugar is inimical to health. By and large the less one consumes the healthier one is, so 'starting somewhere', in this case with one of the most damaging sources of refined sugar in the UK diet, isn't an illogical step.
Drinks Companies announce tonight they are considering taking it to the Courts
It's also apparently going to cost the Government more to implement than it will bring in #MasterStrategist , but the basic principle is sound in my opinion.
Just wondering, how is it going to cost anything? Surely it should be dead easy to implement. You just collect it like VAT.
No idea. Something to do with debt interest, but I can't explain it because I don't understand it.
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
Looked like a whole lot of incoherent headline grabbing to me.
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
As I have said for some years, Osborne is a political chancellor whose measures are geared to the re-election chances of his party, his own personal political ambitions and meet the needs of the Country only by coincidence. He is Brown MKII, though less obviously bonkers.
The sense of it as a starter is surely fairly obvious - consuming large amounts of refined sugar is inimical to health. By and large the less one consumes the healthier one is, so 'starting somewhere', in this case with one of the most damaging sources of refined sugar in the UK diet, isn't an illogical step.
Drinks Companies announce tonight they are considering taking it to the Courts
It's also apparently going to cost the Government more to implement than it will bring in #MasterStrategist , but the basic principle is sound in my opinion.
Just wondering, how is it going to cost anything? Surely it should be dead easy to implement. You just collect it like VAT.
On the Sky paper review they were suggesting that because it would increase inflation, the extra interest payable on government bonds would significantly outweigh the revenue from the levy.
Hmmm....Not sure I am buying that. I am not sure 10p on a can of coke will massively affect the whole inflation of the UK. 500ml bottles of coke have already gone from 99p to £1.35 in the past 2-3 years and it has had zero effect on the inflation rate.
By the same argument, tampon tax removal will reduce inflation.
I still think it is a dumb policy, but I don't buy that it will spike inflation. A far bigger concern surely has to be oil going back up.
Matthew Parris posited the theory some weeks ago that whichever side (of the Tory Party) wins the referendum, they have to crush the losers.
What IDS has done is potentially move that to before the referendum instead of after.
Brexiteers are clearly hoping that Osborne's career is over (although that has been predicted here more often than SeanT changes his mind) and IDS has lobbed a grenade in that direction. The danger is that the shrapnel hits Boris/Gove/Patel instead.
Going to be a fun few weeks.
And these threads will be Gold come the 24th of June.
Might be worth going for the crushing option, but I don't think either side has the stomach for it, not least because the problem really is that Tory voters are pretty split on some big issues. Going too hard after senior people might be too risky whoever wins, although the members should be happier under leaver leadership.
Matthew Parris posited the theory some weeks ago that whichever side (of the Tory Party) wins the referendum, they have to crush the losers.
What IDS has done is potentially move that to before the referendum instead of after.
Brexiteers are clearly hoping that Osborne's career is over (although that has been predicted here more often than SeanT changes his mind) and IDS has lobbed a grenade in that direction. The danger is that the shrapnel hits Boris/Gove/Patel instead.
Going to be a fun few weeks.
And these threads will be Gold come the 24th of June.
Might be worth going for the crushing option, but I don't think either side has the stomach for it, not least because the problem really is that Tory voters are pretty split on some big issues. Going too hard after senior people might be too risky whoever wins, although the members should be happier under leaver leadership.
I'll be voting leave. I also hope the entire "leave" lot are roundly slaughtered if remain wins the vote.
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
Presumably the reasoning is that the disgusting sugary drinks promoted by large companies account for a lot of obesity. Makes pretty good sense.
If they were disgusting, people wouldn't drink them...
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
Presumably the reasoning is that the disgusting sugary drinks promoted by large companies account for a lot of obesity. Makes pretty good sense.
If they were disgusting, people wouldn't drink them...
I don't know...a bit like people don't drink Special Brew for complex mixture of sublte flavours, some of the energy drinks look and taste like toxic waste.
Mountain Dew Amp being a classic....that stuff looks like it will rot a lot more than your teeth. I reckon you could melt your way through a hatton garden safety deposit vault door with that stuff.
"It is claimed that some allies of the Prime Minister that Number 10 has in recent weeks grown "frustrated" by Mr Osborne's failure "vociferously" to support Mr Cameron's bid to keep Britain in the EU. "There is a feeling that it's been a bit too much about George's leadership recently - rather than what the Government is doing," one source said. Meanwhile, it is understood that Mr Osborne told allies that he never wanted a referendum on membership of the EU and blames Mr Cameron for some of the issues now facing the party because of the EU."
The 10/1 or even better that you can get on Theresa May as next PM is fantastic value IMO. I don't think Osborne will stand, Boris is Boris, Javid seems to have petered out, Mrs May is seen as competent and is acceptable to pretty much everyone. She should be favourite.
12/1 on Theresa May as Next Prime Minister looks more than fair. If you take the view that the leadership will be a Remainer v a Leaver, and both must be genuine big beasts (as the party are electing a PM, not just a leader), Osborne's loss must surely be her gain.
So another of Osborne's budgets has unravelled within a few days. Tell me again why anyone thinks he is good at his job, let alone this supposed master political tactician.
Actually apart from PIPS there was a lot to like in the budget
Looked like a whole lot of incoherent headline grabbing to me.
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
As I have said for some years, Osborne is a political chancellor whose measures are geared to the re-election chances of his party, his own personal political ambitions and meet the needs of the Country only by coincidence. He is Brown MKII, though less obviously bonkers.
The sense of it as a starter is surely fairly obvious - consuming large amounts of refined sugar is inimical to health. By and large the less one consumes the healthier one is, so 'starting somewhere', in this case with one of the most damaging sources of refined sugar in the UK diet, isn't an illogical step.
Drinks Companies announce tonight they are considering taking it to the Courts
It's also apparently going to cost the Government more to implement than it will bring in #MasterStrategist , but the basic principle is sound in my opinion.
Just wondering, how is it going to cost anything? Surely it should be dead easy to implement. You just collect it like VAT.
On the Sky paper review they were suggesting that because it would increase inflation, the extra interest payable on government bonds would significantly outweigh the revenue from the levy.
I read that as soft drinks are in the inflation basket of goods this tax will cause a one off cost to the government of approximately £1 billion. The tax will raise an annual £500 million.
If these figures are right then that means that in one year then yes the tax will cost more than it raises, but it will be cost-neutral in year two and from year three onwards the tax will raise money. It means Osborne is looking at a longer time horizon than just one year.
I'm surprised this canard still has traction. Wilson was about as neutral as the Soviet linesman at the 1966 final. Wilson organised a resolution that the British Government recommended a "Yes" vote and got it thru Parliament, organised a resolution at a CHOGM that the Commonwealth supported a "Yes" vote, conducted secret polling via Bob Worcester, and authorised a third leaflet. He was (scuse the phrase) balls-deep in "Yes" and to present it otherwise is silly
Christopher Hope Look at Line 73 from the Budget Red Book. The Chancellor now has to find another £4.37bn in savings. #ToryMeltdown https://t.co/6ENsrrdKEA
Christopher Hope Look at Line 73 from the Budget Red Book. The Chancellor now has to find another £4.37bn in savings. #ToryMeltdown https://t.co/6ENsrrdKEA
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
Presumably the reasoning is that the disgusting sugary drinks promoted by large companies account for a lot of obesity. Makes pretty good sense.
If they were disgusting, people wouldn't drink them...
They are disgusting in health terms. They are not disgusting in taste terms, as we are designed/evolved to seek out sweetness as in nature it signifies ripeness and the presence of vitamins and minerals. Our bodies are not psychic and can't tell the minerals, vitamins, enzymes, fibre etc. have all been removed and what's left is a toxic fake.
Comments
My goodness - blind panic at no.10....
" Graham Brady, Conservative chairman of the 1922 committee of backbenchers who will be the returning officer in any leadership election, said Mr Cameron had lost authority as party leader by throwing his hat in with the in campaign ahead of the June 23 referendum.
Mr Cameron should have stayed above the fray in the 1975 referendum, he said, adding: “If had done he would have come out of it smelling of roses
“Instead climbing into the trench and having a go at everybody does not allow him to remain above it all as a leader of the Conservative party.
“He is placing himself in a position of leadership within the party – by seeking to place himself in a position of leadership of one campaign which is not one that is supported by the majority of the Conservative party he is sacrificing that opportunity.” "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/12199776/Tensions-between-David-Cameron-and-George-Osborne-set-to-emerge-after-Iain-Duncan-Smiths-resignation.html
Without the current leadership I see no reason why the new voters the Tories picked up in 2015 will stay with them even if facing Corbyn. Why would they hitch their wagon to a pig in a poke when at least with Corbyn they know roughly what they're getting
It is in the best interests of the party to have Cameron, Feldman and Osborne resign.
Anything happened this weekend?
We should beware of politicians with messianic attitudes. When they don't get their way they destroy the building.
The media outcry over that was just ridiculous.
Work to change the direction of the party by all means (if the new members are so passive you shouldn't find it that hard), but don't try to do it in a PLP coup. The idea is bonkers and it frankly won't work. And I'm saying that as someone who has worked with every wing of the party in every election since 1966 and has friends right across the movement.
I see that IDS is now a Guardian hero. It's a funny old world.
For example, the sugar tax: drinking fizzy sugary drinks is wrong and I must pay an extra tax if I want to do so. Unless I want to buy my fizzy drink from a small company in which case it is fine and I don't need to pay the tax. Of course if I want to eat very sugary creme eggs that is also OK. I could give other examples and will if you can explain the sense of the sugar tax as a starter.
As I have said for some years, Osborne is a political chancellor whose measures are geared to the re-election chances of his party, his own personal political ambitions and meet the needs of the Country only by coincidence. He is Brown MKII, though less obviously bonkers.
TSE = Tedious Tory Twat
TSE = Tedious Tory Twat
TSE = Tedious Tory Twat TSE = Tedious Tory Twat
TSE = Tedious Tory Twat TSE = Tedious Tory Twat TSE = Tedious Tory Twat
TSE = Tedious Tory Twat
TSE = Tedious Tory Twat
TSE = Tedious Tory Twat
Cameron has made his position worse by various actions (I implore people to note that sentence before kneejerk assumptions about how I am casting blame around are made). But he was getting dragged into the trench no matter what, and Brady is being disingenuous in pretending otherwise.
I don't know but I suspect Cameron is just to arrogant to learn from others. He doesn't do detail by all accounts and he certainly can't do leadership. If he could then he would have seen the IDS thing coming, not be "puzzled" after it had happened.
WOW!
Slightly odd piece by D'Ancona in the Observer - very pro-Cameroon as you might expect but also claiming that the Brexiters are rallying around Boris. Why? Sheer anger at Cameron over the referendum and Boris is the nearest thing to hand? Do these people actually believe in BoJo or is he just a tool for hurting Dave?
What IDS has done is potentially move that to before the referendum instead of after.
Brexiteers are clearly hoping that Osborne's career is over (although that has been predicted here more often than SeanT changes his mind) and IDS has lobbed a grenade in that direction. The danger is that the shrapnel hits Boris/Gove/Patel instead.
Going to be a fun few weeks.
And these threads will be Gold come the 24th of June.
So if I have glass of lemonade what so so uniquely awful about that that it has to be taxed (but only f the company is big enough), but if I consume the same amount of sugar in a bit of confectionary it does not need to be taxed?
Implied probabilities.
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/711689208289730560
If Leave/Remain becomes a battle between two sets of Tories - Cameron/Osborne and Boris/IDS - my guess is that a lot of non-Tories suddenly find themselves preferring Boris/IDS for reasons that have nothing to do with the EU.
What came through loud and clear in IDS's interview is that he is thoroughly decent chap who has deeply held convictions and wants to implement reforms and policies he thinks will help people's lives... And in so doing he has been laid low by a pair of careerist spivs who hold no convictions other than their own ambition and success...
So he's walked away. Good for him.
Perhaps the boot was actually on the other foot
Now which Master Strategist could have played that game
Stephen Crabb seems like a decent replacement for IDS, if a bit Godly for my liking.
https://twitter.com/Larryputt/status/711694142640885761
A piece of confectionery, whilst also likely to be bad for you, may be slightly improved by the fact it takes longer to digest, and thus releases its sugar into the blood stream slower, causing a less pronounced effect. It may also (as in the case of chocolate), contain some complementary minerals and fats that aid the digestion of the sugars contained therein (though this is a slim possibility).
By the same argument, tampon tax removal will reduce inflation.
I still think it is a dumb policy, but I don't buy that it will spike inflation. A far bigger concern surely has to be oil going back up.
Mountain Dew Amp being a classic....that stuff looks like it will rot a lot more than your teeth. I reckon you could melt your way through a hatton garden safety deposit vault door with that stuff.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/12199776/Tensions-between-David-Cameron-and-George-Osborne-set-to-emerge-after-Iain-Duncan-Smiths-resignation.html
"It is claimed that some allies of the Prime Minister that Number 10 has in recent weeks grown "frustrated" by Mr Osborne's failure "vociferously" to support Mr Cameron's bid to keep Britain in the EU.
"There is a feeling that it's been a bit too much about George's leadership recently - rather than what the Government is doing," one source said.
Meanwhile, it is understood that Mr Osborne told allies that he never wanted a referendum on membership of the EU and blames Mr Cameron for some of the issues now facing the party because of the EU."
Goodnight.
If these figures are right then that means that in one year then yes the tax will cost more than it raises, but it will be cost-neutral in year two and from year three onwards the tax will raise money. It means Osborne is looking at a longer time horizon than just one year.
Guess there is always Corbyn...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3501451/It-s-Kim-John-Big-North-Korea-s-secretive-leader-appears-piled-pounds-latest-public-appearance.html
Look at Line 73 from the Budget Red Book. The Chancellor now has to find another £4.37bn in savings. #ToryMeltdown https://t.co/6ENsrrdKEA