Good article David. The Corbynistas are truly mental. In consecutive nights the Tory party has had clear articulate and very competent presentations about the UK's future on prime time. They don't agree but they do engage both with the issue and those wanting to ask questions about it.
In contrast I cannot recall a time in my adult life when one of our major parties had so little to say and was basically ignored. Even William Hague's Conservatives in the age of Blair had more to contribute than this.
Of course Blair had the advantage of a humungous majority which helped to make the views of the Tories less important. Corbyn faces what is, in reality, a minority government over which, with a bit of compromise and negotiation, he could have a powerful influence. He has in fairness achieved some changes but his puritanical approach greatly weakens his scope.
We should be thankful enough that the American world deigns to retain the word 'English' for our language without being too pompous, colonial and antediluvian about this sort of nomenclature.
It's the British Open now. Humility trumps arrogance.
As much as I thought Gove did a decent job last night, I think he missed a trick. When he was asked about jobs, he was quite right to say that he can't guarantee that everyone who has a job now will keep it after Brexit. I would have gone further and said - "but the PM and Chancellor are being irresponsible by pretending that remaining in the EU will ensure perpetual economic growth, jobs and prosperity".
Unfortunately, Gove is still in the Cabinet and as such can't be seen to disagree with the status quo too much.
I thought that his answer, "well the 73 MEPs will be losing their jobs for a start" was one of his best of the night. It got a cheer from the audience.
I also think that he had made a strategic decision to be relentlessly positive and not engage in the kind of gloom mongering that Cameron had. Whether that will prove to be a successful tactic in the absence of any clear detail we will have to wait and see.
We should be thankful enough that the American world deigns to retain the word 'English' for our language without being too pompous, colonial and antediluvian about this sort of nomenclature.
It's the British Open now. Humility trumps arrogance.
It is The Open Championship.
Correct - just as it is the The PGA Championship (not US PGA) and The Masters (not US Masters).
As much as I thought Gove did a decent job last night, I think he missed a trick. When he was asked about jobs, he was quite right to say that he can't guarantee that everyone who has a job now will keep it after Brexit. I would have gone further and said - "but the PM and Chancellor are being irresponsible by pretending that remaining in the EU will ensure perpetual economic growth, jobs and prosperity".
Unfortunately, Gove is still in the Cabinet and as such can't be seen to disagree with the status quo too much.
Will Straw's mob emailed me immediate;y afterwards and jumped on the jobs thing.
I didn't see it but the front pages are very favourable to Gove. The momentum is definitely with Leave.
btw I don't do pretending I'm upset if somebody I've never met dies, but RIP Cassius, a true icon.
Trump's changed the date of his UK visit to the day before the referendum.
"So, punk, your parliament of maladjusted intellectual pygmies wasted a whole day ejaculating over some motion, intending to ban me from your shores. Like, whatever happened to it? Does anyone know for sure?
Whatever... I'm here now. So, maybe you can receive me at Downing Street with the respect due to a possible POTUS. Wanna act the jerk, instead?
Hey Man, no problem.
Where's the nearest mike? I feel a press conference coming on... Some kinda vote happening tomorrow, so I hear..."
Had to check the article as couldn't tell whether what you wrote was parody or a genuine quote!
As much as I thought Gove did a decent job last night, I think he missed a trick. When he was asked about jobs, he was quite right to say that he can't guarantee that everyone who has a job now will keep it after Brexit. I would have gone further and said - "but the PM and Chancellor are being irresponsible by pretending that remaining in the EU will ensure perpetual economic growth, jobs and prosperity".
Unfortunately, Gove is still in the Cabinet and as such can't be seen to disagree with the status quo too much.
I thought that his answer, "well the 73 MEPs will be losing their jobs for a start" was one of his best of the night. It got a cheer from the audience.
I also think that he had made a strategic decision to be relentlessly positive and not engage in the kind of gloom mongering that Cameron had. Whether that will prove to be a successful tactic in the absence of any clear detail we will have to wait and see.
That's true, and interviews have a life of their own. But I'm not happy that Leave haven't pointed out that Remain are promising perpetual economic growth in the EU. What concerns me is that some Leavers are keeping their options open. If in 6 months time we fall in to recession after a Remain vote, it could be awkward for any Leavers to stay in the Cabinet if they've been critical of Osborne.
Please tell me this is a spoof. I can't see how it's a spoof but what the hell?
"Last night, sensational video emerged showing Juncker obviously drunk in public, hopping from foot to foot and slapping other EU leaders. A second member of the “Five Presidents”, Donald Tusk, stands next to him looking uneasy"
Trump's changed the date of his UK visit to the day before the referendum.
"So, punk, your parliament of maladjusted intellectual pygmies wasted a whole day ejaculating over some motion intending to ban me from your shores. Like, whatever happened to it? Does anyone know for sure?
Whatever... I'm here now. So, maybe you can receive me at Downing Street with the respect due to a possible POTUS. Wanna act the jerk, instead?
Hey Man, no problem.
Where's the nearest mike? I feel a press conference coming on..."
I note the Trumpet had slid back a point a so in the polling. Not much. But we are thankful for small mercies!
His 11 minute digressions in his campaign speeches to talk about how biased the judge is in the Trump University scam case isn't going down well with the crowds.
I saw a certain forget Labour cabinet minister in a very expensive restaurant, absolutely trashed (while a minister). And I've hung out with Nadine after she's had a few. I think alcoholism is practically a requirement for a politician.
Please tell me this is a spoof. I can't see how it's a spoof but what the hell?
"Last night, sensational video emerged showing Juncker obviously drunk in public, hopping from foot to foot and slapping other EU leaders. A second member of the “Five Presidents”, Donald Tusk, stands next to him looking uneasy"
I saw a certain forget Labour cabinet minister in a very expensive restaurant, absolutely trashed (while a minister). And I've hung out with Nadine after she's had a few. I think alcoholism is practically a requirement for a politician.
I happened to be outside a venue when Charles Kennedy arrived to speak. He was literally falling down as he got out of the car, using it and his aide to keep himself upright.
He got into the hall and gave a masterful, coherent, sharp oratory, took questions, and glad-handed before leaving with no one having the slightest clue of his state.
As much as I thought Gove did a decent job last night, I think he missed a trick. When he was asked about jobs, he was quite right to say that he can't guarantee that everyone who has a job now will keep it after Brexit. I would have gone further and said - "but the PM and Chancellor are being irresponsible by pretending that remaining in the EU will ensure perpetual economic growth, jobs and prosperity".
Unfortunately, Gove is still in the Cabinet and as such can't be seen to disagree with the status quo too much.
I thought that his answer, "well the 73 MEPs will be losing their jobs for a start" was one of his best of the night. It got a cheer from the audience.
I also think that he had made a strategic decision to be relentlessly positive and not engage in the kind of gloom mongering that Cameron had. Whether that will prove to be a successful tactic in the absence of any clear detail we will have to wait and see.
I didn't watch the prog, just followed it on here from the pub. I'm glad Gove chose the positive route.
I saw a certain forget Labour cabinet minister in a very expensive restaurant, absolutely trashed (while a minister). And I've hung out with Nadine after she's had a few. I think alcoholism is practically a requirement for a politician.
It's not a requirement but it's certainly not a bar.
This part really nails it: "By contrast, the outer wings of either party are happy to define themselves by their refusal to compromise. Indeed, centrists on their own side are often even more reviled than those on the opposing one, with accusations of fraternisation, selling out and treachery."
What you say about Corbyn is hard to disagree with, but the Tory 'Outers' are prepared to trash their party and the country with their extreme views on Europe,
I saw a certain forget Labour cabinet minister in a very expensive restaurant, absolutely trashed (while a minister). And I've hung out with Nadine after she's had a few. I think alcoholism is practically a requirement for a politician.
It's not a requirement but it's certainly not a bar.
I should add that Nadine very kindly offered to look after my two and a half year old son, while I took my daughter to the toilet. I declined the offer, as I didn't think it fair on a slightly merry Nadine to look after my son.
V sad to hear that " The Greatest " has died. Much better to talk about him that this insufferable referendum. I cannot bear to listen to either side as you know its lies before any of them open their mouths.
1. The "hissing" was a very short interruption by a small number of people who, contrary to what David writes, were immediately hushed by Corbyn. MPs put up with far worse in any well-attended Commons debate. Nor are journalists generally shrinking violets, intimidated by the reaction of a few random strangers. It's not a good thing that someone is rude, not least as it encourages reporting the event as a process story, but it's also not a big deal. 2. Short of total stage management, it's literally impossible to guarantee that nobody in a large audience will not say or do something you don't entirely like - all you can really do is tell them to stop it. 3. The decision not to share a platform with the Tories on the EU is both a direct lesson from the Scottish referendum, when it proved to be nearly suicidal, and also in the interest of providing a distinctive non-Tory case for Remain. Otherwise we'd be hearing all about the Establishment parties ganging up together. For Sadiq to do it is one thing, but the party leader should avoid it, and I'd advise the same whoever the leader was. [snip]
Morning, Nick.
It's good that you'll engage with all sides but that certainly isn't the view of Corbyn or his inner team. I meant to include the video of the walk through Westminster at the Queen's Speech and have now updated the header with that link in. It's a classic of Corbyn's refusal to play that game - or indeed any game which he doesn't like. I could just as easily have cited one of the many examples of his often rude and always brusque responses to journalists waiting for a quote or question in doorstepped would-be interviews.
On your objections, I don't think he did shush them immediately. It's about four seconds between when it starts and when he cuts in:
He then neither apologies to Kuenssberg nor criticises those heckling. Sure, journalists aren't shrinking violets and there's no small amount of mud thrown the other way but that's not the point. It looks like a deliberate attempt to intimidate. Now, you might argue that an effective spin operation *is* an attempt to intimidate but that misses the point, which is about the effect on public opinion - which is what a media operation is about.
I don't think that the Scottish referendum experience is all that relevant here, although the trauma of what's happened in Scotland has no doubt run deep in Labour; I'm convinced that Corbyn would have acted the same way with or without Scottish Labour's collapse over the last two years. There is a good argument for Corbyn making his advocacy of EU membership independent Cameron but then as I said, I don't think he was really making that case anyway; he was making one that Cameron quite simply could not sign up to.
As much as I thought Gove did a decent job last night, I think he missed a trick. When he was asked about jobs, he was quite right to say that he can't guarantee that everyone who has a job now will keep it after Brexit. I would have gone further and said - "but the PM and Chancellor are being irresponsible by pretending that remaining in the EU will ensure perpetual economic growth, jobs and prosperity".
Unfortunately, Gove is still in the Cabinet and as such can't be seen to disagree with the status quo too much.
I thought that his answer, "well the 73 MEPs will be losing their jobs for a start" was one of his best of the night. It got a cheer from the audience.
I also think that he had made a strategic decision to be relentlessly positive and not engage in the kind of gloom mongering that Cameron had. Whether that will prove to be a successful tactic in the absence of any clear detail we will have to wait and see.
That's true, and interviews have a life of their own. But I'm not happy that Leave haven't pointed out that Remain are promising perpetual economic growth in the EU. What concerns me is that some Leavers are keeping their options open. If in 6 months time we fall in to recession after a Remain vote, it could be awkward for any Leavers to stay in the Cabinet if they've been critical of Osborne.
If we remain there is a good chance that we will have a technical, shallow recession in the next 2 years anyway. The idea that the EU has been a source of economic growth or prosperity since 2008 is frankly ridiculous. It clearly was before we joined and we got a boost for a while after we joined but it is and has been a restraint on world growth for some time and is increasingly so.
Corbyn's blinkered perspective is the natural end point of making all political things matters of morality (obviously some things are, but not everything). When disagreement with a policy or perspective becomes an immoral thing, your opponents aren't just people who happen to have a different view, they're wicked, heartless, wilfully cruel, and so on.
This part really nails it: "By contrast, the outer wings of either party are happy to define themselves by their refusal to compromise. Indeed, centrists on their own side are often even more reviled than those on the opposing one, with accusations of fraternisation, selling out and treachery."
What you say about Corbyn is hard to disagree with, but the Tory 'Outers' are prepared to trash their party and the country with their extreme views on Europe,
Quite. I did think about adding a final section on the similarities on the right of the Tories but didn't in the end, partly because it would have diverted the main thrust of the piece, and partly because the left of Labour is in power, whereas the right of the Tories isn't, for the moment.
V sad to hear that " The Greatest " has died. Much better to talk about him that this insufferable referendum. I cannot bear to listen to either side as you know its lies before any of them open their mouths.
I'm afraid it's the nature of a political betting site that the discussion will centre on politics. If anything, I think I've been guilty of not giving the EURef enough attention in my weekend pieces these last two months.
Mr. Herdson, Mr. Song, that line reminds me of Thucydides when he laments that moderation was reviled as cowardice, and rash action was seen to be a sign of good character [in reference to the democratic/oligarchic clashes within cities during the Peloponnesian War].
Corbyn's blinkered perspective is the natural end point of making all political things matters of morality (obviously some things are, but not everything). When disagreement with a policy or perspective becomes an immoral thing, your opponents aren't just people who happen to have a different view, they're wicked, heartless, wilfully cruel, and so on.
Mr. Herdson, Mr. Song, that line reminds me of Thucydides when he laments that moderation was reviled as cowardice, and rash action was seen to be a sign of good character [in reference to the democratic/oligarchic clashes within cities during the Peloponnesian War].
I am constantly surprised at Michael Gove talking about VAT reductions, tons more money for the NHS etc when he is a member of a Government that increased VAT and has effectively restricted spending by the NHS.
It seems a tad hypocritical!
Incidentally, I’ve just been on a senior citizens web forum where the only comments about the EU are for Remain.
The thing to remember about Jezza is that he is genuinely not very bright. In fact, off the top of my head I can't think of another leader of one of the major parties who has ever been thicker. Only IDS comes remotely close. Jezza does not know what he is doing. Literally. A while back SeanT, I think, likened him to Chauncey Gardener. That is entirely accurate.
I am constantly surprised at Michael Gove talking about VAT reductions, tons more money for the NHS etc when he is a member of a Government that increased VAT and has effectively restricted spending by the NHS.
It seems a tad hypocritical!
Incidentally, I’ve just been on a senior citizens web forum where the only comments about the EU are for Remain.
V sad to hear that " The Greatest " has died. Much better to talk about him that this insufferable referendum. I cannot bear to listen to either side as you know its lies before any of them open their mouths.
I'm afraid it's the nature of a political betting site that the discussion will centre on politics. If anything, I think I've been guilty of not giving the EURef enough attention in my weekend pieces these last two months.
I didn't mean on here, that's a given, I mean that I cannot bear to listen to the politicians. This referendum has damaged them more than they can possibly imagine, If voters thought they were a bunch of snake oil salesmen before the referendum started, god alone knows what they think now.
I have no party to support any more. just to oppose the more mad .
I am constantly surprised at Michael Gove talking about VAT reductions, tons more money for the NHS etc when he is a member of a Government that increased VAT and has effectively restricted spending by the NHS.
It seems a tad hypocritical!
Incidentally, I’ve just been on a senior citizens web forum where the only comments about the EU are for Remain.
At least one of my eyebrows was raised during that bit. As an example of our lack of freedom of manoeuvre fair enough but as a policy? Not sure.
What you say about Corbyn is hard to disagree with, but the Tory 'Outers' are prepared to trash their party and the country with their extreme views on Europe,
Disingenuous Remainer cant.
When was "I think it would be a good idea to leave the EU" an extreme view on Europe (or even the EU) ?
Shockingly, not all views you disagree with are "extreme".
V sad to hear that " The Greatest " has died. Much better to talk about him that this insufferable referendum. I cannot bear to listen to either side as you know its lies before any of them open their mouths.
I'm afraid it's the nature of a political betting site that the discussion will centre on politics. If anything, I think I've been guilty of not giving the EURef enough attention in my weekend pieces these last two months.
I didn't mean on here, that's a given, I mean that I cannot bear to listen to the politicians. This referendum has damaged them more than they can possibly imagine, If voters thought they were a bunch of snake oil salesmen before the referendum started, god alone knows what they think now.
I have no party to support any more. just to oppose the more mad .
Welcome to the gang. And the really good thing is that it is only going to get worse. Both the major parties are now broken.
When I've finished my current books I'm thinking of going back to re-read some classics (already done Norwich's trilogy twice. Gibbon's work is too massive [don't have the time], but I may well give Thucydides/Kagan, Ammianus Marcellinus etc another look).
Classical history's got many excellent lessons for the modern world, and I think benefits from being early enough that the difference between barbarity and civilisation was plain to see. There were no safe spaces in the Golden Age of Imperial Rome.
The thing to remember about Jezza is that he is genuinely not very bright. In fact, off the top of my head I can't think of another leader of one of the major parties who has ever been thicker. Only IDS comes remotely close. Jezza does not know what he is doing. Literally. A while back SeanT, I think, likened him to Chauncey Gardener. That is entirely accurate.
Comparing the intellects of Jezza and IDS reminds me of the old fable of the race between the tortoise and the two short planks. I would hesitate to say which is which.
I am constantly surprised at Michael Gove talking about VAT reductions, tons more money for the NHS etc when he is a member of a Government that increased VAT and has effectively restricted spending by the NHS.
It seems a tad hypocritical!
Incidentally, I’ve just been on a senior citizens web forum where the only comments about the EU are for Remain.
Maybe he dosent - but Labour did want to abolish vat on fuel but the EU would not let them. We are not voting for gove in thus referendum we are voting so that whoever we vote for in 2020 can aboliah VAT on fuel if that is whst the electorate desire.
What you say about Corbyn is hard to disagree with, but the Tory 'Outers' are prepared to trash their party and the country with their extreme views on Europe,
Disingenuous Remainer cant.
When was "I think it would be a good idea to leave the EU" an extreme view on Europe (or even the EU) ?
Shockingly, not all views you disagree with are "extreme".
Is it even possible to have an "extreme" view on voting systems?
"As police intervened, the priest from St Mary's Church in Ilford, east London, kicked an officer in the face, the court was told.
When asked which embassy would grant him diplomatic immunity, the Anglican priest said "the Vatican" and swore at officers.
Jones, has previous convictions for a bomb hoax, affray, possession of cannabis, fraud, and criminal damage, now faces formal church disciplinary proceedings."
Only NOW faces disciplinary proceedings - with a rap sheet like that? You get a free pass for a bomb hoax? What a job...
I am constantly surprised at Michael Gove talking about VAT reductions, tons more money for the NHS etc when he is a member of a Government that increased VAT and has effectively restricted spending by the NHS.
No so.
As a member of the government he was bound by collective responsibility and even if he personally disagreed he had to support the settled view of his colleagues in cabinet.
The PM explicitly lifted collective responsibility for the referendum period so he is now free to make clear his personal views, rather than those agreed collectively with his cabinet colleagues.
The thing to remember about Jezza is that he is genuinely not very bright. In fact, off the top of my head I can't think of another leader of one of the major parties who has ever been thicker. Only IDS comes remotely close. Jezza does not know what he is doing. Literally. A while back SeanT, I think, likened him to Chauncey Gardener. That is entirely accurate.
Nope because there is definite narrow-eyed malintent with Jezza.
@annemcelvoy: "Experts typically come from the establishment" says lady @BBCNewsnight . Thus we arrive at point when knowing about anything is a liability
The thing to remember about Jezza is that he is genuinely not very bright. In fact, off the top of my head I can't think of another leader of one of the major parties who has ever been thicker. Only IDS comes remotely close. Jezza does not know what he is doing. Literally. A while back SeanT, I think, likened him to Chauncey Gardener. That is entirely accurate.
I've been mulling over recent party leaders and I would tend to agree. Possibly Lansbury might be a rival, but there can't be many alive who remember him.
Indeed, Corbyn resembles Lansbury in several ways; both old, both stupid, both incompetent, both elected following a devastating defeat where most other possible leaders lost their seats, both beloved by the members, both hated by the PLP.
But will Corbyn resemble him in the one way that would really help Labour - by not fighting a general election?
PS, after seeing that video of Juncker, I'm seriously considering voting leave for the first time. There is something really, seriously, deeply wrong with an organisation that promotes and protects such a charlatan (and I'm thinking of his tax policies too).
What you say about Corbyn is hard to disagree with, but the Tory 'Outers' are prepared to trash their party and the country with their extreme views on Europe,
Disingenuous Remainer cant.
When was "I think it would be a good idea to leave the EU" an extreme view on Europe (or even the EU) ?
Shockingly, not all views you disagree with are "extreme".
Is it even possible to have an "extreme" view on voting systems?
As a member of the government he was bound by collective responsibility and even if he personally disagreed he had to support the settled view of his colleagues in cabinet.
I am constantly surprised at Michael Gove talking about VAT reductions, tons more money for the NHS etc when he is a member of a Government that increased VAT and has effectively restricted spending by the NHS.
It seems a tad hypocritical!
Incidentally, I’ve just been on a senior citizens web forum where the only comments about the EU are for Remain.
Maybe he dosent - but Labour did want to abolish vat on fuel but the EU would not let them. We are not voting for gove in thus referendum we are voting so that whoever we vote for in 2020 can aboliah VAT on fuel if that is whst the electorate desire.
No, Labour were fibbing too. VAT is a great tax, governments want to levy it on whatever they can get away with. It's also very visible and unpopular, so oppositions always pretend they want to cut it.
I am constantly surprised at Michael Gove talking about VAT reductions, tons more money for the NHS etc when he is a member of a Government that increased VAT and has effectively restricted spending by the NHS.
It seems a tad hypocritical!
Incidentally, I’ve just been on a senior citizens web forum where the only comments about the EU are for Remain.
Maybe he dosent - but Labour did want to abolish vat on fuel but the EU would not let them. We are not voting for gove in thus referendum we are voting so that whoever we vote for in 2020 can aboliah VAT on fuel if that is whst the electorate desire.
Did they? With that environmental fanatic Ed Miliband at Environment? They kept it well hidden if they did.
What you say about Corbyn is hard to disagree with, but the Tory 'Outers' are prepared to trash their party and the country with their extreme views on Europe,
Disingenuous Remainer cant.
When was "I think it would be a good idea to leave the EU" an extreme view on Europe (or even the EU) ?
Shockingly, not all views you disagree with are "extreme".
Is it even possible to have an "extreme" view on voting systems?
DH on activism: "winning isn’t the point, not if it comes at the price of impurity" because most actvists - DH himself is an exception - don't want to have to defend that impurity afterwards (it's always a lost cause, so who can blame them?).
Perhaps we should have a thread on why people go to the time and trouble to join a political party. (To say nothing of the expense.) Is it, indeed, an emotionally healthy thing to do? I strongly suspect that an opinion poll would show that most voters regard activists as more or less weird. This site alone demonstrates that the opposite is also true
I am constantly surprised at Michael Gove talking about VAT reductions, tons more money for the NHS etc when he is a member of a Government that increased VAT and has effectively restricted spending by the NHS.
It seems a tad hypocritical!
Incidentally, I’ve just been on a senior citizens web forum where the only comments about the EU are for Remain.
Maybe he dosent - but Labour did want to abolish vat on fuel but the EU would not let them. We are not voting for gove in thus referendum we are voting so that whoever we vote for in 2020 can aboliah VAT on fuel if that is whst the electorate desire.
Did they? With that environmental fanatic Ed Miliband at Environment? They kept it well hidden if they did.
The government put it up when they were in opposition and they affected to oppose it, and want to bring it back down.
I am constantly surprised at Michael Gove talking about VAT reductions, tons more money for the NHS etc when he is a member of a Government that increased VAT and has effectively restricted spending by the NHS.
It seems a tad hypocritical!
Incidentally, I’ve just been on a senior citizens web forum where the only comments about the EU are for Remain.
Maybe he dosent - but Labour did want to abolish vat on fuel but the EU would not let them. We are not voting for gove in thus referendum we are voting so that whoever we vote for in 2020 can aboliah VAT on fuel if that is whst the electorate desire.
Did they? With that environmental fanatic Ed Miliband at Environment? They kept it well hidden if they did.
Yes they did. Ken Clarke imposed vat on gas/leccy bills during Major governmtnt at full rate. Labour pleged to abo,ish it (I think it was a manifesto commitment in 97 election).
After getting in they were only allowed to cut it to 5% - and that took a fair bit of grovelling to the EU and shortly after I recall Blair gave away a chunk of the Thatcher rebate.
I am constantly surprised at Michael Gove talking about VAT reductions, tons more money for the NHS etc when he is a member of a Government that increased VAT and has effectively restricted spending by the NHS.
It seems a tad hypocritical!
Incidentally, I’ve just been on a senior citizens web forum where the only comments about the EU are for Remain.
Maybe he dosent - but Labour did want to abolish vat on fuel but the EU would not let them. We are not voting for gove in thus referendum we are voting so that whoever we vote for in 2020 can aboliah VAT on fuel if that is whst the electorate desire.
Did they? With that environmental fanatic Ed Miliband at Environment? They kept it well hidden if they did.
Yes they did. Ken Clarke imposed vat on gas/leccy bills during Major governmtnt at full rate. Labour pleged to abo,ish it (I think it was a manifesto commitment in 97 election).
After getting in they were only allowed to cut it to 5% - and that took a fair bit of grovelling to the EU and shortly after I recall Blair gave away a chunk of the Thatcher rebate.
You can argue that if it had been allowed they'd have made the manifesto commitment to abolish it then delivered on that, but that's by no means a no-brainer as they were carefully costing things to avoid the Tax Bombshell charge, so they'd have had to promise to tax something else to pay for it.
I am constantly surprised at Michael Gove talking about VAT reductions, tons more money for the NHS etc when he is a member of a Government that increased VAT and has effectively restricted spending by the NHS.
It seems a tad hypocritical!
Incidentally, I’ve just been on a senior citizens web forum where the only comments about the EU are for Remain.
Maybe he dosent - but Labour did want to abolish vat on fuel but the EU would not let them. We are not voting for gove in thus referendum we are voting so that whoever we vote for in 2020 can aboliah VAT on fuel if that is whst the electorate desire.
Did they? With that environmental fanatic Ed Miliband at Environment? They kept it well hidden if they did.
Yes they did. Ken Clarke imposed vat on gas/leccy bills during Major governmtnt at full rate. Labour pleged to abo,ish it (I think it was a manifesto commitment in 97 election).
After getting in they were only allowed to cut it to 5% - and that took a fair bit of grovelling to the EU and shortly after I recall Blair gave away a chunk of the Thatcher rebate.
You can argue that if it had been allowed they'd have made the manifesto commitment to abolish it then delivered on that, but that's by no means a no-brainer as they were carefully costing things to avoid the Tax Bombshell charge, so they'd have had to promise to tax something else to pay for it.
The exact words in the manifesto are.
'We will cut VAT on fuel to five per cent, the lowest level allowed.'
Allowed by the EU.
The manifesto also describes how they regard VAT on fuel as wrong and opposed its introduction by the Major government
Im sure they originally wanted to abolish it and took it up with the EU who said Nein. It may be that they discussed it with them in opposition
The thing to remember about Jezza is that he is genuinely not very bright. In fact, off the top of my head I can't think of another leader of one of the major parties who has ever been thicker. Only IDS comes remotely close. Jezza does not know what he is doing. Literally. A while back SeanT, I think, likened him to Chauncey Gardener. That is entirely accurate.
I've been mulling over recent party leaders and I would tend to agree. Possibly Lansbury might be a rival, but there can't be many alive who remember him.
Indeed, Corbyn resembles Lansbury in several ways; both old, both stupid, both incompetent, both elected following a devastating defeat where most other possible leaders lost their seats, both beloved by the members, both hated by the PLP.
But will Corbyn resemble him in the one way that would really help Labour - by not fighting a general election?
PS, after seeing that video of Juncker, I'm seriously considering voting leave for the first time. There is something really, seriously, deeply wrong with an organisation that promotes and protects such a charlatan (and I'm thinking of his tax policies too).
One coincidence with Corbyn resembling Lansbury is that Cameron is not a million miles from the Tory leader of the time too. Osborne as Chamberlain isn't that bad a bad fit either - though Osborne is a good deal more concerned with PR and popular politics.
Ref the EU and Juncker, it's hardly unique in that. The Lib Dems covered up Kennedy's problems. Labour has promoted Corbyn to the leadership and the Tories did likewise with IDS.
What you say about Corbyn is hard to disagree with, but the Tory 'Outers' are prepared to trash their party and the country with their extreme views on Europe,
Disingenuous Remainer cant.
When was "I think it would be a good idea to leave the EU" an extreme view on Europe (or even the EU) ?
Shockingly, not all views you disagree with are "extreme".
Is it even possible to have an "extreme" view on voting systems?
ARD poll in Germany - they want us to stay because we're "honest".
Seven out of ten Germans (69 per cent) agreed that “you can trust Great Britain” compared with 53 per cent for the United States and just 7 per cent for Turkey.
What ia Standard News. I didnt thi k London Evening Standard published on Saturdays?
No, it was in yesterday's edition. A full page but IMO not very eye-catching - I just noticed it in passing as I flipped through the paper on the Tube.
The thing to remember about Jezza is that he is genuinely not very bright. In fact, off the top of my head I can't think of another leader of one of the major parties who has ever been thicker. Only IDS comes remotely close. Jezza does not know what he is doing. Literally. A while back SeanT, I think, likened him to Chauncey Gardener. That is entirely accurate.
I've been mulling over recent party leaders and I would tend to agree. Possibly Lansbury might be a rival, but there can't be many alive who remember him.
Indeed, Corbyn resembles Lansbury in several ways; both old, both stupid, both incompetent, both elected following a devastating defeat where most other possible leaders lost their seats, both beloved by the members, both hated by the PLP.
But will Corbyn resemble him in the one way that would really help Labour - by not fighting a general election?
PS, after seeing that video of Juncker, I'm seriously considering voting leave for the first time. There is something really, seriously, deeply wrong with an organisation that promotes and protects such a charlatan (and I'm thinking of his tax policies too).
One coincidence with Corbyn resembling Lansbury is that Cameron is not a million miles from the Tory leader of the time too. Osborne as Chamberlain isn't that bad a bad fit either - though Osborne is a good deal more concerned with PR and popular politics.
Ref the EU and Juncker, it's hardly unique in that. The Lib Dems covered up Kennedy's problems. Labour has promoted Corbyn to the leadership and the Tories did likewise with IDS.
JC hardly drinks. Dunno about IDS, but he doesn't look like a drinker to me.
Just on Gove versus Cameron in terms of audience heckling and the like: it's worth noting Cameron's higher profile, and has been for years. This is a risk-free way to kick the PM without any chance of Corbyn becoming the head of government, and I think that should be considered when looking at how the public treat Cameron and someone like Gove (who isn't a nobody but doesn't have a comparable profile).
You can argue that if it had been allowed they'd have made the manifesto commitment to abolish it then delivered on that, but that's by no means a no-brainer as they were carefully costing things to avoid the Tax Bombshell charge, so they'd have had to promise to tax something else to pay for it.
The exact words in the manifesto are.
'We will cut VAT on fuel to five per cent, the lowest level allowed.'
Allowed by the EU.
The manifesto also describes how they regard VAT on fuel as wrong and opposed its introduction by the Major government
Im sure they originally wanted to abolish it and took it up with the EU who said Nein. It may be that they discussed it with them in opposition
There's a write-up of the whole thing here. Basically it was clear that they wouldn't be able to put it down to 0% once the Tories had put it up. The was a slight question mark about whether 8% to 5% would be OK and the Commission wasn't very keen on it, but legally they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.
The theory that if they'd been able to they'd have dropped it to 0% and taxed something else to pay for it may be true, but I haven't seen any evidence for it. Saying they wanted to while in opposition isn't evidence for it, because they'll obviously say that if it doesn't cost them anything. I guess you'd have to give Gordon Brown a few drinks and ask him.
I am constantly surprised at Michael Gove talking about VAT reductions, tons more money for the NHS etc when he is a member of a Government that increased VAT and has effectively restricted spending by the NHS.
It seems a tad hypocritical!
Incidentally, I’ve just been on a senior citizens web forum where the only comments about the EU are for Remain.
Maybe he dosent - but Labour did want to abolish vat on fuel but the EU would not let them. We are not voting for gove in thus referendum we are voting so that whoever we vote for in 2020 can aboliah VAT on fuel if that is whst the electorate desire.
Any government can effectively cut VAT on fuel by changing the level of petrol duty.
It's going to be a hard one to assess because it is totally plausible that Trump has blown up the Republican brand, but then again he may not. It'll be interesting to see what polls using online panels make of it, as they can ask the same people they spoke to before the election and see if they'll still admit to being Republicans.
I am constantly surprised at Michael Gove talking about VAT reductions, tons more money for the NHS etc when he is a member of a Government that increased VAT and has effectively restricted spending by the NHS.
It seems a tad hypocritical!
Incidentally, I’ve just been on a senior citizens web forum where the only comments about the EU are for Remain.
Maybe he dosent - but Labour did want to abolish vat on fuel but the EU would not let them. We are not voting for gove in thus referendum we are voting so that whoever we vote for in 2020 can aboliah VAT on fuel if that is whst the electorate desire.
Any government can effectively cut VAT on fuel by changing the level of petrol duty.
I think this one's about heating oil and stuff rather than petrol - are there any separate taxes on that?
The problem with the labour left (and indeed, the extremes on the right) is that they do hate people who disagree with them. They think they are both stupid and malevolent, but even worse, ill-informed.
That's why they boo and hate Laura K.
She is the font of all evil by not totally buying into the wisdom that Jezza is a latter-day saint. She has confused the feeble-minded, and that's why they vote for other parties.
If you start from the basis that your judgement is always first class, then when people disagree, it can only be stupidity or brain-washing. Laura is totally responsible for the latter and thus deserves to be booed. She is the Farmer Jones intent on destabilising Animal Farm.
In a Trotskyite heaven, there will be no need for voting and democracy. And contrary opinions can be silenced for the good of the people.
What ia Standard News. I didnt thi k London Evening Standard published on Saturdays?
No, it was in yesterday's edition. A full page but IMO not very eye-catching - I just noticed it in passing as I flipped through the paper on the Tube.
I am constantly surprised at Michael Gove talking about VAT reductions, tons more money for the NHS etc when he is a member of a Government that increased VAT and has effectively restricted spending by the NHS.
It seems a tad hypocritical!
Incidentally, I’ve just been on a senior citizens web forum where the only comments about the EU are for Remain.
Maybe he dosent - but Labour did want to abolish vat on fuel but the EU would not let them. We are not voting for gove in thus referendum we are voting so that whoever we vote for in 2020 can aboliah VAT on fuel if that is whst the electorate desire.
Any government can effectively cut VAT on fuel by changing the level of petrol duty.
You can argue that if it had been allowed they'd have made the manifesto commitment to abolish it then delivered on that, but that's by no means a no-brainer as they were carefully costing things to avoid the Tax Bombshell charge, so they'd have had to promise to tax something else to pay for it.
The exact words in the manifesto are.
'We will cut VAT on fuel to five per cent, the lowest level allowed.'
Allowed by the EU.
The manifesto also describes how they regard VAT on fuel as wrong and opposed its introduction by the Major government
Im sure they originally wanted to abolish it and took it up with the EU who said Nein. It may be that they discussed it with them in opposition
There's a write-up of the whole thing here. Basically it was clear that they wouldn't be able to put it down to 0% once the Tories had put it up. The was a slight question mark about whether 8% to 5% would be OK and the Commission wasn't very keen on it, but legally they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.
The theory that if they'd been able to they'd have dropped it to 0% and taxed something else to pay for it may be true, but I haven't seen any evidence for it. Saying they wanted to while in opposition isn't evidence for it, because they'll obviously say that if it doesn't cost them anything. I guess you'd have to give Gordon Brown a few drinks and ask him.
Thanks for tbat. It was a long time ago and the memory plays tricks. Im sure it would have gone to 0% if they could have done it though.
For once I entirely disagree with David - and I've never shrunk from talking to anyone, including BNP supporters and people who explicitly thought I should be locked up.
1. The "hissing" was a very short interruption by a small number of people who, contrary to what David writes, were immediately hushed by Corbyn. MPs put up with far worse in any well-attended Commons debate. Nor are journalists generally shrinking violets, intimidated by the reaction of a few random strangers. It's not a good thing that someone is rude, not least as it encourages reporting the event as a process story, but it's also not a big deal. 2. Short of total stage management, it's literally impossible to guarantee that nobody in a large audience will not say or do something you don't entirely like - all you can really do is tell them to stop it. 3. The decision not to share a platform with the Tories on the EU is both a direct lesson from the Scottish referendum, when it proved to be nearly suicidal, and also in the interest of providing a distinctive non-Tory case for Remain. Otherwise we'd be hearing all about the Establishment parties ganging up together. For Sadiq to do it is one thing, but the party leader should avoid it, and I'd advise the same whoever the leader was.
The point I do agree with is that it's worth putting more effort into media outreach than is currently being done. But imposing omerta on party gatherings is not the way to do it. If the worst that anyone in political debate encounters is the odd hiss, not many will genuinely be very affronted. The journalists who I know are much more worried and annoyed about pressure on their editors by spin doctors of all sides - something which David paradoxically argues was the perfect strategy, and which is actually not (so far as I know) being done by Labour at the moment.
Reluctantly I dropped my membership & support for Labour after Corbyn got elected, accepting that although he was not someone I could ever vote for he was the choice of the party.
Although views on the EU were not really considered at the time of the leadership ballot I think that Labour choosing a leader who is, let's face it, anti-EU is possibly going to result in Leave winning this referendum.
Although the party and the unions are strongly pro-EU we are stuck with a leader who isn't and it's tragic. If we leave the EU then, when the history is written, he is going to get a lot of the blame for his insipid leadership of the party on the issue. (One poll showing half Labour supporters don't even know where the party stands)
Up to now I thought his only legacy would be that he would be the only Labour politician capable of losing to a Tory party in total disarray.
Corbyn is definitely winning me over - and nobody could be more surprised about that than I am.
I'm not sure that I'm saying that I'm quite ready to vote Labour for the first time ever (as strongly disliking them for all my life up to now is quite a mental hurdle to get over) but I'm certainly feeling a pull towards them that I've never felt before.
I wanted to vote Labour in the local elections last month but couldn't quite make the psychological leap in the polling booth when the pencil was in my hand. Strange times.
I didn't think he came across that badly in the Vice piece.
A little out of his depth and generally useless, but not a bad person.
The problem with the labour left (and indeed, the extremes on the right) is that they do hate people who disagree with them. They think they are both stupid and malevolent, but even worse, ill-informed.
That's why they boo and hate Laura K.
She is the font of all evil by not totally buying into the wisdom that Jezza is a latter-day saint. She has confused the feeble-minded, and that's why they vote for other parties.
If you start from the basis that your judgement is always first class, then when people disagree, it can only be stupidity or brain-washing. Laura is totally responsible for the latter and thus deserves to be booed. She is the Farmer Jones intent on destabilising Animal Farm.
In a Trotskyite heaven, there will be no need for voting and democracy. And contrary opinions can be silenced for the good of the people.
You can argue that if it had been allowed they'd have made the manifesto commitment to abolish it then delivered on that, but that's by no means a no-brainer as they were carefully costing things to avoid the Tax Bombshell charge, so they'd have had to promise to tax something else to pay for it.
The exact words in the manifesto are.
'We will cut VAT on fuel to five per cent, the lowest level allowed.'
Allowed by the EU.
The manifesto also describes how they regard VAT on fuel as wrong and opposed its introduction by the Major government
Im sure they originally wanted to abolish it and took it up with the EU who said Nein. It may be that they discussed it with them in opposition
There's a write-up of the whole thing here. Basically it was clear that they wouldn't be able to put it down to 0% once the Tories had put it up. The was a slight question mark about whether 8% to 5% would be OK and the Commission wasn't very keen on it, but legally they wouldn't have had a leg to stand on.
The theory that if they'd been able to they'd have dropped it to 0% and taxed something else to pay for it may be true, but I haven't seen any evidence for it. Saying they wanted to while in opposition isn't evidence for it, because they'll obviously say that if it doesn't cost them anything. I guess you'd have to give Gordon Brown a few drinks and ask him.
Thanks for tbat. It was a long time ago and the memory plays tricks. Im sure it would have gone to 0% if they could have done it though.
Trump's changed the date of his UK visit to the day before the referendum.
"So, punk, your parliament of maladjusted intellectual pygmies wasted a whole day ejaculating over some motion, intending to ban me from your shores. Like, whatever happened to it? Does anyone know for sure?
Whatever... I'm here now. So, maybe you can receive me at Downing Street with the respect due to a possible POTUS. Wanna act the jerk, instead?
Hey Man, no problem.
Where's the nearest mike? I feel a press conference coming on... Some kinda vote happening tomorrow, so I hear..."
As the constitutional consequences sink in I think his attack on the judge in the Trump University case is going to play badly.
For once I entirely disagree with David - and I've never shrunk from talking to anyone, including BNP supporters and people who explicitly thought I should be locked up.
1. The "hissing" was a very short interruption by a small number of people who, contrary to s one thing, but the party leader should avoid it, and I'd advise the same whoever the leader was.
The point I do agree with is that it's worth putting more effort into media outreach than is currently being done. But imposing omerta on party gatherings is not the way to do it. If the worst that anyone in political debate encounters is the odd hiss, not many will genuinely be very affronted. The journalists who I know are much more worried and annoyed about pressure on their editors by spin doctors of all sides - something which David paradoxically argues was the perfect strategy, and which is actually not (so far as I know) being done by Labour at the moment.
Reluctantly I dropped my membership & support for Labour after Corbyn got elected, accepting that although he was not someone I could ever vote for he was the choice of the party.
Although views on the EU were not really considered at the time of the leadership ballot I think that Labour choosing a leader who is, let's face it, anti-EU is possibly going to result in Leave winning this referendum.
Although the party and the unions are strongly pro-EU we are stuck with a leader who isn't and it's tragic. If we leave the EU then, when the history is written, he is going to get a lot of the blame for his insipid leadership of the party on the issue. (One poll showing half Labour supporters don't even know where the party stands)
Up to now I thought his only legacy would be that he would be the only Labour politician capable of losing to a Tory party in total disarray.
Spot on. A Leave vote will be Labour's failure almost as much as Cameron's. Think what you like about Blair, but when he was LOTO there is no way he would have allowed an issue like this to be seen as a Tory party feud. He would have done all he could to own the debate and set its parameters. He would, correctly, have seen it as a potential springboard into power.
Obviously, the Labour membership will seek solace in blaming the Tories for a Brexit vote. They lack the self-awareness to understand just how much they would have contributed to it.
On the face of it the decision by Corbyn not to share a platform with Cameron and Osborne when he shares one with hezbollah and the IRA seems both childish and hypocritical.....
I was planning to write something on what advertising we could expect in the final three weeks and how the art of persuasion might work in that context.
To this end I started watching the hour long magnus opus from Brexit. It opens with a presenter in front of the EU Parliament building telling the viewer that 'this is the most important decision you'll ever make because unlike a general election it's forever....'
Its known that 90% of our opinions are pretty solid and maybe 10% are susceptible to influence and if you try to cast doubt on the 90% you're more likely to lose your customer than persuade him....
After watching several minutes of the Brexit documentary the camera cut to Melanie Phillips. As she spoke I could feel my 90% being invaded and from finding this impressive documentary persuasive the opposite started to happen. It was as tangible and as simple as that.
From the point of view of the Remain campaign though it seems counter intuitive I'm sure Corbyn made the right decision. Whether his motives were as admirable as his judgement only he can say.
If he walks like a Trot and talks like a Trot? It's an assumption on my part. It also explains the enthusiasm of the young - the time when all is black and white and you have the total certainty that you are right.
I met many young Trots is my youth. Jezza is the same age as me and retains his seventeen-year-old outlook. "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now" Copyright Bob Dylan.
Comments
In contrast I cannot recall a time in my adult life when one of our major parties had so little to say and was basically ignored. Even William Hague's Conservatives in the age of Blair had more to contribute than this.
Of course Blair had the advantage of a humungous majority which helped to make the views of the Tories less important. Corbyn faces what is, in reality, a minority government over which, with a bit of compromise and negotiation, he could have a powerful influence. He has in fairness achieved some changes but his puritanical approach greatly weakens his scope.
I also think that he had made a strategic decision to be relentlessly positive and not engage in the kind of gloom mongering that Cameron had. Whether that will prove to be a successful tactic in the absence of any clear detail we will have to wait and see.
I didn't see it but the front pages are very favourable to Gove. The momentum is definitely with Leave.
btw I don't do pretending I'm upset if somebody I've never met dies, but RIP Cassius, a true icon.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10929427/Fears-over-Jean-Claude-Junckers-drinking.html
He got into the hall and gave a masterful, coherent, sharp oratory, took questions, and glad-handed before leaving with no one having the slightest clue of his state.
I'm glad Gove chose the positive route.
"By contrast, the outer wings of either party are happy to define themselves by their refusal to compromise. Indeed, centrists on their own side are often even more reviled than those on the opposing one, with accusations of fraternisation, selling out and treachery."
What you say about Corbyn is hard to disagree with, but the Tory 'Outers' are prepared to trash their party and the country with their extreme views on Europe,
I cannot bear to listen to either side as you know its lies before any of them open their mouths.
It's good that you'll engage with all sides but that certainly isn't the view of Corbyn or his inner team. I meant to include the video of the walk through Westminster at the Queen's Speech and have now updated the header with that link in. It's a classic of Corbyn's refusal to play that game - or indeed any game which he doesn't like. I could just as easily have cited one of the many examples of his often rude and always brusque responses to journalists waiting for a quote or question in doorstepped would-be interviews.
On your objections, I don't think he did shush them immediately. It's about four seconds between when it starts and when he cuts in:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/video/2016/jun/02/bbcs-laura-kuenssberg-hissed-at-questions-jeremy-corbyn-video
He then neither apologies to Kuenssberg nor criticises those heckling. Sure, journalists aren't shrinking violets and there's no small amount of mud thrown the other way but that's not the point. It looks like a deliberate attempt to intimidate. Now, you might argue that an effective spin operation *is* an attempt to intimidate but that misses the point, which is about the effect on public opinion - which is what a media operation is about.
I don't think that the Scottish referendum experience is all that relevant here, although the trauma of what's happened in Scotland has no doubt run deep in Labour; I'm convinced that Corbyn would have acted the same way with or without Scottish Labour's collapse over the last two years. There is a good argument for Corbyn making his advocacy of EU membership independent Cameron but then as I said, I don't think he was really making that case anyway; he was making one that Cameron quite simply could not sign up to.
Corbyn's blinkered perspective is the natural end point of making all political things matters of morality (obviously some things are, but not everything). When disagreement with a policy or perspective becomes an immoral thing, your opponents aren't just people who happen to have a different view, they're wicked, heartless, wilfully cruel, and so on.
https://twitter.com/neiledwardlovat/status/738988283196231680
It seems a tad hypocritical!
Incidentally, I’ve just been on a senior citizens web forum where the only comments about the EU are for Remain.
St Peter is going to be busy....
@RhonddaBryant: Gove is fibbing. He doesn't want to cut VAT.
https://t.co/whtorXHn7K
I have no party to support any more. just to oppose the more mad .
When was "I think it would be a good idea to leave the EU" an extreme view on Europe (or even the EU) ?
Shockingly, not all views you disagree with are "extreme".
When I've finished my current books I'm thinking of going back to re-read some classics (already done Norwich's trilogy twice. Gibbon's work is too massive [don't have the time], but I may well give Thucydides/Kagan, Ammianus Marcellinus etc another look).
Classical history's got many excellent lessons for the modern world, and I think benefits from being early enough that the difference between barbarity and civilisation was plain to see. There were no safe spaces in the Golden Age of Imperial Rome.
Link: See BBC.
"As police intervened, the priest from St Mary's Church in Ilford, east London, kicked an officer in the face, the court was told.
When asked which embassy would grant him diplomatic immunity, the Anglican priest said "the Vatican" and swore at officers.
Jones, has previous convictions for a bomb hoax, affray, possession of cannabis, fraud, and criminal damage, now faces formal church disciplinary proceedings."
Only NOW faces disciplinary proceedings - with a rap sheet like that? You get a free pass for a bomb hoax? What a job...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-36445522
As a member of the government he was bound by collective responsibility and even if he personally disagreed he had to support the settled view of his colleagues in cabinet.
The PM explicitly lifted collective responsibility for the referendum period so he is now free to make clear his personal views, rather than those agreed collectively with his cabinet colleagues.
Indeed, Corbyn resembles Lansbury in several ways; both old, both stupid, both incompetent, both elected following a devastating defeat where most other possible leaders lost their seats, both beloved by the members, both hated by the PLP.
But will Corbyn resemble him in the one way that would really help Labour - by not fighting a general election?
PS, after seeing that video of Juncker, I'm seriously considering voting leave for the first time. There is something really, seriously, deeply wrong with an organisation that promotes and protects such a charlatan (and I'm thinking of his tax policies too).
Answer came there none
Perhaps we should have a thread on why people go to the time and trouble to join a political party. (To say nothing of the expense.) Is it, indeed, an emotionally healthy thing to do? I strongly suspect that an opinion poll would show that most voters regard activists as more or less weird. This site alone demonstrates that the opposite is also true
Thank you @labourleave for the full page ad in today's @standardnews How true! Hope people take note. https://t.co/YM4gCeXI8t
After getting in they were only allowed to cut it to 5% - and that took a fair bit of grovelling to the EU and shortly after I recall Blair gave away a chunk of the Thatcher rebate.
That's more than can be said for Cameron's immigration pledge or Corbyn's faux concern for ordinary folk.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7191062/Cops-raid-cash-row-MP-Natalie-McGarrys-home.html
You are talking about SNP MPs, right? Angus and Stewart were definitely sneaking about
http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab97.htm
You can argue that if it had been allowed they'd have made the manifesto commitment to abolish it then delivered on that, but that's by no means a no-brainer as they were carefully costing things to avoid the Tax Bombshell charge, so they'd have had to promise to tax something else to pay for it.
'We will cut VAT on fuel to five per cent, the lowest level allowed.'
Allowed by the EU.
The manifesto also describes how they regard VAT on fuel as wrong and opposed its introduction by the Major government
Im sure they originally wanted to abolish it and took it up with the EU who said Nein. It may be that they discussed it with them in opposition
Ref the EU and Juncker, it's hardly unique in that. The Lib Dems covered up Kennedy's problems. Labour has promoted Corbyn to the leadership and the Tories did likewise with IDS.
Seven out of ten Germans (69 per cent) agreed that “you can trust Great Britain” compared with 53 per cent for the United States and just 7 per cent for Turkey.
The theory that if they'd been able to they'd have dropped it to 0% and taxed something else to pay for it may be true, but I haven't seen any evidence for it. Saying they wanted to while in opposition isn't evidence for it, because they'll obviously say that if it doesn't cost them anything. I guess you'd have to give Gordon Brown a few drinks and ask him.
http://statespoll.com/post/145214873450/ipsosreuters-528-531-overweighted-dem-too-much
It's going to be a hard one to assess because it is totally plausible that Trump has blown up the Republican brand, but then again he may not. It'll be interesting to see what polls using online panels make of it, as they can ask the same people they spoke to before the election and see if they'll still admit to being Republicans.
That's why they boo and hate Laura K.
She is the font of all evil by not totally buying into the wisdom that Jezza is a latter-day saint. She has confused the feeble-minded, and that's why they vote for other parties.
If you start from the basis that your judgement is always first class, then when people disagree, it can only be stupidity or brain-washing. Laura is totally responsible for the latter and thus deserves to be booed. She is the Farmer Jones intent on destabilising Animal Farm.
In a Trotskyite heaven, there will be no need for voting and democracy. And contrary opinions can be silenced for the good of the people.
Although views on the EU were not really considered at the time of the leadership ballot I think that Labour choosing a leader who is, let's face it, anti-EU is possibly going to result in Leave winning this referendum.
Although the party and the unions are strongly pro-EU we are stuck with a leader who isn't and it's tragic. If we leave the EU then, when the history is written, he is going to get a lot of the blame for his insipid leadership of the party on the issue. (One poll showing half Labour supporters don't even know where the party stands)
Up to now I thought his only legacy would be that he would be the only Labour politician capable of losing to a Tory party in total disarray.
A little out of his depth and generally useless, but not a bad person.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP97-87.pdf
http://www.connexionfrance.com/Vienna-Convention-1969-expats-rights-residence-Brexit-17867-view-article.html
If 'acquired rights' were sacrosanct, how could we revoke the acquired right of every current EU citizen to come and live here?
As the constitutional consequences sink in I think his attack on the judge in the Trump University case is going to play badly.
Obviously, the Labour membership will seek solace in blaming the Tories for a Brexit vote. They lack the self-awareness to understand just how much they would have contributed to it.
On the face of it the decision by Corbyn not to share a platform with Cameron and Osborne when he shares one with hezbollah and the IRA seems both childish and hypocritical.....
I was planning to write something on what advertising we could expect in the final three weeks and how the art of persuasion might work in that context.
To this end I started watching the hour long magnus opus from Brexit. It opens with a presenter in front of the EU Parliament building telling the viewer that 'this is the most important decision you'll ever make because unlike a general election it's forever....'
Its known that 90% of our opinions are pretty solid and maybe 10% are susceptible to influence and if you try to cast doubt on the 90% you're more likely to lose your customer than persuade him....
After watching several minutes of the Brexit documentary the camera cut to Melanie Phillips. As she spoke I could feel my 90% being invaded and from finding this impressive documentary persuasive the opposite started to happen. It was as tangible and as simple as that.
From the point of view of the Remain campaign though it seems counter intuitive I'm sure Corbyn made the right decision. Whether his motives were as admirable as his judgement only he can say.
"Is JC a Trot? How would we know?"
If he walks like a Trot and talks like a Trot? It's an assumption on my part. It also explains the enthusiasm of the young - the time when all is black and white and you have the total certainty that you are right.
I met many young Trots is my youth. Jezza is the same age as me and retains his seventeen-year-old outlook. "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now" Copyright Bob Dylan.