Sunil, you're a train geek (this is a compliment). Why are trains in 2016 affected by rain, snow, lightning and hot weather. I've spent a lot of hours delayed at Waterloo just recently and was wondering if the UK is uniquely plagued by unreliable trains or if the worldwide technology is better than ours. How hard can it be to design a rain, snow and heat indifferent/tolerant train?
I have travelled by train in Spain, France, Germany, Poland, Czech, Slovakia and Hungary in recent years. The only ones that let me down were the French and Germans. The Germans twice! On both the long distance trains that I took with DB.
Oh yeah, on Monday, returned from Skegness towards Nottingham on the 1730 which by-passed Grantham allowing me to do the Allington Curve
Skegness must have been a bit less bracing than usual on Monday.
It was a little on the hot side yes
But my ticket from Nottingham to Skeggie return was less than a Labour Party leadership (2016 edition) vote!
Although I watch PMQs only infrequently, I've noticed that Angus Robertson is allowed to ask two questions every Wednesday - it always seems to be him and not another SNP member, although I do recall that last week at Dave's swansong, a rather unpleasant female SNP MP, whose name I can't recall, droned on for about two minutes, her face contorted with bitterness, completely failing to capture the otherwise generous mood of the House towards the outgoing Prime Minister. Is this now part of the formalised deal at PMQs or simply at the Speaker's discretion? The LibDems must be spitting blood with poor Two Taxis Tim just being squeezed in and unceremoiously slapped down by La May at 12.36 pm according to my watch.
It is down to numbers of MP's , the LD's are nonentities , couln not fill a taxi. Robertson is the SNP Leader in Westminster hence why he asks most of teh questions.
I'm offended . I have never heard anything but adulation from any Lib Dem spokesman. There's occasionally been a soundbite about 'a reformed EU', but I don't think it's just laziness that's lead me to believe that the Lib Dems are crazed on the topic. That Farron is even contemplating (as you say, sans opt outs) leading us back in says it all.
Tempering it to as much cooperation as possible (e.g. Horizon, Erasmus, ITER, ESA, CERN etc) is fine.
No offence intended, my friend. I wouldn't say it's been adulation but more a "hope" that "somehow" the EU will be able to reform itself to something more to the UK's liking. If it takes the threat of our departure or indeed our actual departure to bring about that change, I'll appreciate the irony.
Farron's position needs defining - on June 23rd, we didn't just reject Cameron's renegotiated terms, we voted to Leave the EU. Now, saying we should rejoin the EU is a valid position - no problem there - but there seems an implicit assumption from Farron we can simply walk back in as though nothing had happened.
We shouldn't and can't - can we negotiate terms for our re-entry from the EU ? In theory, no but in practice, yes. It seems unrealistic to assume all the opt-outs will be handed back without a word and the elephant in the room, the Euro, will still be there. If the price of Britain returning to the EU is the Euro, no one here will pay it.
As I see it, we can't return to the EU without making commitments on the Single Market and control of our borders that a majority specifically rejected on June 23rd. If we are offered membership of the EU without being a net contributor, with control of our borders and without having to sign up to the full panoply of the Single Market, fantastic. I just can't see that ever being on the table.
The government cannot tell us what Brexit means, despite now being official policy nearly a month after we voted for it. So I don't think it is reasonable to expect the LibDems to spell out what rejoining would look like so soon!
That's right. Despite various factions champing at the bit, May is perfectly correct to remain opaque. We can't say what Brexit means because it's not within our gift. Most of the have cake/eat cake people would love it if we managed, SM please, no FoM. Some have fantasised about that in public. It's nonsense.
We have 27 counterparties to deal with (well, realistically a dozen or so). We know that we'd like to take control of immigration, but the degree to which we can do so under the various treaty umbrellas is again, dependent on the concessions the EU require.
Talking about what we want prior to actual negotiations is to repeat Cameron's mistake.
There is a minimum, though. You do need sufficient numbers of missiles and flexibility of delivery options to make the deterrent threat real.
Some missiles may not launch, some may fail to reach their targets, some may not detonate and you have to threaten enough places to make your deterrent a scary prospect.
I see no argument for increasing the size of the current deterrent. Improvements in missile technology should ensure a greater percentage will launch "successfully" and the difference between 180 and 220 isn't worth worrying about in terms of deterrence. On that basis, I think we can reduce the numbers - currently it's 220, Blair suggested 160, I'd go with 180 but it's not that important.
There is a minimum, though. You do need sufficient numbers of missiles and flexibility of delivery options to make the deterrent threat real.
Some missiles may not launch, some may fail to reach their targets, some may not detonate and you have to threaten enough places to make your deterrent a scary prospect.
I see no argument for increasing the size of the current deterrent. Improvements in missile technology should ensure a greater percentage will launch "successfully" and the difference between 180 and 220 isn't worth worrying about in terms of deterrence. On that basis, I think we can reduce the numbers - currently it's 220, Blair suggested 160, I'd go with 180 but it's not that important.
Only 160 warheads are operational according to Wikipedia.
Andrea Leadsom’s responsibilities for climate change have been thrown into confusion after a Government department suggested she had been stripped of her sole role in combating global warming.
They thought they were unbeatable in 1992 - perhaps next year the BBC will re-run Election Night 1997 to mark the 20th Anniversary just to remind us all how right they were !!
They thought they were unbeatable in 1992 - perhaps next year the BBC will re-run Election Night 1997 to mark the 20th Anniversary just to remind us all how right they were !!
Hubris. Negotiating our way out of a 43-year old relationship in a slowing global economy while borrowing £75 billion p.a. (with more to come) and an 83% debt/GDP ratio is hardly the stuff of political dreams. May needs to stay gritty, realistic and humble (would also be grateful if Davis could stfu as well).
PS @David_Evershed Thanks for the link earlier. Very interesting. I am, apparently, a Liberal, if not an LD.
There is a minimum, though. You do need sufficient numbers of missiles and flexibility of delivery options to make the deterrent threat real.
Some missiles may not launch, some may fail to reach their targets, some may not detonate and you have to threaten enough places to make your deterrent a scary prospect.
I see no argument for increasing the size of the current deterrent. Improvements in missile technology should ensure a greater percentage will launch "successfully" and the difference between 180 and 220 isn't worth worrying about in terms of deterrence. On that basis, I think we can reduce the numbers - currently it's 220, Blair suggested 160, I'd go with 180 but it's not that important.
Surely we have installed bombs in our embassy in Moscow (and the Russians in theirs in London) - why go to the uncertainty of a missile delivery system when it is easier by DHL?
I should stress that as my grandfather worked for Vickers Armstong in Barrow we should still build the subs!!
Hubris. Negotiating our way out of a 43-year old relationship in a slowing global economy while borrowing £75 billion p.a. (with more to come) and an 83% debt/GDP ratio is hardly the stuff of political dreams. May needs to stay gritty, realistic and humble (would also be grateful if Davis could stfu as well).
It is interesting how many Tories, both Remainers and Leavers, wets and dries etc, are all unified in thinking David Davis as Brexit Secretary is a disaster waiting to happen.
Andrea Leadsom’s responsibilities for climate change have been thrown into confusion after a Government department suggested she had been stripped of her sole role in combating global warming.
They thought they were unbeatable in 1992 - perhaps next year the BBC will re-run Election Night 1997 to mark the 20th Anniversary just to remind us all how right they were !!
Shortly there will be an election, in which the Conservatives will increase their majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us since the Second World War. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Conservative government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
Andrea Leadsom’s responsibilities for climate change have been thrown into confusion after a Government department suggested she had been stripped of her sole role in combating global warming.
She's going to be busy delivering LEAVE's promises placating farmers...
They thought they were unbeatable in 1992 - perhaps next year the BBC will re-run Election Night 1997 to mark the 20th Anniversary just to remind us all how right they were !!
Shortly there will be an election, in which the Conservatives will increase their majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us since the Second World War. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Conservative government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
By cutting the budgets of local authorities so much that there is no civic life any more.
But I do agree - the Tories will win big. Which is why she's going to the country this year.
Old folk - the children of Beveridge - have written Labour off.
And the Tories have been throwing money at them for six years :-)
They know their client vote.
I know of no pensioner who is more concerned for themselves than they are for their offspring. You may wish to consider the idea that pensioners maybe more willing to vote Conservative has bugger all to do with having "money thrown at them" but something to do with people who have seen life making a mature judgement about which party is likely to produce the best life chances for their children and, especially, grandchildren.
Lol. Take your point but you are conveniently forgetting the howls of protest if there is even the hint of a suggestion that pensioners take their share of the cuts. And I speak as one.
I do forget the howls of protest, Mr Felix, mainly because aside from on here I have not actually heard them, at least not for a long time (brown's 75p increase I think was the last time). I do however hear my contemporaries saying how daft it is that they are still given winter fuel allowance and bus passes when they do not need them.
Hubris. Negotiating our way out of a 43-year old relationship in a slowing global economy while borrowing £75 billion p.a. (with more to come) and an 83% debt/GDP ratio is hardly the stuff of political dreams. May needs to stay gritty, realistic and humble (would also be grateful if Davis could stfu as well).
It is interesting how many Tories, both Remainers and Leavers, wets and dries etc, are all unified in thinking David Davis as Brexit Secretary is a disaster waiting to happen.
Liam Fox would have done a better job.
'Under-promise and over-deliver' is the hoariest of all old business chestnuts. We're about to do hard things. Tone is incredibly important.
, a rather unpleasant female SNP MP, whose name I can't recall, droned on for about two minutes, her face contorted with bitterness, completely failing to capture the otherwise generous mood of the House towards the outgoing Prime Minister.
They thought they were unbeatable in 1992 - perhaps next year the BBC will re-run Election Night 1997 to mark the 20th Anniversary just to remind us all how right they were !!
After the 1992 election, I doubt very much many Tory MPs thought they were 'unbeatable'. Mr Blair quickly destroyed any notion of 'hubris', even if any existed. As for now, and not then, what party in power would not delight in an opposition destroying itself?
Although I watch PMQs only infrequently, I've noticed that Angus Robertson is allowed to ask two questions every Wednesday - it always seems to be him and not another SNP member, although I do recall that last week at Dave's swansong, a rather unpleasant female SNP MP, whose name I can't recall, droned on for about two minutes, her face contorted with bitterness, completely failing to capture the otherwise generous mood of the House towards the outgoing Prime Minister. Is this now part of the formalised deal at PMQs or simply at the Speaker's discretion? The LibDems must be spitting blood with poor Two Taxis Tim just being squeezed in and unceremoiously slapped down by La May at 12.36 pm according to my watch.
It is down to numbers of MP's , the LD's are nonentities , couln not fill a taxi. Robertson is the SNP Leader in Westminster hence why he asks most of teh questions.
That's unfair, a London Black Cab holds 5 passengers, the LibDems 8 members would therefore fill 1.6 cabs or say 2 cabs comfortably, assuming they don't have any Cyril Smith-type fatties these days, which I believe is the case.
They thought they were unbeatable in 1992 - perhaps next year the BBC will re-run Election Night 1997 to mark the 20th Anniversary just to remind us all how right they were !!
Shortly there will be an election, in which the Conservatives will increase their majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us since the Second World War. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Conservative government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
By cutting the budgets of local authorities so much that there is no civic life any more.
But I do agree - the Tories will win big. Which is why she's going to the country this year.
I can't resist, Mr. Pioneers. Do you fancy a small fun wager, say a bottle of something decent, that there will not be a GE this year?
Shortly there will be an election, in which the Conservatives will increase their majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us since the Second World War. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Conservative government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
I thought the Prime Minister had ruled out an election in the near future but perhaps she will feel compelled to go to the country on a wave of eu-phoria (as it weren't).
Cameron thought he could keep us in the EU - he couldn't. Nothing is certain in this life and the assumptions of increased majorities and the like based on a few polls (apparently reliable now May is Prime Minister) mean nothing.
They thought they were unbeatable in 1992 - perhaps next year the BBC will re-run Election Night 1997 to mark the 20th Anniversary just to remind us all how right they were !!
Shortly there will be an election, in which the Conservatives will increase their majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us since the Second World War. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Conservative government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
By cutting the budgets of local authorities so much that there is no civic life any more.
But I do agree - the Tories will win big. Which is why she's going to the country this year.
Bless you for taking the words of Sion Simon so seriously. Though I'm on board with the early election thinking too.
Andrea Leadsom’s responsibilities for climate change have been thrown into confusion after a Government department suggested she had been stripped of her sole role in combating global warming.
Just part of the inevitable demotion of the quack idea of "climate change" to the dustbin of history beside " flat earth", "life on Mars" ," Arc of prosperity" and "electable Labour leader"
Interesting chap on Jeremy Vine at lunch time. Not interested in politics, used to vote labour before losing interest, but pro-Corbyn and absolutely not worried by the idea that Corbyn can't win seats, because look at UKIP: they only have one MP but they still won the referendum. So you obviously don't need MPs.
< After the 1992 election, I doubt very much many Tory MPs thought they were 'unbeatable'. Mr Blair quickly destroyed any notion of 'hubris', even if any existed. As for now, and not then, what party in power would not delight in an opposition destroying itself?
I don't know your age, Jason, but I can assure you in that summer of 1992, before Black Wednesday, the Conservatives did think they were electorally unbeatable. They had won a fourth victory and a fourth term in spite of defenestrating Thatcher and in the teeth of an economic recession (remember negative equity anyone ?).
Major had a larger majority than Cameron does now and having polled more votes than any Party before or since, the Conservatives believed they could see off John Smith or any other Labour leader.
That was before Black Wednesday and Cameron's walk-on part after which it all got very "interesting" - VAT on fuel, remember that ?
Old folk - the children of Beveridge - have written Labour off.
And the Tories have been throwing money at them for six years :-)
They know their client vote.
I know of no pensioner who is more concerned for themselves than they are for their offspring. You may wish to consider the idea that pensioners maybe more willing to vote Conservative has bugger all to do with having "money thrown at them" but something to do with people who have seen life making a mature judgement about which party is likely to produce the best life chances for their children and, especially, grandchildren.
Lol. Take your point but you are conveniently forgetting the howls of protest if there is even the hint of a suggestion that pensioners take their share of the cuts. And I speak as one.
I do forget the howls of protest, Mr Felix, mainly because aside from on here I have not actually heard them, at least not for a long time (brown's 75p increase I think was the last time). I do however hear my contemporaries saying how daft it is that they are still given winter fuel allowance and bus passes when they do not need them.
Ah, how quickly the howls of protest regarding George Osborne's 'granny tax' are forgotten.
Jolly decent of them. Not that we are short of betting markets at the moment, but a continual supply of markets on defenestrations and Labour leadership contests would be welcome nonetheless.
How does that make any kind of sense? If they had no confidence in his leadership before how can they have confidence in him just because he wins another mandate? He already had one.
Jolly decent of them. Not that we are short of betting markets at the moment, but a continual supply of markets on defenestrations and Labour leadership contests would be welcome nonetheless.
I've been in the Labour Party signup queue since 16:50 (research only!) and am approaching 40% on the progress bar to be allowed to register [you get 10 minutes, even after 5pm, as long as you were in the queue]. So those clicking on at 16:58 will probably have to wait at least an hour.
They thought they were unbeatable in 1992 - perhaps next year the BBC will re-run Election Night 1997 to mark the 20th Anniversary just to remind us all how right they were !!
Shortly there will be an election, in which the Conservatives will increase their majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us since the Second World War. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Conservative government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
How does that make any kind of sense? If they had no confidence in his leadership before how can they have confidence in him just because he wins another mandate? He already had one.
It's the we respect the members, and we'll try and make it work, and hope Corbyn eventually screws up badly so he can be toppled.
I do think we'll get a peace deal in 2017 after a round of gubbings in the locals.
They thought they were unbeatable in 1992 - perhaps next year the BBC will re-run Election Night 1997 to mark the 20th Anniversary just to remind us all how right they were !!
Shortly there will be an election, in which the Conservatives will increase their majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us since the Second World War. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Conservative government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
By cutting the budgets of local authorities so much that there is no civic life any more.
But I do agree - the Tories will win big. Which is why she's going to the country this year.
May will want to hold the Tory Conference and Parliament does not reassemble until the following week (I think!).Even if Labour played ball re- an immediate dissolution there would be no election before late November. More likely Labour would seek to frustrate May if polls are not encouraging - so putting off the election until December. Unlikely she will go back on her word I think.
How does that make any kind of sense? If they had no confidence in his leadership before how can they have confidence in him just because he wins another mandate? He already had one.
Cos the membership said he ain't going nowhere.
Analogously to Jezza himself they will presumably try to make some kind of difference although with no support from their boss.
Jolly decent of them. Not that we are short of betting markets at the moment, but a continual supply of markets on defenestrations and Labour leadership contests would be welcome nonetheless.
Surely the very first attempted de-selection of a Labour MP will prove to be the straw which breaks the Camel's back, resulting in mass resignations from the party and the establishment of an alternative left of centre party in the HoC, plus possible legal disputes surrounding the division of Labour's assets ..... Oh wait!
I've been in the Labour Party signup queue since 16:50 (research only!) and am approaching 40% on the progress bar to be allowed to register [you get 10 minutes, even after 5pm, as long as you were in the queue]. So those clicking on at 16:58 will probably have to wait at least an hour.
Andrea Leadsom’s responsibilities for climate change have been thrown into confusion after a Government department suggested she had been stripped of her sole role in combating global warming.
I certainly hope that is the case. Greg Clark, whose department would take over full responsibility for climate change policy, seems to have a pretty sound understanding of the issues, whereas Andrea Leadsom seems to lack both interest and knowledge in the area.
Old folk - the children of Beveridge - have written Labour off.
And the Tories have been throwing money at them for six years :-)
They know their client vote.
I know of no pensioner who is more concerned for themselves than they are for their offspring. You may wish to consider the idea that pensioners maybe more willing to vote Conservative has bugger all to do with having "money thrown at them" but something to do with people who have seen life making a mature judgement about which party is likely to produce the best life chances for their children and, especially, grandchildren.
Lol. Take your point but you are conveniently forgetting the howls of protest if there is even the hint of a suggestion that pensioners take their share of the cuts. And I speak as one.
I do forget the howls of protest, Mr Felix, mainly because aside from on here I have not actually heard them, at least not for a long time (brown's 75p increase I think was the last time). I do however hear my contemporaries saying how daft it is that they are still given winter fuel allowance and bus passes when they do not need them.
Ah, how quickly the howls of protest regarding George Osborne's 'granny tax' are forgotten.
< After the 1992 election, I doubt very much many Tory MPs thought they were 'unbeatable'. Mr Blair quickly destroyed any notion of 'hubris', even if any existed. As for now, and not then, what party in power would not delight in an opposition destroying itself?
I don't know your age, Jason, but I can assure you in that summer of 1992, before Black Wednesday, the Conservatives did think they were electorally unbeatable. They had won a fourth victory and a fourth term in spite of defenestrating Thatcher and in the teeth of an economic recession (remember negative equity anyone ?).
Major had a larger majority than Cameron does now and having polled more votes than any Party before or since, the Conservatives believed they could see off John Smith or any other Labour leader.
That was before Black Wednesday and Cameron's walk-on part after which it all got very "interesting" - VAT on fuel, remember that ?
OK, you can have the four months between May and September of 1992 where you believe the Tories thought they were 'unbeatable', and I'll have the period after that right up until 1997 when no right minded person in the whole of the UK thought the Tories could beat Mr Blair.
Apparently universities are raising their fees again - to £9,250 pa from September 2017, with further raises inline or above inflation in the future.
On current inflation trends, we are looking at 2019 for crossover: when it costs more to be a registered supporter of Labour than to attend university.
Anything is possible - we've seen plenty of surprises recently - but on the face of it a 2016 GE isn't looking likely.
And if Theresa doesn't go for one in her first 6 months then going soon after that seems even less likely - given initial bounce will be fading and we'll then be right in the middle of triggering Article 50 and the resulting negotiations.
They thought they were unbeatable in 1992 - perhaps next year the BBC will re-run Election Night 1997 to mark the 20th Anniversary just to remind us all how right they were !!
Shortly there will be an election, in which the Conservatives will increase their majority, and in so doing utterly shatter the glass paradigm of cyclical politics which has contained us since the Second World War. This ought to herald another decade of strong, confident, consensual Conservative government. Which will finally and irrevocably transform the nature of politics and civic life in Britain.
By cutting the budgets of local authorities so much that there is no civic life any more.
But I do agree - the Tories will win big. Which is why she's going to the country this year.
You're clearly more than clever enough to know what was going to happen if Leave won but you voted for it anyway. So it's lacking in Christian Charity but I'd rather blame you than the Tories at the moment.
< After the 1992 election, I doubt very much many Tory MPs thought they were 'unbeatable'. Mr Blair quickly destroyed any notion of 'hubris', even if any existed. As for now, and not then, what party in power would not delight in an opposition destroying itself?
I don't know your age, Jason, but I can assure you in that summer of 1992, before Black Wednesday, the Conservatives did think they were electorally unbeatable. They had won a fourth victory and a fourth term in spite of defenestrating Thatcher and in the teeth of an economic recession (remember negative equity anyone ?).
Major had a larger majority than Cameron does now and having polled more votes than any Party before or since, the Conservatives believed they could see off John Smith or any other Labour leader.
That was before Black Wednesday and Cameron's walk-on part after which it all got very "interesting" - VAT on fuel, remember that ?
OK, you can have the four months between May and September of 1992 where you believe the Tories thought they were 'unbeatable', and I'll have the period after that right up until 1997 when no right minded person in the whole of the UK thought the Tories could beat Mr Blair.
150,000 supporter at £25 a pop is a shit load of money.
A nice war chest if May calls an early election.
Er that would total up a bit under £4m, less the costs of administration. Call it three-million quid available for the campaign. Nice, but not enough to make a differnece.
I must confess to some confusion about the nomenclature of Labour categories. I want to say "supporters" but aren't they (historically) people off the street who paid £3 for a vote in last year's leadership election? Looking at the clock, it also now seems to apply historically to people off the street who've paid £25 to vote in this year's leadership election. If Labour wanted to reassure its supporters that this "cash for votes" (which used to work the other way round) is not just a not so cheap trick to separate the gullible from their cash, it could sell an annual season ticket as a hedge against overly frequent future competitions.
Have I got that right? Are not people that vote Labour supporters? I'm sure that there are those on here who will happily educate me as to what they're called.
Apparently universities are raising their fees again - to £9,250 pa from September 2017, with further raises inline or above inflation in the future.
The bill that would allow them to do so has not yet been passed.
But with little opposition, it is but a formality.
Anyone have a feeling that even if May calls an early election and the Tories win a landslide the cult will say he wasn't given enough time and that the great leader should stay on.
An early election actually suits the PLP in a funny way as it will mean there will not be time for deselections before it takes place. A lot of MPs in safe seats who would have been thrown out will get five more years.
An early election actually suits the PLP in a funny way as it will mean there will not be time for deselections before it takes place. A lot of MPs in safe seats who would have been thrown out will get five more years.
I asked NP about that and he said there would still be time for selection panels; though in extremis the NEC could decide.
Apparently universities are raising their fees again - to £9,250 pa from September 2017, with further raises inline or above inflation in the future.
The bill that would allow them to do so has not yet been passed.
But with little opposition, it is but a formality.
Anyone have a feeling that even if May calls an early election and the Tories win a landslide the cult will say he wasn't given enough time and that the great leader should stay on.
The cult will say he wasn't given enough support, and blame the moderates.
Apparently universities are raising their fees again - to £9,250 pa from September 2017, with further raises inline or above inflation in the future.
The bill that would allow them to do so has not yet been passed.
Racing cert
Ye gads! They are already using the fees to piss away money on boutique buildings in an inflationary boom, sometimes without even any clue as to what the building is going to be used for (Manchester University - I name you). I guess this will be yet more extra insulation against the near immediate loss of EU funding they are facing even pre-A50.
Perhaps Brexit was the reason that capping fees lower was 'economically illiterate', as I can't think of any other reason.
Hubris. Negotiating our way out of a 43-year old relationship in a slowing global economy while borrowing £75 billion p.a. (with more to come) and an 83% debt/GDP ratio is hardly the stuff of political dreams. May needs to stay gritty, realistic and humble (would also be grateful if Davis could stfu as well).
PS @David_Evershed Thanks for the link earlier. Very interesting. I am, apparently, a Liberal, if not an LD.
The government are in full spin mode on Brexit. Partly that covers up the absence of planning or any joined up thinking on the subject. What they are not doing is preparing the public for any hardship or stuff that might happen. I can't decide whether the spin will carry them through or whether the public will realise they have been sold a pup. Perhaps more worrying is if they actually believe their own spin. I think David Davis does believe the nonsense he spouts.
Tories should aspire to a GE. majority wafer thin and a lot changes in a week. Crack on.
Would be rude to do one while Labour are in the middle of a leadership election
I think pushing the idea of an early election may help one of the anti-Corbyn lot get in which is why the idea is on the back burner. Labour may come to their senses if they were facing a November election. With the election all the way out in 2020 Labour members don't need to worry about winning in the near term.
Tories should aspire to a GE. majority wafer thin and a lot changes in a week. Crack on.
Would be rude to do one while Labour are in the middle of a leadership election
I think pushing the idea of an early election may help one of the anti-Corbyn lot get in which is why the idea is on the back burner. Labour may come to their senses if they were facing a November election. With the election all the way out in 2020 Labour members don't need to worry about winning in the near term.
Comments
But my ticket from Nottingham to Skeggie return was less than a Labour Party leadership (2016 edition) vote!
Robertson is the SNP Leader in Westminster hence why he asks most of teh questions.
Naturally enough, Tory MPs were in ecstasy. They were wailing, gasping, groaning for more. Their excitement was downright unseemly.
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/755791495219863552
We have 27 counterparties to deal with (well, realistically a dozen or so). We know that we'd like to take control of immigration, but the degree to which we can do so under the various treaty umbrellas is again, dependent on the concessions the EU require.
Talking about what we want prior to actual negotiations is to repeat Cameron's mistake.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/cabinet-office-publishes-plan-to-strip-andrea-leadsom-of-sole-climate-change-role_uk_578eb1f3e4b0b545e5cbe63c?edition=uk&utm_hp_ref=uk&
They thought they were unbeatable in 1992 - perhaps next year the BBC will re-run Election Night 1997 to mark the 20th Anniversary just to remind us all how right they were !!
PS @David_Evershed Thanks for the link earlier. Very interesting. I am, apparently, a Liberal, if not an LD.
I should stress that as my grandfather worked for Vickers Armstong in Barrow we should still build the subs!!
But that's the first time I've read someone argue that Cameron's flushing was other than involuntary....
Absence does indeed make the heart grow fonder....
Or is that Absinthe.....?
Liam Fox would have done a better job.
Well straight away you can tell the author doesn't understand what they are reading!
But I do agree - the Tories will win big. Which is why she's going to the country this year.
https://twitter.com/tomblenkinsop/status/755793703030185984
Survey finds enthusiasm waning for Labour party leader but no evidence of support for any other candidate
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/20/labour-supporters-have-cooled-on-corbyn-guardian-survey-finds?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Cameron thought he could keep us in the EU - he couldn't. Nothing is certain in this life and the assumptions of increased majorities and the like based on a few polls (apparently reliable now May is Prime Minister) mean nothing.
Major had a larger majority than Cameron does now and having polled more votes than any Party before or since, the Conservatives believed they could see off John Smith or any other Labour leader.
That was before Black Wednesday and Cameron's walk-on part after which it all got very "interesting" - VAT on fuel, remember that ?
Ah, how quickly the howls of protest regarding George Osborne's 'granny tax' are forgotten.
http://www.dw.com/en/tough-talking-may-makes-confident-pmqs-debut/a-19414579
I do think we'll get a peace deal in 2017 after a round of gubbings in the locals.
Analogously to Jezza himself they will presumably try to make some kind of difference although with no support from their boss.
https://twitter.com/Harryslaststand/status/755792899074207745
Either that or it will cover at least some of the legal fees set aside for contesting the outcome.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36845106
Yes 7.6
No 1.13
Anything is possible - we've seen plenty of surprises recently - but on the face of it a 2016 GE isn't looking likely.
And if Theresa doesn't go for one in her first 6 months then going soon after that seems even less likely - given initial bounce will be fading and we'll then be right in the middle of triggering Article 50 and the resulting negotiations.
Have I got that right? Are not people that vote Labour supporters? I'm sure that there are those on here who will happily educate me as to what they're called.
Anyone have a feeling that even if May calls an early election and the Tories win a landslide the cult will say he wasn't given enough time and that the great leader should stay on.
Perhaps Brexit was the reason that capping fees lower was 'economically illiterate', as I can't think of any other reason.
That was hubris writ large
Just saying
Edit 70s on Betfair, had a nibble