Let's have an election in 2017 and see whether people agree with Theresa May's vision for the country.
Well, quite. I'm not a huge fan of Ms May, I don't like the leftier nanny state stuff, I'm wary of her on Hard Brexit, and concerned she will harm universities amongst other things. But she's clearly better than ANY alternative, apart from Ruth Davidson, heh, and what's even clearer is that all this stuff will be very popular Out There.
She'd romp home to a huge victory, right now.
I expect the result in Witney in 2 weeks time will be poor enough for the Conservatives that it ends all talk of an early GE .
Let's wait for a few opinion polls. I predict May will get big support from Kippers and some Red Tory Labourites, though she will lose a few voters to the LDs.
Or more likely about 2% of voters watched it, but about 30% of the people in the sample will have seen it
Let's have an election in 2017 and see whether people agree with Theresa May's vision for the country.
Well, quite. I'm not a huge fan of Ms May, I don't like the leftier nanny state stuff, I'm wary of her on Hard Brexit, and concerned she will harm universities amongst other things. But she's clearly better than ANY alternative, apart from Ruth Davidson, heh, and what's even clearer is that all this stuff will be very popular Out There.
She'd romp home to a huge victory, right now.
I expect the result in Witney in 2 weeks time will be poor enough for the Conservatives that it ends all talk of an early GE .
The problem for the Conservative Assn in Witney is that their years of domination may have created a degree of lethargy.
I disagree with OGH on this - I felt the response to her speech was electric.
And she is very much like Maggie IMHO, although too early to say if she'll match her success.
We need to stop seeing female politicians through the prism of Thatcher. It distorts our view and stops them being themselves.
Labour will have grown up when it stops either looking for the new Blair or the person most unlike him as possible. Ditto the Tories.
Thatcher was a politician of her time and for her time. The lessons for politicians now are not, necessarily, her specific policies or even her approach but that to be an effective leader you need to have a clear idea of what you're about and where you want to get to, some idea of how to get there, courage - including the courage to express yourself in a way that resonates, cunning and flexibility in how you implement your aims and people who share your aims and are willing to put in the very hard work to achieve them.
Oh - and not believing your own propaganda.
We might get a useful view of the main party leaders by marking them up against these criteria.
(I might even do a thread header on this though I have ideas for two others being drafted in my head, when I can tear myself away from work.)
Whilst I applaud some of it; I was disquieted by the speech.
I will be reassured if May goes for Heathrow Hub (not Heathrow third runway). It will indicate to me a thrifty, sensible approach that isn't afraid to confront big corporate and international interests. If we go ahead with the third runway, after the horrible decision on HS2, the indications will be depressing.
The criticism of Mrs May from some on here who backed her over leadsom or the same people who backed Rudd over Johnson in the EU referendum debate do make me laugh.
Its also quite amusing that Orange Booker Mr TSE loves Ted Heath for all the reasons that the vast majority of Tory activists and voters despise him.
The criticism of Mrs May from some on here who backed her over leadsom or the same people who backed Rudd over Johnson in the EU referendum debate do make me laugh.
They are supportive right up until the moment they do something Cameron/Osborne wouldn't have done, and then they can get (rather unnecessarily) personally scathing.
Let's have an election in 2017 and see whether people agree with Theresa May's vision for the country.
Well, quite. I'm not a huge fan of Ms May, I don't like the leftier nanny state stuff, I'm wary of her on Hard Brexit, and concerned she will harm universities amongst other things. But she's clearly better than ANY alternative, apart from Ruth Davidson, heh, and what's even clearer is that all this stuff will be very popular Out There.
She'd romp home to a huge victory, right now.
I'm withholding judgment until we see what she does rather than what she says.
Still, better her than Corbyn. Better her than Nasty Labour
Unfortunately, I have to agree. In a straight choice between May and Corbyn it is a no-brainer.
If only we had an opposition that could become electable, and had a plan to take 100 Conservative held seats, or even 50 plus the Nats.
All I'd say is that if Amber Rudd is a Lib Dem sleeper, she's doing a great job.
All this shaming companies for employing foreign workers is an absolute gift for where Farron is trying to pitch the party.
And with Corbyn AWOL and UKIP just A - this is open goal territory.
You don't think she would have had that agreed with Theresa May, her predecessor at the Home Office? All she did was add a bit of policy to Mrs May's rhetoric.
Let's have an election in 2017 and see whether people agree with Theresa May's vision for the country.
Well, quite. I'm not a huge fan of Ms May, I don't like the leftier nanny state stuff, I'm wary of her on Hard Brexit, and concerned she will harm universities amongst other things. But she's clearly better than ANY alternative, apart from Ruth Davidson, heh, and what's even clearer is that all this stuff will be very popular Out There.
She'd romp home to a huge victory, right now.
I expect the result in Witney in 2 weeks time will be poor enough for the Conservatives that it ends all talk of an early GE .
The problem for the Conservative Assn in Witney is that their years of domination may have created a degree of lethargy.
Not so much lethargy that they accepted Cameron's lackey prefered by Central Office as thier new candidate
A £12.50 NLW will definitely hit jobs, and all the rest are all spending items, some of them very expensive spending items, are they not, and the government is trying to cut spending.
Eliminating housing benefits and tax credits would save £60bn, eliminating employer's NI will cost about the same, lowering corporation tax would cost about £8bn, the additional income taxes raised from higher earnings would cover the losses. The additional spending commitment would be transferrable tax allowances for stay at home parents and extending childcare provision, but I think overall the net effect would be close to zero. What it may do is cause wages in non protected areas to drag, so middle and higher income people might see a few years of real terms wage deflation as companies claw back their margins where they can.
I may be not reading it right, where does the additional income taxes raised from higher earnings come from ?
People who earn the NLW would pay significant income tax and NI compared to now where many pay close to no income tax and a modest amount of NI.
A Conservative Prime Minister who's a corporatist and whose premiership will be remembered for Europe? Truly Theresa May is the Ted Heath de nos jours.
That's a little unkind.
She's better dressed than him.
It always surprises me how surprised we are that British PMs' (or even, going back a bit, British rulers') periods in office are often defined by Europe.
It's a pretty common theme in British history: our relationship with the European Continent and the powers in it, after all.......
Whilst I applaud some of it; I was disquieted by the speech.
I will be reassured if May goes for Heathrow Hub (not Heathrow third runway). It will indicate to me a thrifty, sensible approach that isn't afraid to confront big corporate and international interests. If we go ahead with the third runway, after the horrible decision on HS2, the indications will be depressing.
Have you read the document I linked to yesterday? Where do you think it's gone wrong in choosing HR3 over HHub?
The criticism of Mrs May from some on here who backed her over leadsom or the same people who backed Rudd over Johnson in the EU referendum debate do make me laugh.
They are supportive right up until the moment they do something Cameron/Osborne wouldn't have done, and then they can get (rather unnecessarily) personally scathing.
They dont approve of Tories in charge of the Tory Party
Theresa May's calculation is that the red-in-tooth-and-claw free market economics of the 1980s, that worked so well then, might not be working quite so well now and Conservatives have to ditch unadulterated dogmatic worship of markets and lead reform of capitalism instead, where it has notably failed at the human level, if free market economics are to survive.
A Conservative Prime Minister who's a corporatist and whose premiership will be remembered for Europe? Truly Theresa May is the Ted Heath de nos jours.
She's also quite close, in many ways, to John Major.
John Major had a vision of the state as servant of its public. His much-mocked citizen's charter, complete with cones hotline, set the course of government engagement with the public for the next generation.
Theresa May, on the other hand, seems to be a fan of big bossy government.
While that might have been his intention, the opposite has become true - government is already big, bossy and generally not helpful. Now it's set to get worse, but that's no surprise. People with the levers of power always think that more of it will solve everything.
Theresa May's calculation is that the red-in-tooth-and-claw free market economics of the 1980s, that worked so well then, might not be working quite so well now and Conservatives have to ditch unadulterated dogmatic worship of markets and lead reform of capitalism instead, where it has notably failed at the human level, if free market economics are to survive.
In this, I think she is correct.
Reforming the free market doesn't require the state to expand to a stage where it rivals the size of China or Scandinavian countries.
All I'd say is that if Amber Rudd is a Lib Dem sleeper, she's doing a great job.
All this shaming companies for employing foreign workers is an absolute gift for where Farron is trying to pitch the party.
And with Corbyn AWOL and UKIP just A - this is open goal territory.
Nobody cares about the Lib Dems at the moment. They have an open goal but no legs or a ball. They need to get some big defections and nobody is going to jump to a party led by Farron. He seems almost designed to keep the LDs bouncing along at or below 10%.
One of the key things Mrs M achieved was to highlight that there is going to be more to the next four years than Brexit negotiations. By setting out an ambitious set of goals to help the 'miserable middle' she has created a political narrative for the media to analyse and criticise, while allowing her the room she needs to negotiate Brexit 'without a running commentary'. Come 2020 she's going to be judged on both.
Let's have an election in 2017 and see whether people agree with Theresa May's vision for the country.
Well, quite. I'm not a huge fan of Ms May, I don't like the leftier nanny state stuff, I'm wary of her on Hard Brexit, and concerned she will harm universities amongst other things. But she's clearly better than ANY alternative, apart from Ruth Davidson, heh, and what's even clearer is that all this stuff will be very popular Out There.
She'd romp home to a huge victory, right now.
I expect the result in Witney in 2 weeks time will be poor enough for the Conservatives that it ends all talk of an early GE .
The problem for the Conservative Assn in Witney is that their years of domination may have created a degree of lethargy.
I disagree with OGH on this - I felt the response to her speech was electric.
And she is very much like Maggie IMHO, although too early to say if she'll match her success.
We need to stop seeing female politicians through the prism of Thatcher. It distorts our view and stops them being themselves.
Labour will have grown up when it stops either looking for the new Blair or the person most unlike him as possible. Ditto the Tories.
Thatcher was a politician of her time and for her time. The lessons for politicians now are not, necessarily, her specific policies or even her approach but that to be an effective leader you need to have a clear idea of what you're about and where you want to get to, some idea of how to get there, courage - including the courage to express yourself in a way that resonates, cunning and flexibility in how you implement your aims and people who share your aims and are willing to put in the very hard work to achieve them.
Oh - and not believing your own propaganda.
We might get a useful view of the main party leaders by marking them up against these criteria.
(I might even do a thread header on this though I have ideas for two others being drafted in my head, when I can tear myself away from work.)
Yes, I know. She is like Maggie IMHO because she has courage (often isolated in cabinet as Home Secretary but fought her corner, and had her own position on the EU ref) is a workaholic, and isn't afraid to be ruthless.
On the other hand, she doesn't have the confrontational personality, the secret self-doubt or the delusions of grandeur.
Theresa May's calculation is that the red-in-tooth-and-claw free market economics of the 1980s, that worked so well then, might not be working quite so well now and Conservatives have to ditch unadulterated dogmatic worship of markets and lead reform of capitalism instead, where it has notably failed at the human level, if free market economics are to survive.
In this, I think she is correct.
Reforming the free market doesn't require the state to expand to a stage where it rivals the size of China or Scandinavian countries.
The problem is with capitalism, is that we've never really tried it. For capitalism to work money must have value, but Nixon threw that ideal away by closing the gold window. That allowed nations to basically stop paying their bills, and inflate to dissipate debt. Once you do that, it skews how wealth is invested, and tends (eventually) to hold in aspic the asset rich and asset poor.
In the end, we are in the grip of corporatism, state based market engineering by central bank.
Theresa May's calculation is that the red-in-tooth-and-claw free market economics of the 1980s, that worked so well then, might not be working quite so well now and Conservatives have to ditch unadulterated dogmatic worship of markets and lead reform of capitalism instead, where it has notably failed at the human level, if free market economics are to survive.
In this, I think she is correct.
Reforming the free market doesn't require the state to expand to a stage where it rivals the size of China or Scandinavian countries.
Is she proposing anything that would look out of place in Germany, it all sound rather like Merkelism to me.
A Conservative Prime Minister who's a corporatist and whose premiership will be remembered for Europe? Truly Theresa May is the Ted Heath de nos jours.
She's also quite close, in many ways, to John Major.
John Major had a vision of the state as servant of its public. His much-mocked citizen's charter, complete with cones hotline, set the course of government engagement with the public for the next generation.
Theresa May, on the other hand, seems to be a fan of big bossy government.
Brexit aside (and she has no control of that) I don't think there's anything she said which Major would have found objectionable, though he might have adjusted the wording.
Either way, May is clearly what working class Britain wants and needs. And the working classes have been neglected or ignored or openly despised for too long. I'm glad they have a PM who really does want to bat for them.
She's certainly not what I need or want. But then, I've done bloody well and I can afford it if the government forgets about my desires, for a while. You, likewise.
Maybe that's right, though I'm not sure that increasing the size of the state is going to help as it will mean tax increases which will fall on the highly mobile (you, me, Mr Meeks) the rebellious middle classes or the working classes. I think I know where the government will choose to go.
The Electoral Commission have confirmed that Diane James never officially became UKIP leader as there were ‘issues’ with the signing of the leadership form. Apparently she added “V.C.” to the signature which stands for “Vi coactus” or “under duress”. All this means that Nigel never left. He told the BBC today that he would stay on as interim leader joking “I keep trying to escape… and before I’m finally free they drag me back
That's all a bit teenagery, especially the graffiti on an official signature. Hard to avoid the impression that UKIP isn't serious at the moment.
The May speech has had a good pundit reception, although the absence of concrete proposals has been noted too. Mrs Thatcher claimed she was a follower of St Francis, which was not subsequently obvious. Let's see what is actually done.
Let's have an election in 2017 and see whether people agree with Theresa May's vision for the country.
Well, quite. I'm not a huge fan of Ms May, I don't like the leftier nanny state stuff, I'm wary of her on Hard Brexit, and concerned she will harm universities amongst other things. But she's clearly better than ANY alternative, apart from Ruth Davidson, heh, and what's even clearer is that all this stuff will be very popular Out There.
She'd romp home to a huge victory, right now.
I expect the result in Witney in 2 weeks time will be poor enough for the Conservatives that it ends all talk of an early GE .
The problem for the Conservative Assn in Witney is that their years of domination may have created a degree of lethargy.
All I'd say is that if Amber Rudd is a Lib Dem sleeper, she's doing a great job.
All this shaming companies for employing foreign workers is an absolute gift for where Farron is trying to pitch the party.
And with Corbyn AWOL and UKIP just A - this is open goal territory.
Nobody cares about the Lib Dems at the moment. They have an open goal but no legs or a ball. They need to get some big defections and nobody is going to jump to a party led by Farron. He seems almost designed to keep the LDs bouncing along at or below 10%.
More to the point, there are only nine Conservative seats that have majorities of 5,000 or less over the Lib Dems, and newly-elected Conservative MPs have the chance to develop a personal vote (just as outgoing Lib Dem MPs lose theirs).
The Conservatives will have to become very unpopular to give the Lib Dems an opening.
Theresa May's calculation is that the red-in-tooth-and-claw free market economics of the 1980s, that worked so well then, might not be working quite so well now and Conservatives have to ditch unadulterated dogmatic worship of markets and lead reform of capitalism instead, where it has notably failed at the human level, if free market economics are to survive.
In this, I think she is correct.
Reforming the free market doesn't require the state to expand to a stage where it rivals the size of China or Scandinavian countries.
The problem is with capitalism, is that we've never really tried it. For capitalism to work money must have value, but Nixon threw that ideal away by closing the gold window. That allowed nations to basically stop paying their bills, and inflate to dissipate debt. Once you do that, it skews how wealth is invested, and tends (eventually) to hold in aspic the asset rich and asset poor.
In the end, we are in the grip of corporatism, state based market engineering by central bank.
Plus we have seen far too much private profit but socialisation of loss, the amount of moral hazard in much of the financial industry is ridiculous. If we had a capitalist system then companies that made bad decisions would go to the wall, their shareholders would lose their shirts, and the directors if shown to have behaved criminally would go to jail. All of this happens with the sort of small companies that the man in the street owns and operates, but not big corporates and certainly not multinational banks, and we wonder why voters think this is one rule of the establishment and one for the proles, and vote UKIP or Trump.
Theresa May's calculation is that the red-in-tooth-and-claw free market economics of the 1980s, that worked so well then, might not be working quite so well now and Conservatives have to ditch unadulterated dogmatic worship of markets and lead reform of capitalism instead, where it has notably failed at the human level, if free market economics are to survive.
In this, I think she is correct.
Reforming the free market doesn't require the state to expand to a stage where it rivals the size of China or Scandinavian countries.
The problem is with capitalism, is that we've never really tried it. For capitalism to work money must have value, but Nixon threw that ideal away by closing the gold window. That allowed nations to basically stop paying their bills, and inflate to dissipate debt. Once you do that, it skews how wealth is invested, and tends (eventually) to hold in aspic the asset rich and asset poor.
In the end, we are in the grip of corporatism, state based market engineering by central bank.
Fixing the market with a market solution is the answer, a higher minimum wage and taking an axe to welfare for people in work. That's the answer. Make companies pay a decent wage and let the rest follow, it may result in many years of wage deflation for middle and higher income people but surely that's what we're trying to fix, the situation where lower income people have seen their wages rise by a smaller proportion than those higher up the income scale.
The Electoral Commission have confirmed that Diane James never officially became UKIP leader as there were ‘issues’ with the signing of the leadership form. Apparently she added “V.C.” to the signature which stands for “Vi coactus” or “under duress”. All this means that Nigel never left. He told the BBC today that he would stay on as interim leader joking “I keep trying to escape… and before I’m finally free they drag me back
That's all a bit teenagery, especially the graffiti on an official signature. Hard to avoid the impression that UKIP isn't serious at the moment.
The May speech has had a good pundit reception, although the absence of concrete proposals has been noted too. Mrs Thatcher claimed she was a follower of St Francis, which was not subsequently obvious. Let's see what is actually done.
" Diane James never officially became UKIP leader as there were ‘issues’ with the signing of the leadership form. Apparently she added “V.C.” to the signature which stands for “Vi coactus” or “under duress”. " UKIP forced the poor woman to lead them. That explains the photo of Farage trying to kiss her.
Theresa May's calculation is that the red-in-tooth-and-claw free market economics of the 1980s, that worked so well then, might not be working quite so well now and Conservatives have to ditch unadulterated dogmatic worship of markets and lead reform of capitalism instead, where it has notably failed at the human level, if free market economics are to survive.
In this, I think she is correct.
Reforming the free market doesn't require the state to expand to a stage where it rivals the size of China or Scandinavian countries.
Is she proposing anything that would look out of place in Germany, it all sound rather like Merkelism to me.
I don't think so, the German state has decreased in size since she took over and they put in very hard H4 reforms to enable the shift to higher wages and less worklessness.
Let's have an election in 2017 and see whether people agree with Theresa May's vision for the country.
Well, quite. I'm not a huge fan of Ms May, I don't like the leftier nanny state stuff, I'm wary of her on Hard Brexit, and concerned she will harm universities amongst other things. But she's clearly better than ANY alternative, apart from Ruth Davidson, heh, and what's even clearer is that all this stuff will be very popular Out There.
She'd romp home to a huge victory, right now.
I expect the result in Witney in 2 weeks time will be poor enough for the Conservatives that it ends all talk of an early GE .
Yes, there could be a big swing from Labour to LDs there, with Labour maybe even getting close to 5%.
Mr. Palmer, pundits are often wrong, though. Broadcast media has been dripping with sympathy over the migrant crisis for years. Public opinion is stonier than ever.
The Electoral Commission have confirmed that Diane James never officially became UKIP leader as there were ‘issues’ with the signing of the leadership form. Apparently she added “V.C.” to the signature which stands for “Vi coactus” or “under duress”. All this means that Nigel never left. He told the BBC today that he would stay on as interim leader joking “I keep trying to escape… and before I’m finally free they drag me back
That's all a bit teenagery, especially the graffiti on an official signature. Hard to avoid the impression that UKIP isn't serious at the moment.
The May speech has had a good pundit reception, although the absence of concrete proposals has been noted too. Mrs Thatcher claimed she was a follower of St Francis, which was not subsequently obvious. Let's see what is actually done.
Where there are LibDems may we bring Harmony Where there are Corbynistas may we bring Truth Where there are Kippers may we bring Faith And where there are Remainers may we bring Hope
All I'd say is that if Amber Rudd is a Lib Dem sleeper, she's doing a great job.
All this shaming companies for employing foreign workers is an absolute gift for where Farron is trying to pitch the party.
And with Corbyn AWOL and UKIP just A - this is open goal territory.
Nobody cares about the Lib Dems at the moment. They have an open goal but no legs or a ball. They need to get some big defections and nobody is going to jump to a party led by Farron. He seems almost designed to keep the LDs bouncing along at or below 10%.
More to the point, there are only nine Conservative seats that have majorities of 5,000 or less over the Lib Dems, and newly-elected Conservative MPs have the chance to develop a personal vote (just as outgoing Lib Dem MPs lose theirs).
The Conservatives will have to become very unpopular to give the Lib Dems an opening.
Following on, the Conservatives have of course, been very unpopular in recent times, but I'm not anticipating that they will become so between now and 2020.
Theresa May's calculation is that the red-in-tooth-and-claw free market economics of the 1980s, that worked so well then, might not be working quite so well now and Conservatives have to ditch unadulterated dogmatic worship of markets and lead reform of capitalism instead, where it has notably failed at the human level, if free market economics are to survive.
In this, I think she is correct.
Reforming the free market doesn't require the state to expand to a stage where it rivals the size of China or Scandinavian countries.
Mrs May should be reminded that energy prices crashed about a year after Ed wanted to put his price freeze in place. If prices were frozen and people were tied into longer term contracts then everyone would have been paying over the odds for a couple of years. It was the free market that saw energy prices fall.
To quote me: "the seeds of every oil price crash are sown in the previous boom".
Mega prices resulting in massive investment then huge overcapacity. Isn't that what happened in China, except they exported their deflation to the rest of the world.
Theresa May's calculation is that the red-in-tooth-and-claw free market economics of the 1980s, that worked so well then, might not be working quite so well now and Conservatives have to ditch unadulterated dogmatic worship of markets and lead reform of capitalism instead, where it has notably failed at the human level, if free market economics are to survive.
In this, I think she is correct.
Reforming the free market doesn't require the state to expand to a stage where it rivals the size of China or Scandinavian countries.
Does this mean that Hammond's autumn statement will have more tax cuts and incentives for business? Maybe even a rolliing back of red tape?
Paul Waugh ✔ @paulwaugh Biggest big ticket item of all in May speech is clear hint she'll decommission the QE bazooka. Aides say AutumnStatement will signal change
Is QE her decision? I can see where we are heading though re the Bank of England and there's a good quote from Ken Clarke's autobiography on the subject:
Robin Leigh-Pemberton was a pleasant but not very forceful country gentleman who had been appointed by Margaret Thatcher for precisely those qualities: she had hoped to control him.
Osborne authorised the use of QE, it was the BoEs decision when to use it. The question is whether she wants to stop any new QE or start reversing existing.
The relatively soft slowdown the economy has seen so far suggests there might not need to be any additional QE anyway. However if government borrowing costs go up as a result of ending QE additional fiscal expansion becomes a problem.
Yes but at present thousands of (generally larger) private sector companies are being forced as a result of ultra low interest rates/bond yields (all made worse by QE) to put billions and billions into shoring up pension funds which have "holes" in them because of the self same low interest rates and the lunatic draconian calculations dictated by the 2004 Pension Act (what a jamboree for lawyers, actuaries, accountants, and civil servants that law has been).
It's been described as a misallocation of capital on a truly heroic scale (correctly in my view). For six years or so money has not gone into R+D/marketing/new plant it's been disappearing into ever increasing financial black holes, created out of regulation and law. Do something about this and corporate tax revenues would rise (because all that pension saving is tax deductible), and you might actually get the economy going via the private corporate sector. Much the same can be said about private individuals with pensions and savings who have seen income cut and the need to save ever more for the future increase, both of which drag on demand.
All to prop up inflated house prices, in the belief it's keeping spending afloat - I think it's actually got past the point of being utterly counterproductive myself.
It won't be pain free to unwind ultra low rates, but unwound they must be. May's nod too this today was the first shaft of light in the darkness in my view. Now for some action please.
Let's have an election in 2017 and see whether people agree with Theresa May's vision for the country.
Well, quite. I'm not a huge fan of Ms May, I don't like the leftier nanny state stuff, I'm wary of her on Hard Brexit, and concerned she will harm universities amongst other things. But she's clearly better than ANY alternative, apart from Ruth Davidson, heh, and what's even clearer is that all this stuff will be very popular Out There.
She'd romp home to a huge victory, right now.
I expect the result in Witney in 2 weeks time will be poor enough for the Conservatives that it ends all talk of an early GE .
Yes, there could be a big swing from Labour to LDs there, with Labour maybe even getting close to 5%.
If that happens the Tories should hold on to their 60.2%
For those wondering, as I'm sure many of you aren't, on my position, I'm ambivalent.
But then, I'm in a red-blue marginal. If Labour looks like it might win the seat, I'd feel I have a duty to vote Conservative just to keep Corbyn away from Downing Street. If Labour sink, I could consider voting elsewhere.
Said for a long time we really need a valid opposition. Instead we've got a bloody Communist.
Yes, those of us who complained that Corbyn being leader was bad for the country are being vindicated.
Mr. Alistair, it's nice when things work out like that.
[I'm pretty bad at long-term betting, but as most of my bets are placed within 24 hours of the event I don't think that's too surprising. I'm intrigued to see how my spread betting suggestions turn out. Right now, they're all quite close].
A Conservative Prime Minister who's a corporatist and whose premiership will be remembered for Europe? Truly Theresa May is the Ted Heath de nos jours.
She's also quite close, in many ways, to John Major.
John Major had a vision of the state as servant of its public. His much-mocked citizen's charter, complete with cones hotline, set the course of government engagement with the public for the next generation.
Theresa May, on the other hand, seems to be a fan of big bossy government.
Brexit aside (and she has no control of that) I don't think there's anything she said which Major would have found objectionable, though he might have adjusted the wording.
Either way, May is clearly what working class Britain wants and needs. And the working classes have been neglected or ignored or openly despised for too long. I'm glad they have a PM who really does want to bat for them.
She's certainly not what I need or want. But then, I've done bloody well and I can afford it if the government forgets about my desires, for a while. You, likewise.
Maybe that's right, though I'm not sure that increasing the size of the state is going to help as it will mean tax increases which will fall on the highly mobile (you, me, Mr Meeks) the rebellious middle classes or the working classes. I think I know where the government will choose to go.
I think, economically, she'll be modestly good for the working classes, and modestly bad for the middle classes, but not significant either way (and this is if she follows through on her promises)
But I'm talking more about the tone of her language, and the sociocultural stuff. Yes, too many immigrants, no more bewildering cultural change, I know it hurts out there, we really are quitting Europe, we'll put workers on the boards of companies, there will be people in houses across the Midlands and Wales and the north of England who will be quietly and genuinely delighted by this, and finally feel vindicated. Heard.
Lots of them will be UKIP voters, Labour voters, or non voters.
Cameron talked some of this talk, but it all sounded fake, and he was too posh, and under him immigration reached record heights, people thought PFFFFF.
Yes, I think you're right, but I don't think turning our back on market economics is going to help anyone. Interventionist economics might work in China, but we're not in China and we aren't Chinese.
F1: this is only a suggestion as I haven't got an account and am not betting on this, but I'm really surprised Alonso's out to 63 (selling). He's on 42 points, and I think that's after 16/21 races. Not impossible, as the engine is being upgraded, but ahead of him he has the three front-running teams and Williams/Force India locked in a very close battle for 4th.
I think I suggested selling at around 53, but am surprised that has drifted so far.
The Verstappen and Bottas suggestions appear on-course, and the Magnussen bet (sell 9, I think) likely to be green.
All I'd say is that if Amber Rudd is a Lib Dem sleeper, she's doing a great job.
All this shaming companies for employing foreign workers is an absolute gift for where Farron is trying to pitch the party.
And with Corbyn AWOL and UKIP just A - this is open goal territory.
Nobody cares about the Lib Dems at the moment. They have an open goal but no legs or a ball. They need to get some big defections and nobody is going to jump to a party led by Farron. He seems almost designed to keep the LDs bouncing along at or below 10%.
Depends if there is a backlash against the direction of travel of the Government. Economically wet and socially dry is quite a swerve and I suspect it'll have its fans and haters. I make no claims to be neutral, but thought a different perspective might add to the discussion.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn No10 now clarifying PM's punchy remarks on QE before markets panic: "Quantitative easing is a matter for the independent Bank of England".
Theresa May's calculation is that the red-in-tooth-and-claw free market economics of the 1980s, that worked so well then, might not be working quite so well now and Conservatives have to ditch unadulterated dogmatic worship of markets and lead reform of capitalism instead, where it has notably failed at the human level, if free market economics are to survive.
In this, I think she is correct.
Reforming the free market doesn't require the state to expand to a stage where it rivals the size of China or Scandinavian countries.
The problem is with capitalism, is that we've never really tried it. For capitalism to work money must have value, but Nixon threw that ideal away by closing the gold window. That allowed nations to basically stop paying their bills, and inflate to dissipate debt. Once you do that, it skews how wealth is invested, and tends (eventually) to hold in aspic the asset rich and asset poor.
In the end, we are in the grip of corporatism, state based market engineering by central bank.
Well said! May seeking to end QE is an encouraging sign. Interest rates going above essentially zero would too.
With the "worrying signs for Trump" that Nate Silver has been commenting on for months, I have no idea how Trump is still in this race..... Trump must be a candidate on behalf the zombie apocalypse.
Ah, October 1970 Blackpool, twas bliss to be alive. "Quiet revolution", did the lady say "quiet revolution"?
Up there in the Heavens, a Grocer smiled:
"..This then is the task to which your Government is dedicated: to give to all our people both freedom and responsibility. That is the challenge and from it will come opportunity. Opportunity to take our destiny, the destiny of the nation, once again in our own hands. If we are to achieve this task we will have to embark on a change so radical, a revolution so quiet and yet so total, that it will go far beyond the programme for a Parliament to which we are committed and on which we have already embarked; far beyond this decade..... For it is the task of building something of style, of substance, and worth; something so important to the life and the future of this country of ours. We can only hope to begin now what future Conservative Governments will continue and complete. We are laying the foundations, but they are the foundations for a generation...."
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn No10 now clarifying PM's punchy remarks on QE before markets panic: "Quantitative easing is a matter for the independent Bank of England".
Could they signpost their intentions a bit more clearly by saying, "We have no plans to put the Bank of England under democratic political control?"
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn No10 now clarifying PM's punchy remarks on QE before markets panic: "Quantitative easing is a matter for the independent Bank of England".
As I said, she's a pound shop Gordon Brown/Ed Miliband
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn No10 now clarifying PM's punchy remarks on QE before markets panic: "Quantitative easing is a matter for the independent Bank of England".
Wonder though if Mr Carney is updating his Linked In profile to "looking for my next challenge".
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn No10 now clarifying PM's punchy remarks on QE before markets panic: "Quantitative easing is a matter for the independent Bank of England".
As I said, she's a pound shop Gordon Brown/Ed Miliband
TSE is a pound shop TINO, a LibDem in Tory clothing
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn No10 now clarifying PM's punchy remarks on QE before markets panic: "Quantitative easing is a matter for the independent Bank of England".
Wonder though if Mr Carney is updating his Linked In profile to "looking for my next challenge".
Theresa May's calculation is that the red-in-tooth-and-claw free market economics of the 1980s, that worked so well then, might not be working quite so well now and Conservatives have to ditch unadulterated dogmatic worship of markets and lead reform of capitalism instead, where it has notably failed at the human level, if free market economics are to survive.
In this, I think she is correct.
Reforming the free market doesn't require the state to expand to a stage where it rivals the size of China or Scandinavian countries.
The problem is with capitalism, is that we've never really tried it. For capitalism to work money must have value, but Nixon threw that ideal away by closing the gold window. That allowed nations to basically stop paying their bills, and inflate to dissipate debt. Once you do that, it skews how wealth is invested, and tends (eventually) to hold in aspic the asset rich and asset poor.
In the end, we are in the grip of corporatism, state based market engineering by central bank.
Well said! May seeking to end QE is an encouraging sign. Interest rates going above essentially zero would too.
All to prop up inflated house prices, in the belief it's keeping spending afloat - I think it's actually got past the point of being utterly counterproductive myself.
It won't be pain free to unwind ultra low rates, but unwound they must be. May's nod too this today was the first shaft of light in the darkness in my view. Now for some action please.
I agree with you, and it's the big monetary challenge but can't come soon enough. Knocking QE on the head and returning interest rates to something akin to normal needs to happen whilst we can manage it.
Whilst I applaud some of it; I was disquieted by the speech.
I will be reassured if May goes for Heathrow Hub (not Heathrow third runway). It will indicate to me a thrifty, sensible approach that isn't afraid to confront big corporate and international interests. If we go ahead with the third runway, after the horrible decision on HS2, the indications will be depressing.
Have you read the document I linked to yesterday? Where do you think it's gone wrong in choosing HR3 over HHub?
Yes - from the point you advised. I replied too, but didn't tag you in.
-The case for HR3 labours a lot on EU commission emissions rules that can now be disregarded. I'm not suggesting dispoiling our country just because we're shot of the EU, but we can adopt a more nuanced and sensitive approach, otherwise what's the point of the freedom to be more competitive?
-Cost cost cost
-Many, among them Willie Walsh, have said HR3 is a rip off. Heathrow's shareholders are said to be backing it to the hilt because it will increase what they can charge customers: 'The charges that airports are allowed to impose on customers are dictated by the Civil Aviation Authority's calculation of their Regulated Asset Base, a figure which would be significantly higher if Heathrow builds a new third runway.' http://news.sky.com/story/heathrow-investors-snub-chris-grayling-hub-plea-10596395
The Heathrow shareholders (including the sovereign wealth funds of China and Qatar) are slavering over HR3 because it's going to make them a shitload more money than HH. The logic of HR3 being worse value for the consumer and the taxpayer therefore seems inescapable.
Theresa May's calculation is that the red-in-tooth-and-claw free market economics of the 1980s, that worked so well then, might not be working quite so well now and Conservatives have to ditch unadulterated dogmatic worship of markets and lead reform of capitalism instead, where it has notably failed at the human level, if free market economics are to survive.
In this, I think she is correct.
Reforming the free market doesn't require the state to expand to a stage where it rivals the size of China or Scandinavian countries.
I don't think May is advocating that nor is she advocating tax rises and redistribution.
She is arguing for Government intervention in business and markets where they are seen to have failed.
With the "worrying signs for Trump" that Nate Silver has been commenting on for months, I have no idea how Trump is still in this race..... Trump must be a candidate on behalf the zombie apocalypse.
Not so. Silver had him very close indeed prior to the debate.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn No10 now clarifying PM's punchy remarks on QE before markets panic: "Quantitative easing is a matter for the independent Bank of England".
Wonder though if Mr Carney is updating his Linked In profile to "looking for my next challenge".
He's done a great job, they should poach him for the ECB.
Tom Newton Dunn @tnewtondunn No10 now clarifying PM's punchy remarks on QE before markets panic: "Quantitative easing is a matter for the independent Bank of England".
Wonder though if Mr Carney is updating his Linked In profile to "looking for my next challenge".
A bizarre conclusion seeing has Trump has comfortable polling leads in the state. It is one of the few swing states he is actually doing okay in.
I currently expect him to carry Ohio but lose the election, probably with Clinton scoring 300+ in the electoral college.
As a point of interest, were that to happen, it would be the first time a candidate has won Ohio but lost the election.
I posted it because Nate Silver had Trump winning Ohio, but that has changed recently as more polls have been done after the debate.
Nationally, yes, but I haven't seen any new OH polls that have Hillary ahead ––– I may have missed them however!
I don't think there have been any recent OH polls putting Hilary ahead. I expect 538 are giving Ohio to her, because you would assume that she'd win the State if she's about 4% ahead. That said, a 4% lead might see North Carolina going to Hilary, and Ohio to Trump, as current polling indicates.
''She is arguing for Government intervention in business and markets where they are seen to have failed.''
The only markets that 'fail' are surely those that aren't free enough. The conservative answer to expensive gas prices for example is deregulate and increase competition.
Let's get this straight. The new Tory prime minister - like all new Tory leaders - has told us how passionately and fervently committed she is to fairness, to the workers, to the disadvantaged, to the proletariat even if they take a liking to each other's tattoos and decide to breed, and to social mobility. She's committed to the point of wanting Cockney and Geordie to be the main accents heard around the high table at Trinity College, Cambridge within a generation. And in the Athenaeum, in Brooks's, on the General Synod of the Church of England, in the "royal and mafia" enclosure at the Epsom Derby, and everywhere that counts. She genuinely and passionately believes that dirty prole scumsucker genes are as good as refined business-class and twinset genes any day of the week; indeed they're usually superior. And that's been what her whole career in politics has always been about. Striving to help the lower orders. So what are we non-Tories waiting for? Bulls don't defecate excrement! They produce delicious custard, with a totally new and totally convincing taste! The past doesn't exist! The truth is here at last and it's shining! Forward!
More precisely Brexit is a cry to be heard from those that globalisation left behind, yet Brexit will leave them less able to cope than ever.
Why will they be less able to cope due to Brexit. The changes are going to occur regardless automation is unstoppable....
Two reasons.
- Brexit is a disconnection event and globalisation success depends on connections. You don't absolutely have to be in European Union for things to work, but given where we are, Brexit makes it more difficult.
- Brexit means less money in the system and therefore a smaller ability to support those left behind.
The problem is that the Remain faction didn't see a need to support globalisation losers while the Leave faction has no answers for them
Let's get this straight. The new Tory prime minister - like all new Tory leaders - has told us how passionately and fervently committed she is to fairness, to the workers, to the disadvantaged, to the proletariat even if they take a liking to each other's tattoos and decide to breed, and to social mobility. She's committed to the point of wanting Cockney and Geordie to be the main accents heard around the high table at Trinity College, Cambridge within a generation. And in the Athenaeum, in Brooks's, on the General Synod of the Church of England, in the "royal and mafia" enclosure at the Epsom Derby, and everywhere that counts. She genuinely and passionately believes that dirty prole scumsucker genes are as good as refined business-class and twinset genes any day of the week; indeed they're usually superior. And that's been what her whole career in politics has always been about. Striving to help the lower orders. So what are we non-Tories waiting for? Bulls don't defecate excrement! They produce delicious custard, with a totally new and totally convincing taste! The past doesn't exist! The truth is here at last and it's shining! Forward!
Let's have an election in 2017 and see whether people agree with Theresa May's vision for the country.
Well, quite. I'm not a huge fan of Ms May, I don't like the leftier nanny state stuff, I'm wary of her on Hard Brexit, and concerned she will harm universities amongst other things. But she's clearly better than ANY alternative, apart from Ruth Davidson, heh, and what's even clearer is that all this stuff will be very popular Out There.
She'd romp home to a huge victory, right now.
I expect the result in Witney in 2 weeks time will be poor enough for the Conservatives that it ends all talk of an early GE .
Yes, there could be a big swing from Labour to LDs there, with Labour maybe even getting close to 5%.
If that happens the Tories should hold on to their 60.2%
All to prop up inflated house prices, in the belief it's keeping spending afloat - I think it's actually got past the point of being utterly counterproductive myself.
It won't be pain free to unwind ultra low rates, but unwound they must be. May's nod too this today was the first shaft of light in the darkness in my view. Now for some action please.
I agree with you, and it's the big monetary challenge but can't come soon enough. Knocking QE on the head and returning interest rates to something akin to normal needs to happen whilst we can manage it.
Define "normal" (other than as a rate which works for me). If/when they do rise it will be interesting to see how the a "sterling collapse is good" posters can 180 to "exporters will cope".
Let's get this straight. The new Tory prime minister - like all new Tory leaders - has told us how passionately and fervently committed she is to fairness, to the workers, to the disadvantaged, to the proletariat even if they take a liking to each other's tattoos and decide to breed, and to social mobility. She's committed to the point of wanting Cockney and Geordie to be the main accents heard around the high table at Trinity College, Cambridge within a generation. And in the Athenaeum, in Brooks's, on the General Synod of the Church of England, in the "royal and mafia" enclosure at the Epsom Derby, and everywhere that counts. She genuinely and passionately believes that dirty prole scumsucker genes are as good as refined business-class and twinset genes any day of the week; indeed they're usually superior. And that's been what her whole career in politics has always been about. Striving to help the lower orders. So what are we non-Tories waiting for? Bulls don't defecate excrement! They produce delicious custard, with a totally new and totally convincing taste! The past doesn't exist! The truth is here at last and it's shining! Forward!
True enough. The Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail readerships may not be so keen on working class opportunity at middle class expense. So I am sure it is just window dressing , with a few token bits of social conservatism to keep the readers happy.
Theresa May's calculation is that the red-in-tooth-and-claw free market economics of the 1980s, that worked so well then, might not be working quite so well now and Conservatives have to ditch unadulterated dogmatic worship of markets and lead reform of capitalism instead, where it has notably failed at the human level, if free market economics are to survive.
In this, I think she is correct.
Reforming the free market doesn't require the state to expand to a stage where it rivals the size of China or Scandinavian countries.
I don't think May is advocating that nor is she advocating tax rises and redistribution.
She is arguing for Government intervention in business and markets where they are seen to have failed.
Will "failed" have any material meaning beyond "failed in the eyes of the court of public opinion"?
Define "normal" (other than as a rate which works for me). If/when they do rise it will be interesting to see how the a "sterling collapse is good" posters can 180 to "exporters will cope".
Nearer the long term average not near the all time record low.
''Talking to a few other members I know at work. "How did we become the party of big government?", have to agree with this.''
If it really was big government then fair enough. It isn;t even that coherent. May's philosophy amounts to a kind of headmistress whack-a-mole management that keeps the Daily Mail headline writers sweet.
Let's have an election in 2017 and see whether people agree with Theresa May's vision for the country.
Well, quite. I'm not a huge fan of Ms May, I don't like the leftier nanny state stuff, I'm wary of her on Hard Brexit, and concerned she will harm universities amongst other things. But she's clearly better than ANY alternative, apart from Ruth Davidson, heh, and what's even clearer is that all this stuff will be very popular Out There.
She'd romp home to a huge victory, right now.
I expect the result in Witney in 2 weeks time will be poor enough for the Conservatives that it ends all talk of an early GE .
Yes, there could be a big swing from Labour to LDs there, with Labour maybe even getting close to 5%.
If that happens the Tories should hold on to their 60.2%
I expect both Greens and UKIP to improve a bit.
UKIP came third last time, I expect them to decline.
Yes - from the point you advised. I replied too, but didn't tag you in.
-I was disappointed that the report didn't touch on the wider, positive transport implications of HH, with which are explained in a video here: (snip) from 2.10. Rory Sutherland makes a convincing case for it in his Spectator column, though sadly most of his argument on this is behind the paywall. http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/the-stupidest-target-in-british-transport/
-The case for HR3 labours a lot on EU commission emissions rules that can now be disregarded. I'm not suggesting dispoiling our country just because we're shot of the EU, but we can adopt a more nuanced and sensitive approach, otherwise what's the point of the freedom to be more competitive?
-Cost cost cost
-Many, among them Willie Walsh, have said HR3 is a rip off. Heathrow's shareholders are said to be backing it to the hilt because it will increase what they can charge customers: 'The charges that airports are allowed to impose on customers are dictated by the Civil Aviation Authority's calculation of their Regulated Asset Base, a figure which would be significantly higher if Heathrow builds a new third runway.' http://news.sky.com/story/heathrow-investors-snub-chris-grayling-hub-plea-10596395
The Heathrow shareholders (including the sovereign wealth funds of China and Qatar) are slavering over HR3 because it's going to make them a shitload more money than HH. The logic of HR3 being worse value for the consumer and the taxpayer therefore seems inescapable.
Thanks: I missed your reply.
Your point about EU emissions is a very good one, and one that might be a very good test case for Brexit if it alters the values of the relevant schemes.
But it should be noted AIUI that HH, whilst cheaper, does not add as much capacity, and has more operational difficulties.
Since even a full third runway does not look as if it solves capacity problems in the long-term (something only Boris Island promised to do), I see HR3 as being the best solution, even if the initial cost is greater.
Oh, and I don't take guarantees of noise reductions or 'respite areas' seriously. In a few years (perhaps even before construction ends) and the new capacity is all used up and the airport is back at 99% capacity, there will be a choice: add more capacity at £xx billion, or upset a few thousand households by removing the restrictions.
There will only be one winner (note; this applies to HR3's guarantees as well).
Comments
Labour will have grown up when it stops either looking for the new Blair or the person most unlike him as possible. Ditto the Tories.
Thatcher was a politician of her time and for her time. The lessons for politicians now are not, necessarily, her specific policies or even her approach but that to be an effective leader you need to have a clear idea of what you're about and where you want to get to, some idea of how to get there, courage - including the courage to express yourself in a way that resonates, cunning and flexibility in how you implement your aims and people who share your aims and are willing to put in the very hard work to achieve them.
Oh - and not believing your own propaganda.
We might get a useful view of the main party leaders by marking them up against these criteria.
(I might even do a thread header on this though I have ideas for two others being drafted in my head, when I can tear myself away from work.)
I will be reassured if May goes for Heathrow Hub (not Heathrow third runway). It will indicate to me a thrifty, sensible approach that isn't afraid to confront big corporate and international interests. If we go ahead with the third runway, after the horrible decision on HS2, the indications will be depressing.
Peston says the most economically and socially left wing speech by a Tory leader in a generation
https://www.facebook.com/pestonitv/videos/1705066703151401/
If only we had an opposition that could become electable, and had a plan to take 100 Conservative held seats, or even 50 plus the Nats.
She's better dressed than him.
It always surprises me how surprised we are that British PMs' (or even, going back a bit, British rulers') periods in office are often defined by Europe.
It's a pretty common theme in British history: our relationship with the European Continent and the powers in it, after all.......
In this, I think she is correct.
Come 2020 she's going to be judged on both.
On the other hand, she doesn't have the confrontational personality, the secret self-doubt or the delusions of grandeur.
In the end, we are in the grip of corporatism, state based market engineering by central bank.
The May speech has had a good pundit reception, although the absence of concrete proposals has been noted too. Mrs Thatcher claimed she was a follower of St Francis, which was not subsequently obvious. Let's see what is actually done.
Clinton 46 .. Trump 44
http://www.wral.com/asset/news/state/nccapitol/2016/10/04/16082184/WRAL_News_poll.pdf
The Conservatives will have to become very unpopular to give the Lib Dems an opening.
UKIP forced the poor woman to lead them. That explains the photo of Farage trying to kiss her.
Where there are Corbynistas may we bring Truth
Where there are Kippers may we bring Faith
And where there are Remainers may we bring Hope
Chinese spending around 13% of gdp, ours is around 20ish !
http://www.theglobaleconomy.com/United-Kingdom/Government_size/
We're comparable to Norway http://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Norway/Government_size/
Though how the money has been spent/wasted is left as an exercise for the reader ^_~
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-north-carolina-is-becoming-a-backstop-for-clinton/
It's been described as a misallocation of capital on a truly heroic scale (correctly in my view). For six years or so money has not gone into R+D/marketing/new plant it's been disappearing into ever increasing financial black holes, created out of regulation and law. Do something about this and corporate tax revenues would rise (because all that pension saving is tax deductible), and you might actually get the economy going via the private corporate sector. Much the same can be said about private individuals with pensions and savings who have seen income cut and the need to save ever more for the future increase, both of which drag on demand.
All to prop up inflated house prices, in the belief it's keeping spending afloat - I think it's actually got past the point of being utterly counterproductive myself.
It won't be pain free to unwind ultra low rates, but unwound they must be. May's nod too this today was the first shaft of light in the darkness in my view. Now for some action please.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/10/brexit-britain-cable-street-always-just-around-corner
I currently expect him to carry Ohio but lose the election, probably with Clinton scoring 300+ in the electoral college.
As a point of interest, were that to happen, it would be the first time a candidate has won Ohio but lost the election.
A big-time early-voting state. Not a good look, trailing there in October...
[I'm pretty bad at long-term betting, but as most of my bets are placed within 24 hours of the event I don't think that's too surprising. I'm intrigued to see how my spread betting suggestions turn out. Right now, they're all quite close].
https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/783624261919531008
More precisely Brexit is a cry to be heard from those that globalisation left behind, yet Brexit will leave them less able to cope than ever.
I think I suggested selling at around 53, but am surprised that has drifted so far.
The Verstappen and Bottas suggestions appear on-course, and the Magnussen bet (sell 9, I think) likely to be green.
No politician will admit that there isn't much any of them can do about the economics of globalisation.
Two billion people entered the global economy after the collapse of communism. In what way was that not going to hit blue collar wages for decades.
@tnewtondunn No10 now clarifying PM's punchy remarks on QE before markets panic: "Quantitative easing is a matter for the independent Bank of England".
Up there in the Heavens, a Grocer smiled:
"..This then is the task to which your Government is dedicated: to give to all our people both freedom and responsibility. That is the challenge and from it will come opportunity. Opportunity to take our destiny, the destiny of the nation, once again in our own hands. If we are to achieve this task we will have to embark on a change so radical, a revolution so quiet and yet so total, that it will go far beyond the programme for a Parliament to which we are committed and on which we have already embarked; far beyond this decade..... For it is the task of building something of style, of substance, and worth; something so important to the life and the future of this country of ours. We can only hope to begin now what future Conservative Governments will continue and complete. We are laying the foundations, but they are the foundations for a generation...."
Moving away from such base topics as politics, Blue Origin will be intentionally crashing a rocket in forty minutes or so.
Watch live here:
https://www.blueorigin.com/#youtubebqUIX3Z4r3k
-I was disappointed that the report didn't touch on the wider, positive transport implications of HH, with which are explained in a video here: https://vimeo.com/110879552 from 2.10. Rory Sutherland makes a convincing case for it in his Spectator column, though sadly most of his argument on this is behind the paywall. http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/the-stupidest-target-in-british-transport/
-The case for HR3 labours a lot on EU commission emissions rules that can now be disregarded. I'm not suggesting dispoiling our country just because we're shot of the EU, but we can adopt a more nuanced and sensitive approach, otherwise what's the point of the freedom to be more competitive?
-Cost cost cost
-Many, among them Willie Walsh, have said HR3 is a rip off. Heathrow's shareholders are said to be backing it to the hilt because it will increase what they can charge customers:
'The charges that airports are allowed to impose on customers are dictated by the Civil Aviation Authority's calculation of their Regulated Asset Base, a figure which would be significantly higher if Heathrow builds a new third runway.'
http://news.sky.com/story/heathrow-investors-snub-chris-grayling-hub-plea-10596395
The Heathrow shareholders (including the sovereign wealth funds of China and Qatar) are slavering over HR3 because it's going to make them a shitload more money than HH. The logic of HR3 being worse value for the consumer and the taxpayer therefore seems inescapable.
She is arguing for Government intervention in business and markets where they are seen to have failed.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37563836
This was all predictable and predicted.
The only markets that 'fail' are surely those that aren't free enough. The conservative answer to expensive gas prices for example is deregulate and increase competition.
- Brexit is a disconnection event and globalisation success depends on connections. You don't absolutely have to be in European Union for things to work, but given where we are, Brexit makes it more difficult.
- Brexit means less money in the system and therefore a smaller ability to support those left behind.
The problem is that the Remain faction didn't see a need to support globalisation losers while the Leave faction has no answers for them
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37563836
If it really was big government then fair enough. It isn;t even that coherent. May's philosophy amounts to a kind of headmistress whack-a-mole management that keeps the Daily Mail headline writers sweet.
After Brexit is done, she is gone.
Your point about EU emissions is a very good one, and one that might be a very good test case for Brexit if it alters the values of the relevant schemes.
But it should be noted AIUI that HH, whilst cheaper, does not add as much capacity, and has more operational difficulties.
Since even a full third runway does not look as if it solves capacity problems in the long-term (something only Boris Island promised to do), I see HR3 as being the best solution, even if the initial cost is greater.
Oh, and I don't take guarantees of noise reductions or 'respite areas' seriously. In a few years (perhaps even before construction ends) and the new capacity is all used up and the airport is back at 99% capacity, there will be a choice: add more capacity at £xx billion, or upset a few thousand households by removing the restrictions.
There will only be one winner (note; this applies to HR3's guarantees as well).
https://twitter.com/oflynnmep/status/7833130985055846414