"Britain’s courgettes and lettuces will soon return An appreciation of international trade should accompany seeing greens back on shelf"
I can't get through the paywall to see this, but I assume the message is Brexit -> no more out of season lettuce, which is odd as the shortage was weather-driven.
Weather IN EUROPE. I assume if we go hard Brexit we can import food from wherever - thus increasing security of food supply.
Precisely. And you only have to look at the names for this stuff - courgette, zucchini - to see that it has no place on the Englishman's table. Turnips for us.
56% of UK exports now go outside the EU. The UK voted Leave and it is pointless trying to re fight the referendum
I agree. But we have a Brexit deal to negotiate. We need one that does the least harm to the UK's economy. When assessing whether that's being achieved it's good to have some context.
Given border control and free movement control was such a key part of the Leave campaign we cannot have full single market membership given the EU will not compromise on free movement in order to maintain that membership
All Con voters behind Mrs May etc. Are we so sure, lot of voting evidence since her accession suggest otherwise. Sometimes I think we are conning ourselves. Big reductions in Conservative support in many, many elections.
Clearly, the NHS simply can't cope. It's model requires real terms increases in funding pretty much every year to be sustainable but we don't have the cash.
Yes, yes, we could lop another 2p on income tax to pay for it and social care but 6-8 years down the line that won't be sufficient either whilst putting a real drag on the whole economy.
Pensions/NHS/social care are all linked (and linked the the oldies) and we really need to reduce the burdens and entitlements and up the levels of economic activity of the over 60s.
Yes but that economic activity still needs to pay for insurance or increased NI
That's my point. We should be comfortable with pensioners working ~15 hours a week from, say, 65-75 years old (perhaps 3 x days of 5 hour shifts) earning ~£650 pcm (and at this level would be exempt from Income Tax as well as NI) to supplement a simpler state pension, augmented by the fact all will have a level of contracted-in private pension.
Healthcare and social care is difficult. But I believe doing a form of work is good for your health, and longer-term I think families are simply going to have to step up more on social care.
Clearly, the NHS simply can't cope. It's model requires real terms increases in funding pretty much every year to be sustainable but we don't have the cash.
Yes, yes, we could lop another 2p on income tax to pay for it and social care but 6-8 years down the line that won't be sufficient either whilst putting a real drag on the whole economy.
Pensions/NHS/social care are all linked (and linked the the oldies) and we really need to reduce the burdens and entitlements and up the levels of economic activity of the over 60s.
Logan's Run
We'll all be old one day. And sooner than we think.
All Con voters behind Mrs May etc. Are we so sure, lot of voting evidence since her accession suggest otherwise. Sometimes I think we are conning ourselves. Big reductions in Conservative support in many, many elections.
Sleaford best performance for an incumbent party in a by election for years
"Britain’s courgettes and lettuces will soon return An appreciation of international trade should accompany seeing greens back on shelf"
I can't get through the paywall to see this, but I assume the message is Brexit -> no more out of season lettuce, which is odd as the shortage was weather-driven.
Weather IN EUROPE. I assume if we go hard Brexit we can import food from wherever - thus increasing security of food supply.
Precisely. And you only have to look at the names for this stuff - courgette, zucchini - to see that it has no place on the Englishman's table. Turnips for us.
Clearly, the NHS simply can't cope. It's model requires real terms increases in funding pretty much every year to be sustainable but we don't have the cash.
Yes, yes, we could lop another 2p on income tax to pay for it and social care but 6-8 years down the line that won't be sufficient either whilst putting a real drag on the whole economy.
Pensions/NHS/social care are all linked (and linked the the oldies) and we really need to reduce the burdens and entitlements and up the levels of economic activity of the over 60s.
Logan's Run
We'll all be old one day. And sooner than we think.
Encouraging those who can afford it to take out insurance would help
I don't think that would really impact the resource issue. We have the situation where a LOT more people are going to hospitals. We need to address the reason for that first.
Charging for non urgent healthcare and cosmetic surgery would help
Macron's easy to like. We don't know much about him but Europe could do with another charismatic leader to complement Merkel.
In the hypothetical case that the British economy tanks and Brexit is visibly reponsible and within a year of triggering article 50 it becomes obvious that this is happening.....
I wonder what the chances are that at that point the UK government would try to reverse the decision?
All Con voters behind Mrs May etc. Are we so sure, lot of voting evidence since her accession suggest otherwise. Sometimes I think we are conning ourselves. Big reductions in Conservative support in many, many elections.
Whilst Corbyn is Labour leader even Mrs May's most trenchant critics will vote Tory to stop Corbyn becoming First Lord of the Treasury.
56% of UK exports now go outside the EU. The UK voted Leave and it is pointless trying to re fight the referendum
I agree. But we have a Brexit deal to negotiate. We need one that does the least harm to the UK's economy. When assessing whether that's being achieved it's good to have some context.
Given border control and free movement control was such a key part of the Leave campaign we cannot have full single market membership given the EU will not compromise on free movement in order to maintain that membership
Leave's big thing was migration from when they let in Turkey, so maybe the EU could compromise by agreeing not to do that?
56% of UK exports now go outside the EU. The UK voted Leave and it is pointless trying to re fight the referendum
I agree. But we have a Brexit deal to negotiate. We need one that does the least harm to the UK's economy. When assessing whether that's being achieved it's good to have some context.
Given border control and free movement control was such a key part of the Leave campaign we cannot have full single market membership given the EU will not compromise on free movement in order to maintain that membership
Incorrect.
As you Leavies are always telling us when we point to one part of the OFFICIAL LEAVE MANIFESTO or another as a clue to what people might expect from Brexit: all we voted for was to Leave. t's up to the government to decide which flavour of leave we get.
Clearly, the NHS simply can't cope. It's model requires real terms increases in funding pretty much every year to be sustainable but we don't have the cash.
Yes, yes, we could lop another 2p on income tax to pay for it and social care but 6-8 years down the line that won't be sufficient either whilst putting a real drag on the whole economy.
Pensions/NHS/social care are all linked (and linked the the oldies) and we really need to reduce the burdens and entitlements and up the levels of economic activity of the over 60s.
Logan's Run
We'll all be old one day. And sooner than we think.
Clearly, the NHS simply can't cope. It's model requires real terms increases in funding pretty much every year to be sustainable but we don't have the cash.
Yes, yes, we could lop another 2p on income tax to pay for it and social care but 6-8 years down the line that won't be sufficient either whilst putting a real drag on the whole economy.
Pensions/NHS/social care are all linked (and linked the the oldies) and we really need to reduce the burdens and entitlements and up the levels of economic activity of the over 60s.
The NHS is cheaper per head than any other major country health system (and vastly cheaper than the US), so in principle we could as you say decide to pay the global average and solve the pressing problems for the short term. In the longer term, I agree that we need a rational, adult discussion of the interacting issues of age, health, tax and saving. I can't think of a better issue for a Royal Commission to set out options.
Personally, I think part of the answer is individualising pensions and benefits to facilitate flexibility. When I signed on for a few monthss in 2010, partly to see how the system worked, I found myself paying 80% tax on casual (translation) earnings, which really appeared to be a disincentive to gradually get back into work (or to stop reporting it truthfully). In the same way, as a healthy 67-year-old, I find there are both unnecessary benefits (I don't need free bus travel or a winter fuel allowance) and unexpected hurdles (e.g. either you take your whole national pension or none of it), and really I could carry on exactly as when I was 57. Someone else of 63 with serious illnesses might need to retire early, and find they get a pittance.
A difficulty is avoiding incentives to spend your money and then rely on the State, but that's not that common a problem - few people really like blowing all their savings. But it does need a constructive cross-party discussion as the whole area is replete with vote-winning slogans that don't really get us further.
Alastair Cook has stepped down as England captain.
Hopefully we'll have a Yorkshireman as Captain.
I think Root’s nailed on as Captain, isn’t he.
Could mean we have Cookie back at Essex a bit more, although he still wants to carry on as an England player.
All the truly great England captains are from Yorkshire, apart Douglas Jardine, who was Scotland and he was awesome. The Aussies are still whining about him to this day.
Root's awesomeness is nailed on because he's from Sheffield
Macron's easy to like. We don't know much about him but Europe could do with another charismatic leader to complement Merkel.
In the hypothetical case that the British economy tanks and Brexit is visibly reponsible and within a year of triggering article 50 it becomes obvious that this is happening.....
I wonder what the chances are that at that point the UK government would try to reverse the decision?
Nil.
Get over it.
Non-zero.
Get used to it.
The only way that works is if in 2020 Corbyn's Labour sweep to power...!
I agree - I doubt Nuttall will win Stoke - and if not him there now, who, where when?
I think the Bregret is still strong in The Economist (not least because many of their predictions of catastrophe have yet to come true). Labour is a strong brand and will ultimately recover, and I doubt May will be in office in 2029 either....
I dont think Nuttal and the Kippers are going anywhere while BrExit seems to be firmish and on track. If Article 50 starts getting delayed from legal tomfoolery or chicanery in the HoL, and the narrative that the elite are trying to "steal" the referendum result from the people starts to have currency then the UKIP message will start to resonate with the public again. If the end result is really EEA with a job offer then UKIP will be back on full song and probably over 20% in the polls.
... and able to add to their 100 plus MPs.
You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season to spout the same tedious bullshit, please desist, the 100 MPs was a prediction by MikeK. You and I both know that 20% in the polls will get UKIP maybe 4-5 MPs that doesn't reduce my comment in the slightest.
Clearly, the NHS simply can't cope. It's model requires real terms increases in funding pretty much every year to be sustainable but we don't have the cash.
Yes, yes, we could lop another 2p on income tax to pay for it and social care but 6-8 years down the line that won't be sufficient either whilst putting a real drag on the whole economy.
Pensions/NHS/social care are all linked (and linked the the oldies) and we really need to reduce the burdens and entitlements and up the levels of economic activity of the over 60s.
The NHS is cheaper per head than any other major country health system (and vastly cheaper than the US), so in principle we could as you say decide to pay the global average and solve the pressing problems for the short term. In the longer term, I agree that we need a rational, adult discussion of the interacting issues of age, health, tax and saving. I can't think of a better issue for a Royal Commission to set out options.
Personally, I think part of the answer is individualising pensions and benefits to facilitate flexibility. When I signed on for a few monthss in 2010, partly to see how the system worked, I found myself paying 80% tax on casual (translation) earnings, which really appeared to be a disincentive to gradually get back into work (or to stop reporting it truthfully). In the same way, as a healthy 67-year-old, I find there are both unnecessary benefits (I don't need free bus travel or a winter fuel allowance) and unexpected hurdles (e.g. either you take your whole national pension or none of it), and really I could carry on exactly as when I was 57. Someone else of 63 with serious illnesses might need to retire early, and find they get a pittance.
A difficulty is avoiding incentives to spend your money and then rely on the State, but that's not that common a problem - few people really like blowing all their savings. But it does need a constructive cross-party discussion as the whole area is replete with vote-winning slogans that don't really get us further.
Surely one advantage of free bus travel is that the heavy, albeit somewhat underfunded, use by pensioners helps to keep some rural routes open.
Alastair Cook has stepped down as England captain.
Hopefully we'll have a Yorkshireman as Captain.
I think Root’s nailed on as Captain, isn’t he.
Could mean we have Cookie back at Essex a bit more, although he still wants to carry on as an England player.
All the truly great England captains are from Yorkshire, apart Douglas Jardine, who was Scotland and he was awesome. The Aussies are still whining about him to this day.
Root's awesomeness is nailed on because he's from Sheffield
Macron's easy to like. We don't know much about him but Europe could do with another charismatic leader to complement Merkel.
In the hypothetical case that the British economy tanks and Brexit is visibly reponsible and within a year of triggering article 50 it becomes obvious that this is happening.....
I wonder what the chances are that at that point the UK government would try to reverse the decision?
Nil.
Get over it.
Non-zero.
Get used to it.
The only way that works is if in 2020 Corbyn's Labour sweep to power...!
There are many other ways it can happen. Once Article 50 is invoked, the democratic mandate will have been fulfilled and then it's all to play for.
Encouraging those who can afford it to take out insurance would help
I don't think it would help a lot.
The pinch points seem to be GP surgeries, A&E, and bed blocking by old people who the social services can't cope with. Insurance doesn't help with any of these.
I favour making a visit to the GP or A&E a taxable benefit (along with winter fuel allowance and free bus passes) so young people and the poor don't pay anything but the rest of us do, even if it is a relatively small amount.
Clearly, the NHS simply can't cope. It's model requires real terms increases in funding pretty much every year to be sustainable but we don't have the cash.
Yes, yes, we could lop another 2p on income tax to pay for it and social care but 6-8 years down the line that won't be sufficient either whilst putting a real drag on the whole economy.
Pensions/NHS/social care are all linked (and linked the the oldies) and we really need to reduce the burdens and entitlements and up the levels of economic activity of the over 60s.
But it does need a constructive cross-party discussion as the whole area is replete with vote-winning slogans that don't really get us further.
...and part of that must be to have the option of profoundly reforming the NHS on the table...
Sam Bowman ‘Ms Bindel was accused of being “transphobic, biphobic, Islamophobic and anti-sex work.” She was also accused of being “a fake goth.”’ https://t.co/IyMYFrjOLA
...and for the government to encourage robustly that people smoke, drink and eat greasy kebabs in vastly greater quantities whilst reducing their levels of exercise...
Clearly, the NHS simply can't cope. It's model requires real terms increases in funding pretty much every year to be sustainable but we don't have the cash.
Yes, yes, we could lop another 2p on income tax to pay for it and social care but 6-8 years down the line that won't be sufficient either whilst putting a real drag on the whole economy.
Pensions/NHS/social care are all linked (and linked the the oldies) and we really need to reduce the burdens and entitlements and up the levels of economic activity of the over 60s.
The NHS is cheaper per head than any other major country health system (and vastly cheaper than the US), so in principle we could as you say decide to pay the global average and solve the pressing problems for the short term. In the longer term, I agree that we need a rational, adult discussion of the interacting issues of age, health, tax and saving. I can't think of a better issue for a Royal Commission to set out options.
Personally, I think part of the answer is individualising pensions and benefits to facilitate flexibility. When I signed on for a few monthss in 2010, partly to see how the system worked, I found myself paying 80% tax on casual (translation) earnings, which really appeared to be a disincentive to gradually get back into work (or to stop reporting it truthfully). In the same way, as a healthy 67-year-old, I find there are both unnecessary benefits (I don't need free bus travel or a winter fuel allowance) and unexpected hurdles (e.g. either you take your whole national pension or none of it), and really I could carry on exactly as when I was 57. Someone else of 63 with serious illnesses might need to retire early, and find they get a pittance.
A difficulty is avoiding incentives to spend your money and then rely on the State, but that's not that common a problem - few people really like blowing all their savings. But it does need a constructive cross-party discussion as the whole area is replete with vote-winning slogans that don't really get us further.
Nick, I agree with you. I really think we need a truly independent review of health care with all political parties signing up beforehand to implement the results in full. If the balance and experts could be found, then we should end up with something quite different to what we have now. It may cost a little more and the coverage may be a little less but at least we will have moved on from the untenable situation we are now in.
Health care is such an emotive, political issue, that we need to take it out of the political environment completely.
Clever to include "charging foreign visitors to use the NHS" as an option. Probably swung it against increased taxation because some people thought that the option of charging visitors to the UK would provide enough dosh to solve all the NHS funding problems.. it won't.
Clearly, the NHS simply can't cope. It's model requires real terms increases in funding pretty much every year to be sustainable but we don't have the cash.
Yes, yes, we could lop another 2p on income tax to pay for it and social care but 6-8 years down the line that won't be sufficient either whilst putting a real drag on the whole economy.
Pensions/NHS/social care are all linked (and linked the the oldies) and we really need to reduce the burdens and entitlements and up the levels of economic activity of the over 60s.
As long as we can hang on for a couple of years till the extra £350m a week kicks in we'll be fine.
Alastair Cook has stepped down as England captain.
Hopefully we'll have a Yorkshireman as Captain.
I think Root’s nailed on as Captain, isn’t he.
Could mean we have Cookie back at Essex a bit more, although he still wants to carry on as an England player.
All the truly great England captains are from Yorkshire, apart Douglas Jardine, who was Scotland and he was awesome. The Aussies are still whining about him to this day.
Root's awesomeness is nailed on because he's from Sheffield
Great ad, shit product. But retweeted across the world many thousands of times over - so job done.
Yup, though insofar as these boycotts have any real impact, I wonder how much they factored in the domestic market? I salute their principles in any case.
'Budweiser's Super Bowl immigration ad sparks boycott calls'
Encouraging those who can afford it to take out insurance would help
I don't think it would help a lot.
The pinch points seem to be GP surgeries, A&E, and bed blocking by old people who the social services can't cope with. Insurance doesn't help with any of these.
I favour making a visit to the GP or A&E a taxable benefit (along with winter fuel allowance and free bus passes) so young people and the poor don't pay anything but the rest of us do, even if it is a relatively small amount.
The common thread on the pinch points above is how we deal with non-acute/non-emergent medical issues. As Charles (most notably of commentators on this board) has pointed out, a wholescale logistical re-structuring of how healthcare is delivered would yield significant dividends. Too much winds up passing through the big hospitals right now.
FWIW, I think Nick is right, this should be a clear-cut example of a good case for a Royal Commission. But how to cut through the emotion? Right now, our NHS is not very good. But it's also not very expensive. The Left seems unable to accept the former; the Right the latter.
Clearly, the NHS simply can't cope. It's model requires real terms increases in funding pretty much every year to be sustainable but we don't have the cash.
Yes, yes, we could lop another 2p on income tax to pay for it and social care but 6-8 years down the line that won't be sufficient either whilst putting a real drag on the whole economy.
Pensions/NHS/social care are all linked (and linked the the oldies) and we really need to reduce the burdens and entitlements and up the levels of economic activity of the over 60s.
As long as we can hang on for a couple of years till the extra £350m a week kicks in we'll be fine.
for about 4-5 years.
Edit: 2-3 years. The Kings Fund estimated an extra 30bn was needed per year by 2020 just to maintain current provision. 350m per week is 18bn per year, so that requirement gets overtaken about 2018.
Clearly, the NHS simply can't cope. It's model requires real terms increases in funding pretty much every year to be sustainable but we don't have the cash.
Yes, yes, we could lop another 2p on income tax to pay for it and social care but 6-8 years down the line that won't be sufficient either whilst putting a real drag on the whole economy.
Pensions/NHS/social care are all linked (and linked the the oldies) and we really need to reduce the burdens and entitlements and up the levels of economic activity of the over 60s.
The NHS is cheaper per head than any other major country health system (and vastly cheaper than the US), so in principle we could as you say decide to pay the global average and solve the pressing problems for the short term. In the longer term, I agree that we need a rational, adult discussion of the interacting issues of age, health, tax and saving. I can't think of a better issue for a Royal Commission to set out options.
Personally, I think part of the answer is individualising pensions and benefits to facilitate flexibility. When I signed on for a few monthss in 2010, partly to see how the system worked, I found myself paying 80% tax on casual (translation) earnings, which really appeared to be a disincentive to gradually get back into work (or to stop reporting it truthfully). In the same way, as a healthy 67-year-old, I find there are both unnecessary benefits (I don't need free bus travel or a winter fuel allowance) and unexpected hurdles (e.g. either you take your whole national pension or none of it), and really I could carry on exactly as when I was 57. Someone else of 63 with serious illnesses might need to retire early, and find they get a pittance.
A difficulty is avoiding incentives to spend your money and then rely on the State, but that's not that common a problem - few people really like blowing all their savings. But it does need a constructive cross-party discussion as the whole area is replete with vote-winning slogans that don't really get us further.
Health care is such an emotive, political issue, that we need to take it out of the political environment completely.
Is not the whole point of democracy that you can vote for what you want? If you take 'big stuff' out of politics and put it into the hands of experts then you are advocating that we surrender our freedom to the blob.
Another idiot who thinks that trade with the EU will just stop because we leave.
No, Richard: merely pointing out that a trade deal with a protectionist US will not compensate for what we'll lose by leaving the Single Market. And that our European friends will know that. I am sorry you don't understand.
Also a trade deal with the US that requires UK manufacturers to drop their standards to US standards to compete with US imports, will prevent them selling their goods to the EU.
56% of UK exports now go outside the EU. The UK voted Leave and it is pointless trying to re fight the referendum
I agree. But we have a Brexit deal to negotiate. We need one that does the least harm to the UK's economy. When assessing whether that's being achieved it's good to have some context.
Given border control and free movement control was such a key part of the Leave campaign we cannot have full single market membership given the EU will not compromise on free movement in order to maintain that membership
We need to get as close to it as we can. What we should not be doing is jumping off the edge of a cliff just to please swivel-eyed Tory euro-phobics.
Another idiot who thinks that trade with the EU will just stop because we leave.
No, Richard: merely pointing out that a trade deal with a protectionist US will not compensate for what we'll lose by leaving the Single Market. And that our European friends will know that. I am sorry you don't understand.
Also a trade deal with the US that requires UK manufacturers to drop their standards to US standards to compete with US imports, will prevent them selling their goods to the EU.
How ever do we manage to sell to Japan (where the goods need to meet Japanese standards), or China (where they are required to meet Chinese standards).
56% of UK exports now go outside the EU. The UK voted Leave and it is pointless trying to re fight the referendum
I agree. But we have a Brexit deal to negotiate. We need one that does the least harm to the UK's economy. When assessing whether that's being achieved it's good to have some context.
Given border control and free movement control was such a key part of the Leave campaign we cannot have full single market membership given the EU will not compromise on free movement in order to maintain that membership
We need to get as close to it as we can. What we should not be doing is jumping off the edge of a cliff just to please swivel-eyed Tory euro-phobics.
You really are getting very tedious. Of the 17+ million people that voted for Leave only a small minority of that are "swivel-eyed Tory euro-phobics", most of the are Mr & Mrs Smith from Acacia Avenue. All the polling, and frequent re polling shows that the public value control of immigration over the free market, you might disagree, but they have more votes than you.
Great ad, shit product. But retweeted across the world many thousands of times over - so job done.
Yup, though insofar as these boycotts have any real impact, I wonder how much they factored in the domestic market? I salute their principles in any case.
'Budweiser's Super Bowl immigration ad sparks boycott calls'
@MrHarryCole: Breaking: Nigel Farage's wife has said she and her husband have been living "separate lives" for some years and he moved out "a while ago".
I really dislike political activism from the bench - this explains much of the mutual outrage at the 90 pause EO
Boston Bobblehead ALL the Sun shows will call Judge Robart a 'Bush Appointee,' but he's an SJW no WATCH #BlackLivesMatter declaration https://t.co/AZbuPI28sh
Clearly, the NHS simply can't cope. It's model requires real terms increases in funding pretty much every year to be sustainable but we don't have the cash.
Yes, yes, we could lop another 2p on income tax to pay for it and social care but 6-8 years down the line that won't be sufficient either whilst putting a real drag on the whole economy.
Pensions/NHS/social care are all linked (and linked the the oldies) and we really need to reduce the burdens and entitlements and up the levels of economic activity of the over 60s.
Surely Thatcher has succeeded beyond her wildest dreams. ~50% of the UK possibly rejects 'socialised' medicine.
The logic of rejecting a NHS (or Canadian) tax funded model is the US funding model. It costs 17%. (But you have 'bountiful choice' and you have the chance to prosper if you're lucky and skip much insurance or go bankrupt if you're unlucky and have a 'pre-existing'.)
Ways to improve NHS efficiency and reduce costs can't easily be implemented with it under siege as it now is. Keeping patients in acute hospital wards at £500/night when they could be in shared long-stay wards in cottage/community hospitals is insane, but Thatcher closed the latter.
One problem in increasing the state pension age to 70 is that people on the Surrey/Hampshire border might have another 20 years of life. Many of those in less favoured constituencies will be dead before 70.
Clever to include "charging foreign visitors to use the NHS" as an option. Probably swung it against increased taxation because some people thought that the option of charging visitors to the UK would provide enough dosh to solve all the NHS funding problems.. it won't.
Maybe they just think it's the right thing to do.
Maybe, contrary to the assumptions of many, lots of people have had personal experience of the NHS and can see that isn't idyllic and could be vastly improved without additional funds?
Clearly, the NHS simply can't cope. It's model requires real terms increases in funding pretty much every year to be sustainable but we don't have the cash.
Yes, yes, we could lop another 2p on income tax to pay for it and social care but 6-8 years down the line that won't be sufficient either whilst putting a real drag on the whole economy.
Pensions/NHS/social care are all linked (and linked the the oldies) and we really need to reduce the burdens and entitlements and up the levels of economic activity of the over 60s.
The NHS is cheaper per head than any other major country health system (and vastly cheaper than the US), so in principle we could as you say decide to pay the global average and solve the pressing problems for the short term. In the longer term, I agree that we need a rational, adult discussion of the interacting issues of age, health, tax and saving. I can't think of a better issue for a Royal Commission to set out options.
Personally, I think part of the answer is individualising pensions and benefits to facilitate flexibility. When I signed on for a few monthss in 2010, partly to see how the system worked, I found myself paying 80% tax on casual (translation) earnings, which really appeared to be a disincentive to gradually get back into work (or to stop reporting it truthfully). In the same way, as a healthy 67-year-old, I find there are both unnecessary benefits (I don't need free bus travel or a winter fuel allowance) and unexpected hurdles (e.g. either you take your whole national pension or none of it), and really I could carry on exactly as when I was 57. Someone else of 63 with serious illnesses might need to retire early, and find they get a pittance.
A difficulty is avoiding incentives to spend your money and then rely on the State, but that's not that common a problem - few people really like blowing all their savings. But it does need a constructive cross-party discussion as the whole area is replete with vote-winning slogans that don't really get us further.
Surely one advantage of free bus travel is that the heavy, albeit somewhat underfunded, use by pensioners helps to keep some rural routes open.
Isn't it paid directly to the bus companies - ie it's a disguised subsidy?
56% of UK exports now go outside the EU. The UK voted Leave and it is pointless trying to re fight the referendum
I agree. But we have a Brexit deal to negotiate. We need one that does the least harm to the UK's economy. When assessing whether that's being achieved it's good to have some context.
Given border control and free movement control was such a key part of the Leave campaign we cannot have full single market membership given the EU will not compromise on free movement in order to maintain that membership
We need to get as close to it as we can. What we should not be doing is jumping off the edge of a cliff just to please swivel-eyed Tory euro-phobics.
You really are getting very tedious. Of the 17+ million people that voted for Leave only a small minority of that are "swivel-eyed Tory euro-phobics", most of the are Mr & Mrs Smith from Acacia Avenue. All the polling, and frequent re polling shows that the public value control of immigration over the free market, you might disagree, but they have more votes than you.
Yes - I agree, the vast majority of voters are not swivel-eyed Tory Europhobics. That's why they should not get a veto over the Brexit deal we do.
@MrHarryCole: Breaking: Nigel Farage's wife has said she and her husband have been living "separate lives" for some years and he moved out "a while ago".
C'mon chaps, surely a Brexit metaphor to be confected out of that?
56% of UK exports now go outside the EU. The UK voted Leave and it is pointless trying to re fight the referendum
I agree. But we have a Brexit deal to negotiate. We need one that does the least harm to the UK's economy. When assessing whether that's being achieved it's good to have some context.
Given border control and free movement control was such a key part of the Leave campaign we cannot have full single market membership given the EU will not compromise on free movement in order to maintain that membership
We need to get as close to it as we can. What we should not be doing is jumping off the edge of a cliff just to please swivel-eyed Tory euro-phobics.
You really are getting very tedious. Of the 17+ million people that voted for Leave only a small minority of that are "swivel-eyed Tory euro-phobics", most of the are Mr & Mrs Smith from Acacia Avenue. All the polling, and frequent re polling shows that the public value control of immigration over the free market, you might disagree, but they have more votes than you.
Yes - I agree, the vast majority of voters are not swivel-eyed Tory Europhobics. That's why they should not get a veto over the Brexit deal we do.
You appear to be looking in the wrong place. The reason a deal won't be done is because Verhofstadt and Tusk wont offer us one, pour encourager les autres. You will know that I have long put forward the view that we will be offered a "piss off" deal except for some FTA on Goods largely to pacify powerful German industrial donors interests. This is why I have always felt the A50 debate is largely pointless, because the difference between what we get through A50 and what we would get by just walking away will be separable only by a sanded down cigarette paper - and wastes 2 years we would be doing business in.
I correctly guessed the crime before clicking on the link ... which shows how messed up our society has become.
It isnt solved due to decades of political cowardice. Make parents responsible. If your child is a victim of FGM, you are guilty of child abuse, period. To avoid driving it underground and stopping parents taking children to doctors introduce a mandatory health check (in the same way as we do for the BCG program) at an appropriate age run through schools.
Another idiot who thinks that trade with the EU will just stop because we leave.
No, Richard: merely pointing out that a trade deal with a protectionist US will not compensate for what we'll lose by leaving the Single Market. And that our European friends will know that. I am sorry you don't understand.
Also a trade deal with the US that requires UK manufacturers to drop their standards to US standards to compete with US imports, will prevent them selling their goods to the EU.
How ever do we manage to sell to Japan (where the goods need to meet Japanese standards), or China (where they are required to meet Chinese standards).
We don't compete very well in the UK with Japanese and Chinese imports. We won't be able to compete with cheap substandard US food either, unless UK manufacturers drop their standards to US standards in the UK. Otherwise we will lose much more than we gain in a US/UK trade deal. If we drop our food standards in the UK, it will harm our exports to the EU.
Clearly, the NHS simply can't cope. It's model requires real terms increases in funding pretty much every year to be sustainable but we don't have the cash.
Yes, yes, we could lop another 2p on income tax to pay for it and social care but 6-8 years down the line that won't be sufficient either whilst putting a real drag on the whole economy.
Pensions/NHS/social care are all linked (and linked the the oldies) and we really need to reduce the burdens and entitlements and up the levels of economic activity of the over 60s.
The NHS is cheaper per head than any other major country health system (and vastly cheaper than the US), so in principle we could as you say decide to pay the global average and solve the pressing problems for the short term. In the longer term, I agree that we need a rational, adult discussion of the interacting issues of age, health, tax and saving. I can't think of a better issue for a Royal Commission to set out options.
Personally, I think part of the answer is individualising pensions and benefits to facilitate flexibility. When I signed on for a few monthss in 2010, partly to see how the system worked, I found myself paying 80% tax on casual (translation) earnings, which really appeared to be a disincentive to gradually get back into work (or to stop reporting it truthfully). In the same way, as a healthy 67-year-old, I find there are both unnecessary benefits (I don't need free bus travel or a winter fuel allowance) and unexpected hurdles (e.g. either you take your whole national pension or none of it), and really I could carry on exactly as when I was 57. Someone else of 63 with serious illnesses might need to retire early, and find they get a pittance.
A difficulty is avoiding incentives to spend your money and then rely on the State, but that's not that common a problem - few people really like blowing all their savings. But it does need a constructive cross-party discussion as the whole area is replete with vote-winning slogans that don't really get us further.
Nick, I agree with you. I really think we need a truly independent review of health care with all political parties signing up beforehand to implement the results in full. If the balance and experts could be found, then we should end up with something quite different to what we have now. It may cost a little more and the coverage may be a little less but at least we will have moved on from the untenable situation we are now in.
Health care is such an emotive, political issue, that we need to take it out of the political environment completely.
The problem with that is that it isn't in Labour's interest to do so.
56% of UK exports now go outside the EU. The UK voted Leave and it is pointless trying to re fight the referendum
There is always a point in holding politicians to account. Saying 'the argument stops now' just betrays insecurity.
Good point. Leavers really seem to want all discussion to stop, that's the opposite of what has to happen.
Discussion absolutely has to carry on, but it must be based on the axiom that we will be Leaving the EU...
No. It must be based on the axiom that the decision rests in the hands of the public, and they are free to change their minds based on the evidence, including evidence that they were lied to.
We've all been spoiled by the high quality work of General Boles.
Any word word of Mr Boles' health problems? Hope he's doing ok.
I believe the real Mr Boles is doing well but still undergoing treatment.
He did do an article in The Times before Christmas that was a joy to read.
Feb 1:
Sorry not to be able to vote for Second Reading of Article 50 Bill this evening... I've got a prior engagement in hospital with a rather nasty drug called methotrexate.
Dr Fox would no doubt know more, but Dr Google would indeed concur that methotrexate is indeed 'rather nasty' and is usually given after other medications have been tried without successful treatment of symptoms.
Another idiot who thinks that trade with the EU will just stop because we leave.
No, Richard: merely pointing out that a trade deal with a protectionist US will not compensate for what we'll lose by leaving the Single Market. And that our European friends will know that. I am sorry you don't understand.
Also a trade deal with the US that requires UK manufacturers to drop their standards to US standards to compete with US imports, will prevent them selling their goods to the EU.
How ever do we manage to sell to Japan (where the goods need to meet Japanese standards), or China (where they are required to meet Chinese standards).
We don't compete very well in the UK with Japanese and Chinese imports. We won't be able to compete with cheap substandard US food either, unless UK manufacturers drop their standards to US standards in the UK. Otherwise we will lose much more than we gain in a US/UK trade deal. If we drop our food standards in the UK, it will harm our exports to the EU.
There is no shortage of cheap unhealthy crap in out domestic market as it is, the answer I am repeatedly told on here is down to education and appropriate labeling.
56% of UK exports now go outside the EU. The UK voted Leave and it is pointless trying to re fight the referendum
I agree. But we have a Brexit deal to negotiate. We need one that does the least harm to the UK's economy. When assessing whether that's being achieved it's good to have some context.
Given border control and free movement control was such a key part of the Leave campaign we cannot have full single market membership given the EU will not compromise on free movement in order to maintain that membership
We need to get as close to it as we can. What we should not be doing is jumping off the edge of a cliff just to please swivel-eyed Tory euro-phobics.
You really are getting very tedious. Of the 17+ million people that voted for Leave only a small minority of that are "swivel-eyed Tory euro-phobics", most of the are Mr & Mrs Smith from Acacia Avenue. All the polling, and frequent re polling shows that the public value control of immigration over the free market, you might disagree, but they have more votes than you.
Yes - I agree, the vast majority of voters are not swivel-eyed Tory Europhobics. That's why they should not get a veto over the Brexit deal we do.
You appear to be looking in the wrong place. The reason a deal won't be done is because Verhofstadt and Tusk wont offer us one, pour encourager les autres. You will know that I have long put forward the view that we will be offered a "piss off" deal except for some FTA on Goods largely to pacify powerful German industrial donors interests. This is why I have always felt the A50 debate is largely pointless, because the difference between what we get through A50 and what we would get by just walking away will be separable only by a sanded down cigarette paper - and wastes 2 years we would be doing business in.
It is not up to Verhofstadt and Tusk. National governments will decide.
Clearly, the NHS simply can't cope. It's model requires real terms increases in funding pretty much every year to be sustainable but we don't have the cash.
Yes, yes, we could lop another 2p on income tax to pay for it and social care but 6-8 years down the line that won't be sufficient either whilst putting a real drag on the whole economy.
Pensions/NHS/social care are all linked (and linked the the oldies) and we really need to reduce the burdens and entitlements and up the levels of economic activity of the over 60s.
The NHS is cheaper per head than any other major country health system (and vastly cheaper than the US), so in principle we could as you say decide to pay the global average and solve the pressing problems for the short term. In the longer term, I agree that we need a rational, adult discussion of the interacting issues of age, health, tax and saving. I can't think of a better issue for a Royal Commission to set out options.
Personally, I think part of the answer is individualising pensions and benefits to facilitate flexibility. When I signed on for a few monthss in 2010, partly to see how the system worked, I found myself paying 80% tax on casual (translation) earnings, which really appeared to be a disincentive to gradually get back into work (or to stop reporting it truthfully). In the same way, as a healthy 67-year-old, I find there are both unnecessary benefits (I don't need free bus travel or a winter fuel allowance) and unexpected hurdles (e.g. either you take your whole national pension or none of it), and really I could carry on exactly as when I was 57. Someone else of 63 with serious illnesses might need to retire early, and find they get a pittance.
A difficulty is avoiding incentives to spend your money and then rely on the State, but that's not that common a problem - few people really like blowing all their savings. But it does need a constructive cross-party discussion as the whole area is replete with vote-winning slogans that don't really get us further.
Health care is such an emotive, political issue, that we need to take it out of the political environment completely.
Is not the whole point of democracy that you can vote for what you want? If you take 'big stuff' out of politics and put it into the hands of experts then you are advocating that we surrender our freedom to the blob.
Claps - the Blob are just the same elites with different branding.
I can't work out how to reply to Tim's comment on the numbers so I will do it hear.
The net agree scores don't include don't knows and neutrals and so May's score for capable PM is 88 agree and 2 disagree because the remaining 10% are neither or DK. It's all in the tables for those interested in the detail
Macron's easy to like. We don't know much about him but Europe could do with another charismatic leader to complement Merkel.
In the hypothetical case that the British economy tanks and Brexit is visibly reponsible and within a year of triggering article 50 it becomes obvious that this is happening.....
I wonder what the chances are that at that point the UK government would try to reverse the decision?
Nil.
Get over it.
Imagine in 18 years time a girl or boy born this year sitting ther Etihad sponsored GCSE politics paper
Q1. It has been said by Professor Tristram Hunt that David Cameron "was totally responsible the break up of the United Kingdom". Revisionist historian the late Boris Johnson in his book 'The Greatest Foreign Secretary Never To Have Become Prime Minister' said The real culprit was Theresa May 'who simply had no understanding of foreign affairs'. Were they both right?
Alastair Cook has stepped down as England captain.
Hopefully we'll have a Yorkshireman as Captain.
I think Root’s nailed on as Captain, isn’t he.
Could mean we have Cookie back at Essex a bit more, although he still wants to carry on as an England player.
All the truly great England captains are from Yorkshire, apart Douglas Jardine, who was Scotland and he was awesome. The Aussies are still whining about him to this day.
Root's awesomeness is nailed on because he's from Sheffield
Nick, I agree with you. I really think we need a truly independent review of health care with all political parties signing up beforehand to implement the results in full. If the balance and experts could be found, then we should end up with something quite different to what we have now. It may cost a little more and the coverage may be a little less but at least we will have moved on from the untenable situation we are now in.
Health care is such an emotive, political issue, that we need to take it out of the political environment completely.
I think that promising in advance to accept the results in full is a bridge too far - the fact that a Commission is non-partisan doesn't mean that they are all-knowing, and they might propose something which would revolutionise the system but with disastrous flaws. However, a Royal Commission report creates a presumption in favour - parties would need to have very good reasons to oppose the conclusions.
I think that a few constraints would be necessary to get a fair chance of a broadly-accepted report, and also to give the Commission some sort of steer. That everyone should get free A&E care (Iassume that even UKIP would concede that even an illegal immigrant knocked down by a car should not be left to die) and most health care should be free at the point of use is probably generally accepted (how it's paid for is another matter), and that everyone should get some sort of housing option in old age even if they've spent their money unwisely (rather than saying "in that case you must sleep on the street") is another one. Perhaps there are a few more points on which prior agreement could be reached. I think social care needs to be in the mix as it's part of the problem as well as part of any solution.
The Commission might also propose that £X billion extra needed to be found from taxation or insurance, while leaving it to the parties to fight over how that should be raised - the choice between higher rate tax, standard rate tax, NI contributions and insurance payments is a legitimate political argument rather than a technical one.But the Commission could offer some reason to be confident that the books would then balance for the forseeable future, rather than just kicking the ball down the road.
And if we on here with our widely-different entrenched opinions can agree in principle that this would be helpful, maybe it would command wider support too. We all see the problem.
On topic (well, someone has to be): The key to the conundrum of the Labour leadership is contained in the last paragraph of Kieran's piece. We have been through this before, several times. When Gordon Brown was PM, it was a truth universally acknowledged that he was (a) useless and (b) disastrous for Labour's electoral prospects. There were sporadic and feeble attempts to defenestrate him, culminating in the hilarious debacle of the 'snow plot'. When Ed Miliband was leader, it was equally held to be a truth immutable that he was useless. The consensus around the proposition that Corbyn is both useless and disastrous for Labour is even stronger.
However, as the history of Labour from 2007 onwards shows, that's not enough to force a change of leadership. There are two other requirements. The first is mechanism: that's simple, there isn't one, unless Corbyn himself voluntarily agrees to step down.
The second is that it's all very well well grumbling and plotting, but the plotting will be completely ineffective unless there is a broad consensus on what different direction the party should take and who should lead it in that direction. This is completely lacking at the moment, which is why names as disparate as Clive Lewis, Sir Keir Starmer, and even the complete nonentity Rebecca Long-Bailey, have been touted as possible successors to Corbyn.
None of this makes it impossible that Corbyn will stand down: it's entirely his choice, and who knows what he thinks in his heart of hearts. However, it remains the case that no plot can succeed in defenestrating him against his will. Perhaps more importantly, even if he does decide to resign to spend more time with his favourite causes, that of itself won't solve Labour's problem, and might even make it worse. The damage being done to the party is deep-rooted, there is no agreement on the way forward, and there's no obvious replacement around whom the party can unite.
"Brexit already having negative effect, say top business leaders Half of survey respondents pessimistic while May faces rebellion over Article 50 bill."
may be the headline referred to. The editors seem to have come to the very reasonable view that this story is too unnewsworthy to make the front of paper edition.
The interesting piece is surely the strong performance of the Eurozone, confirmed by the recent PMIs. With the UK's biggest export market performing more strongly than expected, lots of private borrowing and a beneficial exchange rate, no wonder the UK economy is performing above expectation.
I agree with this, indeed the strong EZ PMIs were one of the reasons that I was happy to take the bet on growth figures with Robert. The EZ has generally been a drag on our growth since 2010 and it has the capacity to disappoint again but at the moment it does look promising.
Schauble repeating his warning that restricting access to the skills and services of London would be bad for the EU economy and should be avoided if possible. The recognition that the skills available there simply don't exist on the continent is particularly telling.
On the NHS: the idea of an independent Royal Commission some other body putting together a proposal which might get all-party support is a complete non-starter, given that the Labour Party regards the NHS as their most potent electoral weapon. There is zero chance of them giving that up.
People are really going to miss him aren't they........
He was a President of the United States who accurately understood what was necessary to win a war, took the time to assemble the forces necessary to do so, carried the international community along with him, fought the war so expeditiously they considered stopping early because the lopsided casualty ratio was embarrassing, identified a clean cutoff, executed it, and withdrew as victors in good time and order.
Comments
Healthcare and social care is difficult. But I believe doing a form of work is good for your health, and longer-term I think families are simply going to have to step up more on social care.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/feb/05/jeremy-hunt-ban-gp-fees-domestic-violence-letters-legal-aid
Get used to it.
As you Leavies are always telling us when we point to one part of the OFFICIAL LEAVE MANIFESTO or another as a clue to what people might expect from Brexit: all we voted for was to Leave. t's up to the government to decide which flavour of leave we get.
Personally, I think part of the answer is individualising pensions and benefits to facilitate flexibility. When I signed on for a few monthss in 2010, partly to see how the system worked, I found myself paying 80% tax on casual (translation) earnings, which really appeared to be a disincentive to gradually get back into work (or to stop reporting it truthfully). In the same way, as a healthy 67-year-old, I find there are both unnecessary benefits (I don't need free bus travel or a winter fuel allowance) and unexpected hurdles (e.g. either you take your whole national pension or none of it), and really I could carry on exactly as when I was 57. Someone else of 63 with serious illnesses might need to retire early, and find they get a pittance.
A difficulty is avoiding incentives to spend your money and then rely on the State, but that's not that common a problem - few people really like blowing all their savings. But it does need a constructive cross-party discussion as the whole area is replete with vote-winning slogans that don't really get us further.
https://www.stpauls.co.uk/news-press/news-archive/2012/Former-Cathedral-chorister-named-England-Test-cricket-captain
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/828541902098153476
https://twitter.com/MalcCarter/status/827166735862231040
The pinch points seem to be GP surgeries, A&E, and bed blocking by old people who the social services can't cope with. Insurance doesn't help with any of these.
I favour making a visit to the GP or A&E a taxable benefit (along with winter fuel allowance and free bus passes) so young people and the poor don't pay anything but the rest of us do, even if it is a relatively small amount.
Sam Bowman
‘Ms Bindel was accused of being “transphobic, biphobic, Islamophobic and anti-sex work.” She was also accused of being “a fake goth.”’ https://t.co/IyMYFrjOLA
Health care is such an emotive, political issue, that we need to take it out of the political environment completely.
Miss Plato, next they'll be saying she hates sheep-shaggers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cook
'Budweiser's Super Bowl immigration ad sparks boycott calls'
http://tinyurl.com/zkrv74c
https://twitter.com/hannahmerich/status/828543234150383616
FWIW, I think Nick is right, this should be a clear-cut example of a good case for a Royal Commission. But how to cut through the emotion? Right now, our NHS is not very good. But it's also not very expensive. The Left seems unable to accept the former; the Right the latter.
Edit: 2-3 years. The Kings Fund estimated an extra 30bn was needed per year by 2020 just to maintain current provision. 350m per week is 18bn per year, so that requirement gets overtaken about 2018.
Take a look at @davemee's Tweet: https://twitter.com/davemee/status/828171256453283840?s=09
He did do an article in The Times before Christmas that was a joy to read.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/828431568863641601
That said, the changes, from memory, appear to be pretty minimal.
*Probably the wrong ending.
**Shamelessly stolen from another PBer.
Boston Bobblehead
ALL the Sun shows will call Judge Robart a 'Bush Appointee,' but he's an SJW no WATCH #BlackLivesMatter declaration https://t.co/AZbuPI28sh
The logic of rejecting a NHS (or Canadian) tax funded model is the US funding model. It costs 17%. (But you have 'bountiful choice' and you have the chance to prosper if you're lucky and skip much insurance or go bankrupt if you're unlucky and have a 'pre-existing'.)
Ways to improve NHS efficiency and reduce costs can't easily be implemented with it under siege as it now is. Keeping patients in acute hospital wards at £500/night when they could be in shared long-stay wards in cottage/community hospitals is insane, but Thatcher closed the latter.
One problem in increasing the state pension age to 70 is that people on the Surrey/Hampshire border might have another 20 years of life. Many of those in less favoured constituencies will be dead before 70.
Maybe, contrary to the assumptions of many, lots of people have had personal experience of the NHS and can see that isn't idyllic and could be vastly improved without additional funds?
It's adminstration is very last millenium.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38878298
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/828555916677095424
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034
Shetland (Whalsay and South Unst) 81% for Leave.
Sorry not to be able to vote for Second Reading of Article 50 Bill this evening... I've got a prior engagement in hospital with a rather nasty drug called methotrexate.
https://www.nickboles.co.uk/news/brexit-vote
Dr Fox would no doubt know more, but Dr Google would indeed concur that methotrexate is indeed 'rather nasty' and is usually given after other medications have been tried without successful treatment of symptoms.
https://www.drugs.com/methotrexate.html
NEW THREAD
The net agree scores don't include don't knows and neutrals and so May's score for capable PM is 88 agree and 2 disagree because the remaining 10% are neither or DK. It's all in the tables for those interested in the detail
Q1. It has been said by Professor Tristram Hunt that David Cameron "was totally responsible the break up of the United Kingdom". Revisionist historian the late Boris Johnson in his book 'The Greatest Foreign Secretary Never To Have Become Prime Minister' said The real culprit was Theresa May 'who simply had no understanding of foreign affairs'. Were they both right?
I think that a few constraints would be necessary to get a fair chance of a broadly-accepted report, and also to give the Commission some sort of steer. That everyone should get free A&E care (Iassume that even UKIP would concede that even an illegal immigrant knocked down by a car should not be left to die) and most health care should be free at the point of use is probably generally accepted (how it's paid for is another matter), and that everyone should get some sort of housing option in old age even if they've spent their money unwisely (rather than saying "in that case you must sleep on the street") is another one. Perhaps there are a few more points on which prior agreement could be reached. I think social care needs to be in the mix as it's part of the problem as well as part of any solution.
The Commission might also propose that £X billion extra needed to be found from taxation or insurance, while leaving it to the parties to fight over how that should be raised - the choice between higher rate tax, standard rate tax, NI contributions and insurance payments is a legitimate political argument rather than a technical one.But the Commission could offer some reason to be confident that the books would then balance for the forseeable future, rather than just kicking the ball down the road.
And if we on here with our widely-different entrenched opinions can agree in principle that this would be helpful, maybe it would command wider support too. We all see the problem.
On topic (well, someone has to be): The key to the conundrum of the Labour leadership is contained in the last paragraph of Kieran's piece. We have been through this before, several times. When Gordon Brown was PM, it was a truth universally acknowledged that he was (a) useless and (b) disastrous for Labour's electoral prospects. There were sporadic and feeble attempts to defenestrate him, culminating in the hilarious debacle of the 'snow plot'. When Ed Miliband was leader, it was equally held to be a truth immutable that he was useless. The consensus around the proposition that Corbyn is both useless and disastrous for Labour is even stronger.
However, as the history of Labour from 2007 onwards shows, that's not enough to force a change of leadership. There are two other requirements. The first is mechanism: that's simple, there isn't one, unless Corbyn himself voluntarily agrees to step down.
The second is that it's all very well well grumbling and plotting, but the plotting will be completely ineffective unless there is a broad consensus on what different direction the party should take and who should lead it in that direction. This is completely lacking at the moment, which is why names as disparate as Clive Lewis, Sir Keir Starmer, and even the complete nonentity Rebecca Long-Bailey, have been touted as possible successors to Corbyn.
None of this makes it impossible that Corbyn will stand down: it's entirely his choice, and who knows what he thinks in his heart of hearts. However, it remains the case that no plot can succeed in defenestrating him against his will. Perhaps more importantly, even if he does decide to resign to spend more time with his favourite causes, that of itself won't solve Labour's problem, and might even make it worse. The damage being done to the party is deep-rooted, there is no agreement on the way forward, and there's no obvious replacement around whom the party can unite.
So did this: http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/economy/schauble-warns-against-punishing-britain-and-losing-out-on-the-city/ar-AAmDp4S?li=AA54rU&ocid=iehp
Schauble repeating his warning that restricting access to the skills and services of London would be bad for the EU economy and should be avoided if possible. The recognition that the skills available there simply don't exist on the continent is particularly telling.
I rarely agree but this is hilarious
Piers Morgan
Imagine being a Hillary-supporting Atlanta Falcons fan who wanted Britain to stay in Europe...