On social matters May seems more to reflect society than to wish to metrosexualise it as Dave did. Shock horror - both economically and socially the vicar's daughter is a conservative. Who'd a thunk it?
society wants to read poorly written* S and M fantasies in huge numbers. I'd say it's already fairly metrosexual.
*I presume . Actually maybe society would prefer well written S and M fastasies. Is that what Sean T does?
Actually for most people economically Butskellism helped produce modest prosperity and security in the post war period and most of the gains of economic liberalism have gone to the elite, especially in terms of wage growth. May has rightly decided that her best bet politically is to appeal to lower middle-class and working class Leave voters now she has committed to Brexit and immigration controls, if she loses a few upper middle-class Remain backing Cameron voters to the LDs then so be it, there are fewer of them. It is also just deserts for the likes of Daniel Hannn and Steve Hilton who thought they could use working class and lower middle-class votes to slash the size of the state and produce a free trade utopia while throwing them under the bus on immigration. May backed Remain with reservations but after Leave won she is not going to betray those who voted for it
The degree to which lower middle-class voters are politically engaged (ie go out and vote) vs Cameroon Tories would also have to figure in the equation.
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
It's mainly true, at least in the mood music, we shall see in the long run if in practicalities it changes all that much, even as much as it claims to. Though more it's added more social stuff than abandoned its message about the economy.
They will soon be so right wing they will be meeting the left from the other side.
Just the most complete bullshit. Asinine, slanted, misinformed, delusional crap from beginning to end. This is why people still pay for newspapers but PB has to give it away for free. Dreadful.
A word of professional journalistic advice to the editors: this should be Meeks' last threader for quite a while. Until Brexit is done and he calms down, he should be sidelined. He begins to undermine the brand.
Readers will drift away.
Agreed. I used to look forward to @ANTIFRANK@davidherdson and @HenryGManson as more thoughtful weekly pieces to complement the regular flow of insightful gobbets.
There are parts which are good and the meme of changing Conservative strategy is interesting - though as I said in my last comment I believe that's a process which has been ongoing for years.
But any suggestion that George Osborne was 'economically dry as dust' after TLP and HTB easily triggers me.
That doesn't necessarily follow. It'll be interesting to know *why* the RAF are being used.
According to (1), France's military spending is 2.1% of GDP in 2015. According to (2), it will be 1.77% this year. As in the UK, it appears to depend on what you include in the figures.
That said, they're much closer to the targets of 2% GDP and 20% on equipment (which they beat) than, for example, the Germans, who've not only enjoyed a free ride on currency, but on defence too.
I'm struggling to note the "social conservatism" or Merkel like Christian Democrat theme within the May administration that you report on. Perhaps you'd care to expand?
To my mind PM May is the arch pragmatist. Her government will be judged on the ability to make BREXIT a success and steer the nation through the continuing economic difficulties. Her cause considerably aided by the fractured and rank piss poor opposition.
May is really combining CDU economics with AfD immigration policy and hence she now polls much better than Merkel
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
I don't see any sign of a new social conservatism either, Alastair. Whilst not as obviously liberal as Cameron there are few signs of change. The attempt with grammar schools seems to have been abandoned without much of a fight.
In fairness to mr Meeks, who admittedly seems to takes a much more and unhelpfully pugnacious attitude to all things post Brexit vote , it seems another area where tories cannot agree if she is really not changing much from the Cameron days or if she is triumphantly done with all that Notting hill set liberal crap or whatever.
With May, some seem happy she is not really changing all that much from Cameron. But others, who hated Cameron, are delighted she is dispensing with so much of what defined him, and that cannot purely be about presentational style, so who is right? At least that's how I see it. There is clearly, it seems, a confusion.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's fatuous? Which industries do you anticipate 'Butskillite' Mrs May will nationalise?
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
If you don't find the downplaying of the main dividing line at the last election interesting, a political website might not be for you.
It's obvious though. For me interesting involved novelty or invention.
' Bankers should leave London after Brexit and move the France for the food, the culture and even the romance, Parisien leaders have told financiers in their new charm offensive, aimed at winning business once the UK leaves the EU. '
' Violent protests over alleged police brutality that began in the mainly immigrant suburbs earlier this month spread to central Paris and other cities on Wednesday night and 49 people were arrested.
Clashes with police broke out after hundreds of demonstrators gathered in the Barbès-Rochechouart area, near the Gare du Nord railway station, where the Eurostar terminal is located, and the Sacré Coeur basilica in Montmartre, a favourite with tourists.
Police fired tear gas to disperse about 400 protesters, but smaller groups then went on a rampage in other parts of the capital, smashing windows and overturning dustbins in near Place de la République and in the Marais, another popular area for holidaymakers.
Disturbances also erupted in the northern city of Rouen, where 21 people were arrested. Nearly 250 people have been arrested around France since unrest began in the Paris suburbs after police were accused of assaulting a black man on February 2. '
The conundrum that May faces is that in seeking a hard Brexit, she could well end up making it much harder to escape the austerity-focused policies pursued by the previous government of which she was an integral part.
She will be judged on delivery: more and less expensive housing, continued full employment combined with higher wages growth, low inflation, decent public services (including a fit-for-purpose NHS) and less immigration. People will not vote based on figures but on their daily reality and perception.
As we saw from the poll yesterday, most people do not feel adversely affected by immigration at a personal level, even though they do feel it is too high. Mrs May faces a very fine balancing act. Jeremy Corbyn will not be the leader of the Labour party forever.
Just the most complete bullshit. Asinine, slanted, misinformed, delusional crap from beginning to end. This is why people still pay for newspapers but PB has to give it away for free. Dreadful.
A word of professional journalistic advice to the editors: this should be Meeks' last threader for quite a while. Until Brexit is done and he calms down, he should be sidelined. He begins to undermine the brand.
Readers will drift away.
Agreed. I used to look forward to @ANTIFRANK@davidherdson and @HenryGManson as more thoughtful weekly pieces to complement the regular flow of insightful gobbets.
The conundrum that May faces is that in seeking a hard Brexit, she could well end up making it much harder to escape the austerity-focused policies pursued by the previous government of which she was an integral part.
She will be judged on delivery: more and less expensive housing, continued full employment combined with higher wages growth, low inflation, decent public services (including a fit-for-purpose NHS) and less immigration. People will not vote based on figures but on their daily reality and perception.
As we saw from the poll yesterday, most people do not feel adversely affected by immigration at a personal level, even though they do feel it is too high. Mrs May faces a very fine balancing act. Jeremy Corbyn will not be the leader of the Labour party forever.
Au contraire, comrade, he shall be installed as eternal leader and successors will have new titles.*
but seriously, the vote being on daily reality and perception not figures. I called 2015 wrong as I thought people's perception of the situation, and thus how Miliband they were prepared to be, was worse than it was. May has it tougher than expected despite being in a strong position currently.
I'm struggling to note the "social conservatism" or Merkel like Christian Democrat theme within the May administration that you report on. Perhaps you'd care to expand?
To my mind PM May is the arch pragmatist. Her government will be judged on the ability to make BREXIT a success and steer the nation through the continuing economic difficulties. Her cause considerably aided by the fractured and rank piss poor opposition.
May is really combining CDU economics with AfD immigration policy and hence she now polls much better than Merkel
May polls better than Merkel because the German left would struggle to find such an arse as Corbyn within the country to lead the main opposition party, let alone elect him as leader.
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Maybe if you made more of a conscious efffort to be objective and dispartisan, like you used to, rather than trying to deliberately wind them up they might be more likely to consider your message?
I can agree with your second paragraph, but that was lost in how your article came across.
Just the most complete bullshit. Asinine, slanted, misinformed, delusional crap from beginning to end. This is why people still pay for newspapers but PB has to give it away for free. Dreadful.
A word of professional journalistic advice to the editors: this should be Meeks' last threader for quite a while. Until Brexit is done and he calms down, he should be sidelined. He begins to undermine the brand.
Readers will drift away.
Writers that inspire the reaction that Mr Meeks has this morning are surely exactly what any media outlet wants. The ones who everyone agrees with or which generate shoulder shrugs are not traffic-creators.
On social matters May seems more to reflect society than to wish to metrosexualise it as Dave did. Shock horror - both economically and socially the vicar's daughter is a conservative. Who'd a thunk it?
society wants to read poorly written* S and M fantasies in huge numbers. I'd say it's already fairly metrosexual.
*I presume . Actually maybe society would prefer well written S and M fastasies. Is that what Sean T does?
SeanT used to write archaeological torture thrillers.
I don't think the 50 Shades series has an orang-utan rape scene.
I'm struggling to note the "social conservatism" or Merkel like Christian Democrat theme within the May administration that you report on. Perhaps you'd care to expand?
To my mind PM May is the arch pragmatist. Her government will be judged on the ability to make BREXIT a success and steer the nation through the continuing economic difficulties. Her cause considerably aided by the fractured and rank piss poor opposition.
Immigration, grammar schools, general rhetoric (as noted in the thread header).
I'm sure much of it is pragmatism, though Mrs May does seem to have a charmless intolerance of different ways of thinking. The fact that pragmatism is pushing her to social conservatism is itself telling.
That doesn’t make the prime minister an enemy of modernisation. Her contribution to the rehabilitation of the Conservative brand is unarguable. In 2002, she famously rebuked conference delegates for allowing themselves to be construed as “the nasty party”. Her views on gay rights shifted enough over the years that she was able to support equal marriage as home secretary. She was sufficiently irked by the patronising and patriarchal habits of Tory local associations that she took an instrumental role in Women2Win – a highly effective organisation supporting aspiring female candidates with a view to reversing parliament’s stubborn gender imbalance.
May has been unafraid to challenge some of the most stultifying reactionary traits of her colleagues. But she also has a deep attachment to the institutions and social networks of grassroots Toryism. They have been a surrogate family to an only child who lost both parents shortly after graduating from university. The party is something “she loves to its bones”, Prince writes. That was never said of Cameron, and it is a reason why many members distrusted him and embrace his successor with devotion. It is also why May is untainted in the eyes of her party by her support for the remain side during the EU referendum. She was merely showing loyalty to the leader at the time, while every unguarded mannerism radiated sympathy with the Eurosceptic instincts of the rank and file. No one doubts the fullness of her conversion to the Brexit cause and few Tories seem to query her judgment in the enactment of a rupture from Europe far more severe than anything advertised by the leave campaign.
May comes across in this account as intelligent but intellectually incurious, lacking agility and imagination May has the complete confidence of the party grassroots because she is one of them. She has stuffed the envelopes and delivered the leaflets. She has mud on her boots from time served in the campaigning infantry, while the officer-class Old Etonian before her had his feet up on a desk miles away from the frontline. May embodies a tradition of volunteer provincial Toryism at its best and worst. She channels its spirit of redoubtable self-reliance and charitable works. She projects its starchy no-nonsense manners and moral code that is equal parts Anglican faith, Middle England “common sense” and nostalgia for a lost world of deference and ethnic homogeneity.
Just the most complete bullshit. Asinine, slanted, misinformed, delusional crap from beginning to end. This is why people still pay for newspapers but PB has to give it away for free. Dreadful.
A word of professional journalistic advice to the editors: this should be Meeks' last threader for quite a while. Until Brexit is done and he calms down, he should be sidelined. He begins to undermine the brand.
Readers will drift away.
Agreed. I used to look forward to @ANTIFRANK@davidherdson and @HenryGManson as more thoughtful weekly pieces to complement the regular flow of insightful gobbets.
That doesn't necessarily follow. It'll be interesting to know *why* the RAF are being used.
According to (1), France's military spending is 2.1% of GDP in 2015. According to (2), it will be 1.77% this year. As in the UK, it appears to depend on what you include in the figures.
That said, they're much closer to the targets of 2% GDP and 20% on equipment (which they beat) than, for example, the Germans, who've not only enjoyed a free ride on currency, but on defence too.
I'm struggling to note the "social conservatism" or Merkel like Christian Democrat theme within the May administration that you report on. Perhaps you'd care to expand?
To my mind PM May is the arch pragmatist. Her government will be judged on the ability to make BREXIT a success and steer the nation through the continuing economic difficulties. Her cause considerably aided by the fractured and rank piss poor opposition.
May is really combining CDU economics with AfD immigration policy and hence she now polls much better than Merkel
May polls better than Merkel because the German left would struggle to find such an arse as Corbyn within the country to lead the main opposition party, let alone elect him as leader.
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
I don't see any sign of a new social conservatism either, Alastair. Whilst not as obviously liberal as Cameron there are few signs of change. The attempt with grammar schools seems to have been abandoned without much of a fight.
In fairness to mr Meeks, who admittedly seems to takes a much more and unhelpfully pugnacious attitude to all things post Brexit vote , it seems another area where tories cannot agree if she is really not changing much from the Cameron days or if she is triumphantly done with all that Notting hill set liberal crap or whatever.
With May, some seem happy she is not really changing all that much from Cameron. But others, who hated Cameron, are delighted she is dispensing with so much of what defined him, and that cannot purely be about presentational style, so who is right? At least that's how I see it. There is clearly, it seems, a confusion.
We had a huge, history-changing vote in June. Everyone was expecting stuff to happen. It hasn't. But at some stage it will. Negotiations will begin - markets and businesses will react. Budgets will have to be delivered, choices will have to be made. It's hard to believe, but Mrs May has only been in charge for around six months and it has happened without the government changing.
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
If you don't find the downplaying of the main dividing line at the last election interesting, a political website might not be for you.
It's obvious though. For me interesting involved novelty or invention.
Yet there seem to be plenty of people denying it on this thread?
Theresa May has a quite obvious facial tic. I am not sure tweeting pictures taking the mickey out of it is that great a look for people who like the moral high ground
' Bankers should leave London after Brexit and move the France for the food, the culture and even the romance, Parisien leaders have told financiers in their new charm offensive, aimed at winning business once the UK leaves the EU. '
' Violent protests over alleged police brutality that began in the mainly immigrant suburbs earlier this month spread to central Paris and other cities on Wednesday night and 49 people were arrested.
Clashes with police broke out after hundreds of demonstrators gathered in the Barbès-Rochechouart area, near the Gare du Nord railway station, where the Eurostar terminal is located, and the Sacré Coeur basilica in Montmartre, a favourite with tourists.
Police fired tear gas to disperse about 400 protesters, but smaller groups then went on a rampage in other parts of the capital, smashing windows and overturning dustbins in near Place de la République and in the Marais, another popular area for holidaymakers.
Disturbances also erupted in the northern city of Rouen, where 21 people were arrested. Nearly 250 people have been arrested around France since unrest began in the Paris suburbs after police were accused of assaulting a black man on February 2. '
I don't think any more bankers are going to leave London for a European capital more than they would today or pre-vote. Perhaps the odd one fucks off to Zurich.
The issue will be non-EU firms looking to establish global operations. In such cases perhaps a European capital or NY (if the firm is not from the US) would be more appealing.
I'm struggling to note the "social conservatism" or Merkel like Christian Democrat theme within the May administration that you report on. Perhaps you'd care to expand?
To my mind PM May is the arch pragmatist. Her government will be judged on the ability to make BREXIT a success and steer the nation through the continuing economic difficulties. Her cause considerably aided by the fractured and rank piss poor opposition.
Immigration, grammar schools, general rhetoric (as noted in the thread header).
I'm sure much of it is pragmatism, though Mrs May does seem to have a charmless intolerance of different ways of thinking. The fact that pragmatism is pushing her to social conservatism is itself telling.
So you equate having some level of meaningful control over immigration with social conservatism. Is it any wonder the left is in retreat everywhere. It's this sort of 'if you're not at the rub their noses in it end of the spectrum then you're a nazi' intolerance that explains completely Brexit, Trump, Wilders, etc. Genuine Question: Do you really see it as socially conservative to control immigration or are you trying to play the cat / laser stick game with righties?
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
It is at the very centre of informed political debate today.
Disagree. Others have put it better than me, but Hammond is progressing on a similar line (whether or not he accepts Osborne's precise forecasts misses the point). There has been a change in emphasis - Corbyn's Labour is not seen as competitive on economics, so May has the space to try and win back former Kippers (although largely through rhetoric).
I don't think it's interesting, because it's obvious. You can debate whether it is the right strategy or not, but that's not what Alastair was doing. He was just describing the landscape.
The conundrum that May faces is that in seeking a hard Brexit, she could well end up making it much harder to escape the austerity-focused policies pursued by the previous government of which she was an integral part.
She will be judged on delivery: more and less expensive housing, continued full employment combined with higher wages growth, low inflation, decent public services (including a fit-for-purpose NHS) and less immigration. People will not vote based on figures but on their daily reality and perception.
As we saw from the poll yesterday, most people do not feel adversely affected by immigration at a personal level, even though they do feel it is too high. Mrs May faces a very fine balancing act. Jeremy Corbyn will not be the leader of the Labour party forever.
Talk is indeed very different.
Take the JAM's. Osbourne cut their taxes. Social conservatism in Britain is not about religious priorities (apart from some Muslim communities), it is about the welfare state in general, and the NHS and social care in particular.
Take Copeland. What do the Tories offer the JAMs there? Hospital closures and reductions in pensions in the nuclear industry. The vicars daughter is like all the rest, only interested in the top 10%.
I'm struggling to note the "social conservatism" or Merkel like Christian Democrat theme within the May administration that you report on. Perhaps you'd care to expand?
To my mind PM May is the arch pragmatist. Her government will be judged on the ability to make BREXIT a success and steer the nation through the continuing economic difficulties. Her cause considerably aided by the fractured and rank piss poor opposition.
May is really combining CDU economics with AfD immigration policy and hence she now polls much better than Merkel
May polls better than Merkel because the German left would struggle to find such an arse as Corbyn within the country to lead the main opposition party, let alone elect him as leader.
Indeed. A German Corbyn would be some minor functionary in Die Linke. Martin Schulz, former president of the European Parliament and new leader of the centre-left SPD, is a well-known, popular and experienced politician in Germany and a formidable opponent to Angela Merkel.
The conundrum that May faces is that in seeking a hard Brexit, she could well end up making it much harder to escape the austerity-focused policies pursued by the previous government of which she was an integral part.
She will be judged on delivery: more and less expensive housing, continued full employment combined with higher wages growth, low inflation, decent public services (including a fit-for-purpose NHS) and less immigration. People will not vote based on figures but on their daily reality and perception.
As we saw from the poll yesterday, most people do not feel adversely affected by immigration at a personal level, even though they do feel it is too high. Mrs May faces a very fine balancing act. Jeremy Corbyn will not be the leader of the Labour party forever.
Take Copeland. What do the Tories offer the JAMs there? .
That doesn’t make the prime minister an enemy of modernisation. Her contribution to the rehabilitation of the Conservative brand is unarguable. In 2002, she famously rebuked conference delegates for allowing themselves to be construed as “the nasty party”. Her views on gay rights
May has been unafraid to challenge some of the most stultifying reactionary traits of her colleagues. But she also has a deep attachment to the institutions and social networks of grassroots Toryism. They have been a surrogate family to an only child who lost both parents shortly after graduating from university. The party is something “she loves to its bones”, Prince writes. That was never said of Cameron, and it is a reason why many members distrusted him and embrace his successor with devotion. It is also why May is untainted in the eyes of her party by her support for the remain side during the EU referendum. She was merely showing loyalty to the leader at the time, while every unguarded mannerism radiated sympathy with the Eurosceptic instincts of the rank and file. No one doubts the fullness of her conversion to the Brexit cause and few Tories seem to query her judgment in the enactment of a rupture from Europe far more severe than anything advertised by the leave campaign.
Th idea may didn't really support remain but was doing it out loyalty to the leader is one area I think she gets too much benefit if the doubt. I mean really? Other cabinet ministers felt able to stand up and speak their true views in defiance of the leader, was she not bold enough to?
Yes, she is committed to making Brexit a success, but this idea she was radiating sympathy to Brexit rank and file but was loyal to the leader isn't exactly a good thing is it? It hardly matters now, but either she was lying about thinking remain was the best option to stay on side with the leader or she wasn't. There's no shame to her now for thinking remain was the best option, but her committment to hard Brexit now doesn't mean she was a brexiter then, in heart if not deed.
Even if she was, political positioning re Johnson would seem just as likely a reason. She was clearly not super enthusiastic about remain, she had skeptical thoughts, but she said remaining was the best choice, surely we believe that was her view? Why would we believe this honest and strong woman would say she supported it just because she is loyal to the leader? What an insult to her integrity that would be.if the contention is she was remain but respected the rank and file, I'm sure few didn't.
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
It is at the very centre of informed political debate today.
Disagree. Others have put it better than me, but Hammond is progressing on a similar line (whether or not he accepts Osborne's precise forecasts misses the point). There has been a change in emphasis - Corbyn's Labour is not seen as competitive on economics, so May has the space to try and win back former Kippers (although largely through rhetoric).
I don't think it's interesting, because it's obvious. You can debate whether it is the right strategy or not, but that's not what Alastair was doing. He was just describing the landscape.
Welcome back Charles.
Corbyn may not be economically competitive but that doesn't mean Lab never will be.
And when that happens the fact that the Tories will be perceived to have relinquished their economic advantage mantle will be damaging,
The conundrum that May faces is that in seeking a hard Brexit, she could well end up making it much harder to escape the austerity-focused policies pursued by the previous government of which she was an integral part.
She will be judged on delivery: more and less expensive housing, continued full employment combined with higher wages growth, low inflation, decent public services (including a fit-for-purpose NHS) and less immigration. People will not vote based on figures but on their daily reality and perception.
As we saw from the poll yesterday, most people do not feel adversely affected by immigration at a personal level, even though they do feel it is too high. Mrs May faces a very fine balancing act. Jeremy Corbyn will not be the leader of the Labour party forever.
Take Copeland. What do the Tories offer the JAMs there? .
It's a reverse of something that hadn't happened. No-one will notice. But it does make Alastair's point about the May government being less dry than the previous one, doesn't it?
The conundrum that May faces is that in seeking a hard Brexit, she could well end up making it much harder to escape the austerity-focused policies pursued by the previous government of which she was an integral part.
She will be judged on delivery: more and less expensive housing, continued full employment combined with higher wages growth, low inflation, decent public services (including a fit-for-purpose NHS) and less immigration. People will not vote based on figures but on their daily reality and perception.
As we saw from the poll yesterday, most people do not feel adversely affected by immigration at a personal level, even though they do feel it is too high. Mrs May faces a very fine balancing act. Jeremy Corbyn will not be the leader of the Labour party forever.
Osbornian austerity is dead and buried, and May pretty much pissed on its grave when she took over with her acceptance speech and her humiliation of Osborne. She has already escaped.
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
I don't see any sign of a new social conservatism either, Alastair. Whilst not as obviously liberal as Cameron there are few signs of change. The attempt with grammar schools seems to have been abandoned without much of a fight.
In fairness to mr Meeks, who admittedly seems to takes a much more and unhelpfully pugnacious attitude to all things post Brexit vote , it seems another area where tories cannot agree if she is really not changing much from the Cameron days or if she is triumphantly done with all that Notting hill set liberal crap or whatever.
With May, some seem happy she is not really changing all that much from Cameron. But others, who hated Cameron, are delighted she is dispensing with so much of what defined him, and that cannot purely be about presentational style, so who is right? At least that's how I see it. There is clearly, it seems, a confusion.
We had a huge, history-changing vote in June. Everyone was expecting stuff to happen. It hasn't. But at some stage it will. Negotiations will begin - markets and businesses will react. Budgets will have to be delivered, choices will have to be made. It's hard to believe, but Mrs May has only been in charge for around six months and it has happened without the government changing.
That was the point - some are happy with that, but others are ecstatic in the belief it has changed fundamentally, in ways other than Brexit position. You say no change, others think there has been.
I'm struggling to note the "social conservatism" or Merkel like Christian Democrat theme within the May administration that you report on. Perhaps you'd care to expand?
To my mind PM May is the arch pragmatist. Her government will be judged on the ability to make BREXIT a success and steer the nation through the continuing economic difficulties. Her cause considerably aided by the fractured and rank piss poor opposition.
Immigration, grammar schools, general rhetoric (as noted in the thread header).
I'm sure much of it is pragmatism, though Mrs May does seem to have a charmless intolerance of different ways of thinking. The fact that pragmatism is pushing her to social conservatism is itself telling.
Frankly Alastair I think that's a bit thin for a determination of "social conservatism".
Immigration policy is being largely driven by BREXIT and the considerations around reciprocal EU terms, whereas the economic migrant stance has barely changed. I'd agree that the Syrian child refugee situation is a mess.
I simply don't recognise grammar schools as a "social conservative" issue in the same way as free schools or tuition fees aren't either.
If the May government were looking to rolls back gay rights, implement severe abortion restrictions, extensive religious exemptions and the like then you might have a case but marking down this government with a socially conservative bent is wide of the mark.
The conundrum that May faces is that in seeking a hard Brexit, she could well end up making it much harder to escape the austerity-focused policies pursued by the previous government of which she was an integral part.
She will be judged on delivery: more and less expensive housing, continued full employment combined with higher wages growth, low inflation, decent public services (including a fit-for-purpose NHS) and less immigration. People will not vote based on figures but on their daily reality and perception.
As we saw from the poll yesterday, most people do not feel adversely affected by immigration at a personal level, even though they do feel it is too high. Mrs May faces a very fine balancing act. Jeremy Corbyn will not be the leader of the Labour party forever.
Osbornian austerity is dead and buried, and May pretty much pissed on its grave when she took over with her acceptance speech and her humiliation of Osborne. She has already escaped.
See my first line: "Talk is very different to action"
May will not be judged on a speech she made, but on the success of the policies that her government actively pursues.
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
I don't see any sign of a new social conservatism either, Alastair. Whilst not as obviously liberal as Cameron there are few signs of change. The attempt with grammar schools seems to have been abandoned without much of a fight.
In fairness to mr Meeks, who admittedly seems to takes a much more and unhelpfully pugnacious attitude to all things post Brexit vote , it seems another area where tories cannot agree if she is really not changing much from the Cameron days or if she is triumphantly done with all that Notting hill set liberal crap or whatever.
With May, some seem happy she is not really changing all that much from Cameron. But others, who hated Cameron, are delighted she is dispensing with so much of what defined him, and that cannot purely be about presentational style, so who is right? At least that's how I see it. There is clearly, it seems, a confusion.
We had a huge, history-changing vote in June. Everyone was expecting stuff to happen. It hasn't. But at some stage it will. Negotiations will begin - markets and businesses will react. Budgets will have to be delivered, choices will have to be made. It's hard to believe, but Mrs May has only been in charge for around six months and it has happened without the government changing.
That was the point - some are happy with that, but others are ecstatic in the belief it has changed fundamentally, in ways other than Brexit position. You say no change, others think there has been.
I say nothing much has happened yet. We are living in a country in which the last budget was delivered by George Osborne.
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
It is at the very centre of informed political debate today.
Disagree. Others have put it better than me, but Hammond is progressing on a similar line (whether or not he accepts Osborne's precise forecasts misses the point). There has been a change in emphasis - Corbyn's Labour is not seen as competitive on economics, so May has the space to try and win back former Kippers (although largely through rhetoric).
I don't think it's interesting, because it's obvious. You can debate whether it is the right strategy or not, but that's not what Alastair was doing. He was just describing the landscape.
...the fact that the Tories will be perceived to have relinquished their economic advantage mantle will be damaging,
You assume Hammond will fail therefore. If, as intended, we get to a surplus more slowly we will at least see debt as a % GDP falling. And the JAMs will gain at the expense of not-JAMs or on the back of growth. I don't think the Tories are significantly at risk of shit polling on economic competence. They are, however, majorly and complacently at risk of shit polling on health / social care.
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
If you don't find the downplaying of the main dividing line at the last election interesting, a political website might not be for you.
It's obvious though. For me interesting involved novelty or invention.
Yet there seem to be plenty of people denying it on this thread?
People are arguing about the substance of the change (not much) rather than the downplaying
Theresa May has a quite obvious facial tic. I am not sure tweeting pictures taking the mickey out of it is that great a look for people who like the moral high ground
Let's just hope she doesn't try to eat a bacon sandwich
Tony is merely being consistent, he's a 'butter' - "I accept the result of the referendum but ... It was the wrong result, so I demand more referendums until we get the correct result."
It's on a par with "Even if we are accepting 3,000 child refugees, they must be from France. We have to encourage many more to make the potentially fatal trip, so we can show how concerned we are."
We have to accept that some people are barmy and pander to them a little. That Guardian won't read itself.
Have you seen the Paul Joseph Watson video NSFW? Or Cernovich challenge? Most amusing.
Mike Cernovich .@jk_rowling Hi! Great to see you back. Over 1.2 million views for this generous offer. Let's make it happen!
I'm struggling to note the "social conservatism" or Merkel like Christian Democrat theme within the May administration that you report on. Perhaps you'd care to expand?
To my mind PM May is the arch pragmatist. Her government will be judged on the ability to make BREXIT a success and steer the nation through the continuing economic difficulties. Her cause considerably aided by the fractured and rank piss poor opposition.
May is really combining CDU economics with AfD immigration policy and hence she now polls much better than Merkel
May polls better than Merkel because the German left would struggle to find such an arse as Corbyn within the country to lead the main opposition party, let alone elect him as leader.
Germany has Die Linke
Exactly. They are not the main opposition party and will not, in isolation, replace Merkel's CDU in the federal elections.
Theresa May has a quite obvious facial tic. I am not sure tweeting pictures taking the mickey out of it is that great a look for people who like the moral high ground
Let's just hope she doesn't try to eat a bacon sandwich
' Bankers should leave London after Brexit and move the France for the food, the culture and even the romance, Parisien leaders have told financiers in their new charm offensive, aimed at winning business once the UK leaves the EU. '
' Violent protests over alleged police brutality that began in the mainly immigrant suburbs earlier this month spread to central Paris and other cities on Wednesday night and 49 people were arrested.
Clashes with police broke out after hundreds of demonstrators gathered in the Barbès-Rochechouart area, near the Gare du Nord railway station, where the Eurostar terminal is located, and the Sacré Coeur basilica in Montmartre, a favourite with tourists.
Police fired tear gas to disperse about 400 protesters, but smaller groups then went on a rampage in other parts of the capital, smashing windows and overturning dustbins in near Place de la République and in the Marais, another popular area for holidaymakers.
Disturbances also erupted in the northern city of Rouen, where 21 people were arrested. Nearly 250 people have been arrested around France since unrest began in the Paris suburbs after police were accused of assaulting a black man on February 2. '
I don't think any more bankers are going to leave London for a European capital more than they would today or pre-vote. Perhaps the odd one fucks off to Zurich.
The issue will be non-EU firms looking to establish global operations. In such cases perhaps a European capital or NY (if the firm is not from the US) would be more appealing.
I doubt bankers will move at least until they have seen whether Le Pen wins or not.
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
It is at the very centre of informed political debate today.
Disagree. Others have put it better than me, but Hammond is progressing on a similar line (whether or not he accepts Osborne's precise forecasts misses the point). There has been a change in emphasis - Corbyn's Labour is not seen as competitive on economics, so May has the space to try and win back former Kippers (although largely through rhetoric).
I don't think it's interesting, because it's obvious. You can debate whether it is the right strategy or not, but that's not what Alastair was doing. He was just describing the landscape.
Welcome back Charles.
Corbyn may not be economically competitive but that doesn't mean Lab never will be.
And when that happens the fact that the Tories will be perceived to have relinquished their economic advantage mantle will be damaging,
I don't think have though - they have softened the tone, but the numbers seem to be stacking up well this year. Once Labour is economically competitive Hammond will (or won't) have a track record of delivery to point to
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
It is at the very centre of informed political debate today.
Disagree. Others have put it better than me, but Hammond is progressing on a similar line (whether or not he accepts Osborne's precise forecasts misses the point). There has been a change in emphasis - Corbyn's Labour is not seen as competitive on economics, so May has the space to try and win back former Kippers (although largely through rhetoric).
I don't think it's interesting, because it's obvious. You can debate whether it is the right strategy or not, but that's not what Alastair was doing. He was just describing the landscape.
...the fact that the Tories will be perceived to have relinquished their economic advantage mantle will be damaging,
You assume Hammond will fail therefore. If, as intended, we get to a surplus more slowly we will at least see debt as a % GDP falling. And the JAMs will gain at the expense of not-JAMs or on the back of growth. I don't think the Tories are significantly at risk of shit polling on economic competence. They are, however, majorly and complacently at risk of shit polling on health / social care.
The Tories' problem is that health/social care needs fundamental reform. It's not just about "more money": it needs to be a carefully thought through restructuring of how we deliver healthcare.
But Labour will never cooperate with that because it's too good a stick to beat the Tories with. And the Tories aren't bold enough to touch the third rail of British politics. So we just muddle through and the situation steadily get's less and less fit for purpose.
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
It is at the very centre of informed political debate today.
Disagree. Others have put it better than me, but Hammond is progressing on a similar line (whether or not he accepts Osborne's precise forecasts misses the point). There has been a change in emphasis - Corbyn's Labour is not seen as competitive on economics, so May has the space to try and win back former Kippers (although largely through rhetoric).
I don't think it's interesting, because it's obvious. You can debate whether it is the right strategy or not, but that's not what Alastair was doing. He was just describing the landscape.
...the fact that the Tories will be perceived to have relinquished their economic advantage mantle will be damaging,
You assume Hammond will fail therefore. If, as intended, we get to a surplus more slowly we will at least see debt as a % GDP falling. And the JAMs will gain at the expense of not-JAMs or on the back of growth. I don't think the Tories are significantly at risk of shit polling on economic competence. They are, however, majorly and complacently at risk of shit polling on health / social care.
Anyone except McDonnell would have taken them apart on the austerity U-turn.
Getting to a surplus more slowly is all very well but the next GE is in 2020, if not before. And the Tories' advantage on the economy stupid might be open to serious challenge (talking to you, Ed Balls).
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
It is at the very centre of informed political debate today.
Disagree. Others have put it better than me, but Hammond is progressing on a similar line (whether or not he accepts Osborne's precise forecasts misses the point). There has been a change in emphasis - Corbyn's Labour is not seen as competitive on economics, so May has the space to try and win back former Kippers (although largely through rhetoric).
I don't think it's interesting, because it's obvious. You can debate whether it is the right strategy or not, but that's not what Alastair was doing. He was just describing the landscape.
...the fact that the Tories will be perceived to have relinquished their economic advantage mantle will be damaging,
You assume Hammond will fail therefore. If, as intended, we get to a surplus more slowly we will at least see debt as a % GDP falling. And the JAMs will gain at the expense of not-JAMs or on the back of growth. I don't think the Tories are significantly at risk of shit polling on economic competence. They are, however, majorly and complacently at risk of shit polling on health / social care.
The Tories' problem is that health/social care needs fundamental reform. It's not just about "more money": it needs to be a carefully thought through restructuring of how we deliver healthcare.
But Labour will never cooperate with that because it's too good a stick to beat the Tories with. And the Tories aren't bold enough to touch the third rail of British politics. So we just muddle through and the situation steadily get's less and less fit for purpose.
Our parents sacrificed 10 years at the start of our lives for us, I think it's reasonable to expect us to do the same for them at the end of theirs. It's a shame on us as a society that we rely on the state to do it
The conundrum that May faces is that in seeking a hard Brexit, she could well end up making it much harder to escape the austerity-focused policies pursued by the previous government of which she was an integral part.
She will be judged on delivery: more and less expensive housing, continued full employment combined with higher wages growth, low inflation, decent public services (including a fit-for-purpose NHS) and less immigration. People will not vote based on figures but on their daily reality and perception.
As we saw from the poll yesterday, most people do not feel adversely affected by immigration at a personal level, even though they do feel it is too high. Mrs May faces a very fine balancing act. Jeremy Corbyn will not be the leader of the Labour party forever.
Take Copeland. What do the Tories offer the JAMs there? .
It's a reverse of something that hadn't happened. No-one will notice. But it does make Alastair's point about the May government being less dry than the previous one, doesn't it?
I think it's more interesting. One of the great problems JAMs face is that as they start to work more they lose benefits too rapidly and the marginal tax on the extra pounds earned is therefore very steep. Hammond overtly recognised this in the Autumn statement and set (with the 63% taper rate - down from 65%) not only an expectation of travel but made a political point: Work will pay. But - yes - pushing hard(er) on austerity and on Brexit simultaneously would be brave (in the Sir Humphrey sense). Brexit trumps surplus and the surplus must wait a bit. If in some parallel universe we still have Dave and George running Brexit for us George would be doing precisely the same thing.
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
It is at the very centre of informed political debate today.
Disagree. Others have put it better than me, but Hammond is progressing on a similar line (whether or not he accepts Osborne's precise forecasts misses the point). There has been a change in emphasis - Corbyn's Labour is not seen as competitive on economics, so May has the space to try and win back former Kippers (although largely through rhetoric).
I don't think it's interesting, because it's obvious. You can debate whether it is the right strategy or not, but that's not what Alastair was doing. He was just describing the landscape.
Welcome back Charles.
Corbyn may not be economically competitive but that doesn't mean Lab never will be.
And when that happens the fact that the Tories will be perceived to have relinquished their economic advantage mantle will be damaging,
I don't think have though - they have softened the tone, but the numbers seem to be stacking up well this year. Once Labour is economically competitive Hammond will (or won't) have a track record of delivery to point to
Maybe. We can hope.
But again, a competent shadow chancellor would then say: look I told you we didn't need austerity.
But - yes - pushing hard(er) on austerity and on Brexit simultaneously would be brave (in the Sir Humphrey sense). Brexit trumps surplus and the surplus must wait a bit. If in some parallel universe we still have Dave and George running Brexit for us George would be doing precisely the same thing.
DfID's budget is £11.8bn this year, growing to £12.6bn in 17/18 and £13.6bn in 18/19
I wouldn't be surprised to see that flat lined and/or trimmed in the budget.
I'm struggling to note the "social conservatism" or Merkel like Christian Democrat theme within the May administration that you report on. Perhaps you'd care to expand?
To my mind PM May is the arch pragmatist. Her government will be judged on the ability to make BREXIT a success and steer the nation through the continuing economic difficulties. Her cause considerably aided by the fractured and rank piss poor opposition.
May is really combining CDU economics with AfD immigration policy and hence she now polls much better than Merkel
May polls better than Merkel because the German left would struggle to find such an arse as Corbyn within the country to lead the main opposition party, let alone elect him as leader.
Germany has Die Linke
Exactly. They are not the main opposition party and will not, in isolation, replace Merkel's CDU in the federal elections.
The LDs offer a centrist alternative in the UK and France's Socialists are now led by the Corbynite Hamon
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
It is at the very centre of informed political debate today.
Disagree. Others have put it better than me, but Hammond is progressing on a similar line (whether or not he accepts Osborne's precise forecasts misses the point). There has been a change in emphasis - Corbyn's Labour is not seen as competitive on economics, so May has the space to try and win back former Kippers (although largely through rhetoric).
I don't think it's interesting, because it's obvious. You can debate whether it is the right strategy or not, but that's not what Alastair was doing. He was just describing the landscape.
Welcome back Charles.
Corbyn may not be economically competitive but that doesn't mean Lab never will be.
And when that happens the fact that the Tories will be perceived to have relinquished their economic advantage mantle will be damaging,
I don't think have though - they have softened the tone, but the numbers seem to be stacking up well this year. Once Labour is economically competitive Hammond will (or won't) have a track record of delivery to point to
Maybe. We can hope.
But again, a competent shadow chancellor would then say: look I told you we didn't need austerity.
All political decisions are choices. My guess is you can get away with it if you deliver, especially if Labour is planning to spend more.
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
It is at the very centre of informed political debate today.
Disagree. Others have put it better than me, but Hammond is progressing on a similar line (whether or not he accepts Osborne's precise forecasts misses the point). There has been a change in emphasis - Corbyn's Labour is not seen as competitive on economics, so May has the space to try and win back former Kippers (although largely through rhetoric).
I don't think it's interesting, because it's obvious. You can debate whether it is the right strategy or not, but that's not what Alastair was doing. He was just describing the landscape.
...the fact that the Tories will be perceived to have relinquished their economic advantage mantle will be damaging,
You assume Hammond will fail therefore. If, as intended, we get to a surplus more slowly we will at least see debt as a % GDP falling. And the JAMs will gain at the expense of not-JAMs or on the back of growth. I don't think the Tories are significantly at risk of shit polling on economic competence. They are, however, majorly and complacently at risk of shit polling on health / social care.
The Tories' problem is that health/social care needs fundamental reform. It's not just about "more money": it needs to be a carefully thought through restructuring of how we deliver healthcare.
But Labour will never cooperate with that because it's too good a stick to beat the Tories with. And the Tories aren't bold enough to touch the third rail of British politics. So we just muddle through and the situation steadily get's less and less fit for purpose.
Our parents sacrificed 10 years at the start of our lives for us, I think it's reasonable to expect us to do the same for them at the end of theirs. It's a shame on us as a society that we rely on the state to do it
Elderly with dementia will still need carers what is needed is either higher NI or more insurance cover for social care
Theresa May has a quite obvious facial tic. I am not sure tweeting pictures taking the mickey out of it is that great a look for people who like the moral high ground
Let's just hope she doesn't try to eat a bacon sandwich
A shameful reflection on ourselves that that particular line of attack on Ed Miliband gained such traction.
Theresa May has a quite obvious facial tic. I am not sure tweeting pictures taking the mickey out of it is that great a look for people who like the moral high ground
Let's just hope she doesn't try to eat a bacon sandwich
A shameful reflection on ourselves that that particular line of attack on Ed Miliband gained such traction.
People are trying the same trick w May, such cringeworthy double standards
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
It is at the very centre of informed political debate today.
Disagree. Others have put it better than me, but Hammond is progressing on a similar line (whether or not he accepts Osborne's precise forecasts misses the point). There has been a change in emphasis - Corbyn's Labour is not seen as competitive on economics, so May has the space to try and win back former Kippers (although largely through rhetoric).
I don't think it's interesting, because it's obvious. You can debate whether it is the right strategy or not, but that's not what Alastair was doing. He was just describing the landscape.
...the fact that the Tories will be perceived to have relinquished their economic advantage mantle will be damaging,
You assume Hammond will fail therefore. If, as intended, we get to a surplus more slowly we will at least see debt as a % GDP falling. And the JAMs will gain at the expense of not-JAMs or on the back of growth. I don't think the Tories are significantly at risk of shit polling on economic competence. They are, however, majorly and complacently at risk of shit polling on health / social care.
The Tories' problem is that health/social care needs fundamental reform. It's not just about "more money": it needs to be a carefully thought through restructuring of how we deliver healthcare.
But Labour will never cooperate with that because it's too good a stick to beat the Tories with. And the Tories aren't bold enough to touch the third rail of British politics. So we just muddle through and the situation steadily get's less and less fit for purpose.
Our parents sacrificed 10 years at the start of our lives for us, I think it's reasonable to expect us to do the same for them at the end of theirs. It's a shame on us as a society that we rely on the state to do it
The conundrum that May faces is that in seeking a hard Brexit, she could well end up making it much harder to escape the austerity-focused policies pursued by the previous government of which she was an integral part.
She will be judged on delivery: more and less expensive housing, continued full employment combined with higher wages growth, low inflation, decent public services (including a fit-for-purpose NHS) and less immigration. People will not vote based on figures but on their daily reality and perception.
As we saw from the poll yesterday, most people do not feel adversely affected by immigration at a personal level, even though they do feel it is too high. Mrs May faces a very fine balancing act. Jeremy Corbyn will not be the leader of the Labour party forever.
Take Copeland. What do the Tories offer the JAMs there? .
It's a reverse of something that hadn't happened. No-one will notice. But it does make Alastair's point about the May government being less dry than the previous one, doesn't it?
I think it's more interesting. One of the great problems JAMs face is that as they start to work more they lose benefits too rapidly and the marginal tax on the extra pounds earned is therefore very steep. Hammond overtly recognised this in the Autumn statement and set (with the 63% taper rate - down from 65%) not only an expectation of travel but made a political point: Work will pay. But - yes - pushing hard(er) on austerity and on Brexit simultaneously would be brave (in the Sir Humphrey sense). Brexit trumps surplus and the surplus must wait a bit. If in some parallel universe we still have Dave and George running Brexit for us George would be doing precisely the same thing.
May's problem is JAM is self-defining. People on £70K have been known to describe themselves as such.
But - yes - pushing hard(er) on austerity and on Brexit simultaneously would be brave (in the Sir Humphrey sense). Brexit trumps surplus and the surplus must wait a bit. If in some parallel universe we still have Dave and George running Brexit for us George would be doing precisely the same thing.
DfID's budget is £11.8bn this year, growing to £12.6bn in 17/18 and £13.6bn in 18/19
I wouldn't be surprised to see that flat lined and/or trimmed in the budget.
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
It is at the very centre of informed political debate today.
Disagree. Others have put it better than me, but Hammond is progressing on a similar line (whether or not he accepts Osborne's precise forecasts misses the point). There has been a change in emphasis - Corbyn's Labour is not seen as competitive on economics, so May has the space to try and win back former Kippers (although largely through rhetoric).
I don't think it's interesting, because it's obvious. You can debate whether it is the right strategy or not, but that's not what Alastair was doing. He was just describing the landscape.
...the fact that the Tories will be perceived to have relinquished their economic advantage mantle will be damaging,
.
The Tories' problem is that health/social care needs fundamental reform. It's not just about "more money": it needs to be a carefully thought through restructuring of how we deliver healthcare.
But Labour will never cooperate with that because it's too good a stick to beat the Tories with. And the Tories aren't bold enough to touch the third rail of British politics. So we just muddle through and the situation steadily get's less and less fit for purpose.
Our parents sacrificed 10 years at the start of our lives for us, I think it's reasonable to expect us to do the same for them at the end of theirs. It's a shame on us as a society that we rely on the state to do it
Elderly with dementia will still need carers what is needed is either higher NI or more insurance cover for social care
How about the government builds/turns old buildings into state subsidised care homes that undercut the expensive private ones? A bit like council houses for the elderly
But - yes - pushing hard(er) on austerity and on Brexit simultaneously would be brave (in the Sir Humphrey sense). Brexit trumps surplus and the surplus must wait a bit. If in some parallel universe we still have Dave and George running Brexit for us George would be doing precisely the same thing.
DfID's budget is £11.8bn this year, growing to £12.6bn in 17/18 and £13.6bn in 18/19
I wouldn't be surprised to see that flat lined and/or trimmed in the budget.
It's an outrage. And ripe for raiding.
I really think a reevaluation is needed. Why are we still sending money to countries with their own space program or ones that have a larger GDP than us?
But - yes - pushing hard(er) on austerity and on Brexit simultaneously would be brave (in the Sir Humphrey sense). Brexit trumps surplus and the surplus must wait a bit. If in some parallel universe we still have Dave and George running Brexit for us George would be doing precisely the same thing.
DfID's budget is £11.8bn this year, growing to £12.6bn in 17/18 and £13.6bn in 18/19
I wouldn't be surprised to see that flat lined and/or trimmed in the budget.
It's an outrage. And ripe for raiding.
No, it's a valuable tool that can be carefully applied to further Britain's foreign interests (I prefer to spend the "treasure" bit of "blood and treasure")
The issue is one of a stupid decision to say it must be x% of GDP rather than an assessment of what is the optimal amount to spend. And - although it's getting better - there's often poor allocation of resources
But - yes - pushing hard(er) on austerity and on Brexit simultaneously would be brave (in the Sir Humphrey sense). Brexit trumps surplus and the surplus must wait a bit. If in some parallel universe we still have Dave and George running Brexit for us George would be doing precisely the same thing.
DfID's budget is £11.8bn this year, growing to £12.6bn in 17/18 and £13.6bn in 18/19
I wouldn't be surprised to see that flat lined and/or trimmed in the budget.
It's an outrage. And ripe for raiding.
And everyone who disagrees should betaken out ns shot
Democracy, tolerance, respect for others - we only got into this mess by practising these "virtues".
All 16m who voted Labour in 2015 should be exterminated!!!
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
It is at the very centre of informed political debate today.
Disagree. Others have put it better than me, but Hammond is progressing on a similar line (whether or not he accepts Osborne's precise forecasts misses the point). There has been a change in emphasis - Corbyn's Labour is not seen as competitive on economics, so May has the space to try and win back former Kippers (although largely through rhetoric).
I don't think it's interesting, because it's obvious. You can debate whether it is the right strategy or not, but that's not what Alastair was doing. He was just describing the landscape.
...the fact that the Tories will be perceived to have relinquished their economic advantage mantle will be damaging,
You assume Hammond will fail therefore. If, as intended, we get to a surplus more slowly we will at least see debt as a % GDP falling. And the JAMs will gain at the expense of not-JAMs or on the back of growth. I don't think the Tories are significantly at risk of shit polling on economic competence. They are, however, majorly and complacently at risk of shit polling on health / social care.
The Tories' problem is that health/social care needs fundamental reform. It's not just about "more money": it needs to be a carefully thought through restructuring of how we deliver healthcare.
But Labour will never cooperate with that because it's too good a stick to beat the Tories with. And the Tories aren't bold enough to touch the third rail of British politics. So we just muddle through and the situation steadily get's less and less fit for purpose.
Our parents sacrificed 10 years at the start of our lives for us, I think it's reasonable to expect us to do the same for them at the end of theirs. It's a shame on us as a society that we rely on the state to do it
Parents choose to have children. Children don't choose to have parents.
Re ed and the bacon sandwich photo. It stuck because it summed him up peoples opinions of him, not the other way around. Geeky, a bit weird and so useless he couldn't even eat a bacon sandwich. Obviously he then out did it with the ed stone.
It's like that Boris and goldsmith photo...people think yeah Boris probably goes down the boozer and is quite a laugh where as that other bloke definitely never does.
May and the weird face with kids. People want to be a bit careful as we found out how attacking may re kids was a big mistake for leadsom.
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
It is at the very centre of informed political debate today.
Disagree. Others have put it better than me, but Hammond is progressing on a similar line (whether or not he accepts Osborne's precise forecasts misses the point). There has been a change in emphasis - Corbyn's Labour is not seen as competitive on economics, so May has the space to try and win back former Kippers (although largely through rhetoric).
I don't think it's interesting, because it's obvious. You can debate whether it is the right strategy or not, but that's not what Alastair was doing. He was just describing the landscape.
...the fact that the Tories will be perceived to have relinquished their economic advantage mantle will be damaging,
.
The Tories' problem is that health/social care needs fundamental reform. It's not just about "more money": it needs to be a carefully thought through restructuring of how we deliver healthcare.
But Labour will never cooperate with that because it's too good a stick to beat the Tories with. And the Tories aren't bold enough to touch the third rail of British politics. So we just muddle through and the situation steadily get's less and less fit for purpose.
Our parents sacrificed 10 years at the start of our lives for us, I think it's reasonable to expect us to do the same for them at the end of theirs. It's a shame on us as a society that we rely on the state to do it
Elderly with dementia will still need carers what is needed is either higher NI or more insurance cover for social care
How about the government builds/turns old buildings into state subsidised care homes that undercut the expensive private ones? A bit like council houses for the elderly
Fine for those who need LA support if you want a more expensive care home you pay for it from your assets or take out an annuity
I see that pb's Tories are divided between those who are furious at the suggestion that the present government is less than dry, those who are furious at the suggestion that the last government was ever dry and those who are just furious.
Meanwhile, my main point that the government has pivoted from differentiating itself on the economy to differentiating itself on social conservatism goes largely unanswered.
Because it's not interesting?
It is at the very centre of informed political debate today.
Disagree. Others have put it better than me, but Hammond is progressing on a similar line (whether or not he accepts Osborne's precise forecasts misses the point). There has been a change in emphasis - Corbyn's Labour is not seen as competitive on economics, so May has the space to try and win back former Kippers (although largely through rhetoric).
I don't think it's interesting, because it's obvious. You can debate whether it is the right strategy or not, but that's not what Alastair was doing. He was just describing the landscape.
...the fact that the Tories will be perceived to have relinquished their economic advantage mantle will be damaging,
You assume Hammond will fail therefore. If, as intended, we get to a surplus more slowly we will at least see debt as a % GDP falling. And the JAMs will gain at the expense of not-JAMs or on the back of growth. I don't think the Tories are significantly at risk of shit polling on economic competence. They are, however, majorly and complacently at risk of shit polling on health / social care.
The Tories' problem is that health/social care needs fundamental reform. It's not just about "more money": it needs to be a carefully thought through restructuring of how we deliver healthcare.
But Labour will never cooperate with that because it's too good a stick to beat the Tories with. And the Tories aren't bold enough to touch the third rail of British politics. So we just muddle through and the situation steadily get's less and less fit for purpose.
Our parents sacrificed 10 years at the start of our lives for us, I think it's reasonable to expect us to do the same for them at the end of theirs. It's a shame on us as a society that we rely on the state to do it
Our parents had a very big helping hand from the state.
Re ed and the bacon sandwich photo. It stuck because it summed him up peoples opinions of him, not the other way around. Geeky, a bit weird and so useless he couldn't even eat a bacon sandwich. Obviously he then out did it with the ed stone.
It's like that Boris and goldsmith photo...people think yeah Boris probably goes down the boozer and is quite a laugh where as that other bloke definitely never does.
May and the weird face with kids. People want to be a bit careful as we found out how attacking may re kids was a big mistake for leadsom.
Comments
*I presume
http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_07/20160704_160704-pr2016-116.pdf
That said, they're much closer to the targets of 2% GDP and 20% on equipment (which they beat) than, for example, the Germans, who've not only enjoyed a free ride on currency, but on defence too.
With May, some seem happy she is not really changing all that much from Cameron. But others, who hated Cameron, are delighted she is dispensing with so much of what defined him, and that cannot purely be about presentational style, so who is right? At least that's how I see it. There is clearly, it seems, a confusion.
' Bankers should leave London after Brexit and move the France for the food, the culture and even the romance, Parisien leaders have told financiers in their new charm offensive, aimed at winning business once the UK leaves the EU. '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/06/paris-calls-londons-bankers-move-france-food-culture-even/
' Violent protests over alleged police brutality that began in the mainly immigrant suburbs earlier this month spread to central Paris and other cities on Wednesday night and 49 people were arrested.
Clashes with police broke out after hundreds of demonstrators gathered in the Barbès-Rochechouart area, near the Gare du Nord railway station, where the Eurostar terminal is located, and the Sacré Coeur basilica in Montmartre, a favourite with tourists.
Police fired tear gas to disperse about 400 protesters, but smaller groups then went on a rampage in other parts of the capital, smashing windows and overturning dustbins in near Place de la République and in the Marais, another popular area for holidaymakers.
Disturbances also erupted in the northern city of Rouen, where 21 people were arrested. Nearly 250 people have been arrested around France since unrest began in the Paris suburbs after police were accused of assaulting a black man on February 2. '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/16/french-police-arrest-49-people-violent-protests-spread-paris/
The conundrum that May faces is that in seeking a hard Brexit, she could well end up making it much harder to escape the austerity-focused policies pursued by the previous government of which she was an integral part.
She will be judged on delivery: more and less expensive housing, continued full employment combined with higher wages growth, low inflation, decent public services (including a fit-for-purpose NHS) and less immigration. People will not vote based on figures but on their daily reality and perception.
As we saw from the poll yesterday, most people do not feel adversely affected by immigration at a personal level, even though they do feel it is too high. Mrs May faces a very fine balancing act. Jeremy Corbyn will not be the leader of the Labour party forever.
Hmm...
*strokes chin*
*realises it's past time to have a shave*
Thought provoking threads that stimulate debate are always welcome, even when everyone else is wrong
It's long winded statements of the obvious or transparently spun pieces that are dull
but seriously, the vote being on daily reality and perception not figures. I called 2015 wrong as I thought people's perception of the situation, and thus how Miliband they were prepared to be, was worse than it was. May has it tougher than expected despite being in a strong position currently.
I can agree with your second paragraph, but that was lost in how your article came across.
I don't think the 50 Shades series has an orang-utan rape scene.
I'm sure much of it is pragmatism, though Mrs May does seem to have a charmless intolerance of different ways of thinking. The fact that pragmatism is pushing her to social conservatism is itself telling.
That doesn’t make the prime minister an enemy of modernisation. Her contribution to the rehabilitation of the Conservative brand is unarguable. In 2002, she famously rebuked conference delegates for allowing themselves to be construed as “the nasty party”. Her views on gay rights shifted enough over the years that she was able to support equal marriage as home secretary. She was sufficiently irked by the patronising and patriarchal habits of Tory local associations that she took an instrumental role in Women2Win – a highly effective organisation supporting aspiring female candidates with a view to reversing parliament’s stubborn gender imbalance.
May has been unafraid to challenge some of the most stultifying reactionary traits of her colleagues. But she also has a deep attachment to the institutions and social networks of grassroots Toryism. They have been a surrogate family to an only child who lost both parents shortly after graduating from university. The party is something “she loves to its bones”, Prince writes. That was never said of Cameron, and it is a reason why many members distrusted him and embrace his successor with devotion. It is also why May is untainted in the eyes of her party by her support for the remain side during the EU referendum. She was merely showing loyalty to the leader at the time, while every unguarded mannerism radiated sympathy with the Eurosceptic instincts of the rank and file. No one doubts the fullness of her conversion to the Brexit cause and few Tories seem to query her judgment in the enactment of a rupture from Europe far more severe than anything advertised by the leave campaign.
May comes across in this account as intelligent but intellectually incurious, lacking agility and imagination
May has the complete confidence of the party grassroots because she is one of them. She has stuffed the envelopes and delivered the leaflets. She has mud on her boots from time served in the campaigning infantry, while the officer-class Old Etonian before her had his feet up on a desk miles away from the frontline. May embodies a tradition of volunteer provincial Toryism at its best and worst. She channels its spirit of redoubtable self-reliance and charitable works. She projects its starchy no-nonsense manners and moral code that is equal parts Anglican faith, Middle England “common sense” and nostalgia for a lost world of deference and ethnic homogeneity.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/feb/16/theresa-may-the-enigmatic-prime-minister-by-rosa-prince-review
The issue will be non-EU firms looking to establish global operations. In such cases perhaps a European capital or NY (if the firm is not from the US) would be more appealing.
Genuine Question: Do you really see it as socially conservative to control immigration or are you trying to play the cat / laser stick game with righties?
I don't think it's interesting, because it's obvious. You can debate whether it is the right strategy or not, but that's not what Alastair was doing. He was just describing the landscape.
https://twitter.com/FoxNews/status/832396832974131200
Take the JAM's. Osbourne cut their taxes. Social conservatism in Britain is not about religious priorities (apart from some Muslim communities), it is about the welfare state in general, and the NHS and social care in particular.
Take Copeland. What do the Tories offer the JAMs there? Hospital closures and reductions in pensions in the nuclear industry. The vicars daughter is like all the rest, only interested in the top 10%.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2244165/autumn-statement-2016-cash-back-for-three-million-workers-as-chancellor-reverses-cuts-to-benefits/
https://twitter.com/Sergiofordy/status/785143269202223104
Yes, she is committed to making Brexit a success, but this idea she was radiating sympathy to Brexit rank and file but was loyal to the leader isn't exactly a good thing is it? It hardly matters now, but either she was lying about thinking remain was the best option to stay on side with the leader or she wasn't. There's no shame to her now for thinking remain was the best option, but her committment to hard Brexit now doesn't mean she was a brexiter then, in heart if not deed.
Even if she was, political positioning re Johnson would seem just as likely a reason. She was clearly not super enthusiastic about remain, she had skeptical thoughts, but she said remaining was the best choice, surely we believe that was her view? Why would we believe this honest and strong woman would say she supported it just because she is loyal to the leader? What an insult to her integrity that would be.if the contention is she was remain but respected the rank and file, I'm sure few didn't.
Corbyn may not be economically competitive but that doesn't mean Lab never will be.
And when that happens the fact that the Tories will be perceived to have relinquished their economic advantage mantle will be damaging,
Immigration policy is being largely driven by BREXIT and the considerations around reciprocal EU terms, whereas the economic migrant stance has barely changed. I'd agree that the Syrian child refugee situation is a mess.
I simply don't recognise grammar schools as a "social conservative" issue in the same way as free schools or tuition fees aren't either.
If the May government were looking to rolls back gay rights, implement severe abortion restrictions, extensive religious exemptions and the like then you might have a case but marking down this government with a socially conservative bent is wide of the mark.
May will not be judged on a speech she made, but on the success of the policies that her government actively pursues.
Mike Cernovich
.@jk_rowling Hi! Great to see you back. Over 1.2 million views for this generous offer. Let's make it happen!
https://t.co/N9cZZ3e0Eq
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHnjlQC6Puw
But Labour will never cooperate with that because it's too good a stick to beat the Tories with. And the Tories aren't bold enough to touch the third rail of British politics. So we just muddle through and the situation steadily get's less and less fit for purpose.
Getting to a surplus more slowly is all very well but the next GE is in 2020, if not before. And the Tories' advantage on the economy stupid might be open to serious challenge (talking to you, Ed Balls).
But - yes - pushing hard(er) on austerity and on Brexit simultaneously would be brave (in the Sir Humphrey sense). Brexit trumps surplus and the surplus must wait a bit. If in some parallel universe we still have Dave and George running Brexit for us George would be doing precisely the same thing.
But again, a competent shadow chancellor would then say: look I told you we didn't need austerity.
I wouldn't be surprised to see that flat lined and/or trimmed in the budget.
LBC
Donald Trump launches an unprecedented attack on the media but who's telling the truth? #TrumpPresser #CliveonLBC
The President 71%
The media 12%
Neither 17%
31,114 votes
Europe Elects @EuropeElects 16h16 hours ago
France: Second round of Presidential election, Ifop poll:
Macron: 62% (nc)
Le Pen: 38% (nc)
Allez, Macron!
Sunderland, Great Yarmouth and Northampton facing "Shock and Awe" ?
http://www.lci.fr/elections/l-homosexualite-une-odieuse-rumeur-la-une-de-france-dimanche-sur-emmanuel-macron-indigne-twitter-2026313.html
I could really go for a bacon sandwich right now. Sometimes I need PB to remind me of the important things in life.
The issue is one of a stupid decision to say it must be x% of GDP rather than an assessment of what is the optimal amount to spend. And - although it's getting better - there's often poor allocation of resources
Democracy, tolerance, respect for others - we only got into this mess by practising these "virtues".
All 16m who voted Labour in 2015 should be exterminated!!!
(I heard it Paisley say it once and the phrase stuck in my head)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1czSpGpCIg
What did he get for throwing away half the rebate?
It's like that Boris and goldsmith photo...people think yeah Boris probably goes down the boozer and is quite a laugh where as that other bloke definitely never does.
May and the weird face with kids. People want to be a bit careful as we found out how attacking may re kids was a big mistake for leadsom.
Que?