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.
I thought all MPs and GPs were Just About Managing by definition?
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.
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 didn't vote Labour myself, but I think that is perhaps going a touch too far.
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.
More leftie nonsense. You could try obeying your betters. It would make a change.
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.
Parents choose to have children. Children don't choose to have parents.
More leftie nonsense. You could try obeying your betters. It would make a change.
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.
Plus she has a tic!
I think you are mistaken - she certainly didn't at University and I've never seen it at PMQs
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!!!
It's quite a theme you keep coming back to.
There's no need to build the ovens. Labour is doing away with itself, no outside help needed....
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.
Plus she has a tic!
I think you are mistaken - she certainly didn't at University and I've never seen it at PMQs
Blair is hardly inspiring in this speech and with the anger he generates it is likely that he will do more harm to the remain cause than enhance it
I find it amazing that someone who was so good at winning elections.... Has now become so out of touch. Out of touch with the public... And also with Labour members...
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.
Plus she has a tic!
I think you are mistaken - she certainly didn't at University and I've never seen it at PMQs
She certainly pulls a strange face repeatedly a bit like Gordon Brown used to. She did it at her first PMQs as she cracked a joke. Maybe it is nerves.
Either way, seizing on awkward photos is ridiculously childish, I guess the lefties are just making two wrongs a right after Ed and the sandwich.
Mr. Meeks, precisely. Blair's cretinous idiocy has given a lovely quote for the SNP to plaster across their literature if there's a second vote (north of the border).
Mr. Meeks, precisely. Blair's cretinous idiocy has given a lovely quote for the SNP to plaster across their literature if there's a second vote (north of the border).
Mr. Meeks, disagree entirely on that. If leaving the single market with the EU is bad for Scotland, then leaving the one with England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be quadruple bad.
Mr. Meeks, precisely. Blair's cretinous idiocy has given a lovely quote for the SNP to plaster across their literature if there's a second vote (north of the border).
That was the idea. He's unhinged (don't think it's Brexit actually, I think he's probably been unhinged for years) and would like to see the country completely destroyed to prove that he was right about remaining in the EU.
Would like to be a fly on the way next time he meets HMQ.
Mr. Meeks, disagree entirely on that. If leaving the single market with the EU is bad for Scotland, then leaving the one with England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be quadruple bad.
England can't expect an attempt to kidnap an already-restive Scotland out of the EU to be achieved without the victim struggling like mad to avoid its fate.
Mr. Meeks, precisely. Blair's cretinous idiocy has given a lovely quote for the SNP to plaster across their literature if there's a second vote (north of the border).
That was the idea. He's unhinged (don't think it's Brexit actually, I think he's probably been unhinged for years) and would like to see the country completely destroyed to prove that he was right about remaining in the EU.
Would like to be a fly on the way next time he meets HMQ.
It is his claim that he has a "mission" which has me flailing around for the sick bag. Like his mission to carpet-bomb hundreds of 1000s of brown civilians back into the stone age.
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!!!
Or everyone who disagrees can pay for it themselves? If there are enough it won't be very much each after all.
I'm not actually opposed to the general idea of DfID, but, as Charles says up thread, the fixation on the percentage of GDP rather than the outcomes desired must encourage huge waste. How many here have been in a department where you have money in a budget that must be spent by the end of the financial year or it is lost? How carefully considered were the spending decisions made?
Blair is hardly inspiring in this speech and with the anger he generates it is likely that he will do more harm to the remain cause than enhance it
There is no remain cause.
There might be a rejoin one.
I can see that going down well, what with Schengen and the Euro!
My view is that we definitely shouldn't rejoin as the cards we would hold in any negotiation would be minimal and all out on the table anyway.
Depends on the EU, though - if they say: OK we'll go back to Dave's deal and the status quo ante (ie no Schengen and Euro) then I can see it appealing to a group of voters.
An interesting article by Alastair, but I think it's completely wrong.
Firstly, the Cameron government wasn't 'economically dry as dust'. Osborne managed the transition from the profligacy he inherited - let's never forget, Darling's spending was an eye-watering 33% more than income - towards a more sane balance very sensitively. Some people criticise him for getting spending under control far too slowly; certainly he gave a high priority to avoiding big rises in unemployment.
Secondly, I don't really see the sharp distinction between the May/Hammond government and the Cameron/Osborne one. Of course, the economic realities of Brexit mean that deficit reduction is having to be postponed yet again, but Hammond is simply maintaining Osborne's very successful approach of gently improving the public finances without scaring the horses. Nor do I see any big distinction on social issues; both May and Cameron are firmly in the one-nation Tory tradition, even though the personal styles of the two PMs are quite different.
Of course, over-arching all of this is Brexit. That will dominate Theresa May's premiership, whether she likes it or not. Minor differences in style or emphasis between her and her predecessor are a side-show.
Edit: Also, on immigration, what's the difference between Cameron and May? Both want to reduce net immigration substantially, which, given the humoungous numbers we've seen in recent years, is sensible emough. The only difference is that Brexit makes it a bit easier.
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.
How much surplus will we need to get rid of a chunk of the trillions we owe. Will be like farting against a hurricane.
A new party of centrists (Blairites, Cameroons, Orange bookers) has been the obvious move for about 3 years
Indeed. An economically right wing and reasonably liberal social party would fill an enormous hole in the political landscape. Be wise to keep Tony out of sight though...
Alex Wickham Blair's great idea: Leave voters will change their minds if Brexit is explained "in easy to understand ways"
Surely that is how democracy is supposed to work. Politicians attempt to convince voters that policy A is better than policy B based on these facts, forecasts and assumptions. Blair is not saying ignore the people but rather to campaign and persuade the electorate.
That Blair himself may be too tainted to get a hearing, or that facts have become unfashionable in this age of Trump, are separate matters.
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.
How much surplus will we need to get rid of a chunk of the trillions we owe. Will be like farting against a hurricane.
Paid off far more, relatively speaking, after the war.
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.
How much surplus will we need to get rid of a chunk of the trillions we owe. Will be like farting against a hurricane.
Paid off far more, relatively speaking, after the war.
Rob, I will believe it when I see it happening, and I doubt I will be here for that. Pigs are likely to fly first.
There is no UK politician that brings vomit to my mouth quicker than Tony Blair. At least Brown had the good grace to become an irrelevance after his premiership.
Mr. Meeks, people get to dislike Blair. I'm unsure why you're complaining about people complaining about Blair.
On the speech, I listened to much of it. One thing that struck me was the rarity (total absence?) of 'the EU' in favour of his preferred 'Europe'.
The part on Scottish independence was nothing less than an attempt to wreck the UK if it doesn't turn the way he wants it to. Giving campaigning lines to a party that seeks to end the UK is not an act worthy of a former PM.
How far will you go for your parents? Cleaning their arses perhaps because that is the expectation in Italy. We are lucky...we can pay for care for our elders but many Italians cannot. That said, the daily pressure of elderly parents is suffocating and stifling. A thankless task because you can never do enough. The elderly generation is crushing Italy with their exponentially rising needs as they live longer, and probably other countries like Japan too.
The last thing we want to do is to inflict that kind of misery on middle aged families in the UK. The statement the other day by that minister to shift responsibility onto families was ridiculous...
I personally think medical advances to keep immobile human beings alive at all costs is grotesque in the extreme. It starts with premature babies, it continues with people who are injured or suffer from serious illness, and it finishes with keeping old people alive through a sack of drugs. But in the western world we are increasingly growing the numbers of very unwell people. It's not the resources they take up that bothers me, it is the unrelenting, remorseless suffering and guilt that it places on families.
Blair says there's a cartel of media on the right. Not sure he watches much television.
If TV media is so biased, why are they not regularly prosecuted for not fulfilling their statutory obligation for impartiality?
Far too many on both the left and right associate pointing out awkward truths as bias.
Yep - bias = reporting news in ways I do not like. As you say, it's something that both the left and right accuse the broadcast media of.
And if both the left and right are complaining, that suggests that actually the news is being fairly reported.
There is something that does irritate me about news reports from all sides which shows (probably) unconscious bias: if some one 'admits' somthing rather than 'says', 'claims' rather than 'reveals', then the reporter has already put their own spin on the news.
Mr. Tyson, I have sympathy with that view. I do think we'll revisit it as a nation, but the problem is that resources is a factor, which will lead some/many to feel that any move to euthanasia or suchlike will be driven not by compassion but by the bottom line.
Blair says there's a cartel of media on the right. Not sure he watches much television.
If TV media is so biased, why are they not regularly prosecuted for not fulfilling their statutory obligation for impartiality?
Far too many on both the left and right associate pointing out awkward truths as bias.
Yep - bias = reporting news in ways I do not like. As you say, it's something that both the left and right accuse the broadcast media of.
And if both the left and right are complaining, that suggests that actually the news is being fairly reported.
There is something that does irritate me about news reports from all sides which shows (probably) unconscious bias: if some one 'admits' somthing rather than 'says', 'claims' rather than 'reveals', then the reporter has already put their own spin on the news.
OT. For all who missed it last nights thread is well worth a look. A 'Chance The Gardener' moment where PB's finest were attempting to interpret the genius of President Trump.
I've not read anything like it since Gore Vidal's 'Messiah'
Blair says there's a cartel of media on the right. Not sure he watches much television.
If TV media is so biased, why are they not regularly prosecuted for not fulfilling their statutory obligation for impartiality?
Far too many on both the left and right associate pointing out awkward truths as bias.
Yep - bias = reporting news in ways I do not like. As you say, it's something that both the left and right accuse the broadcast media of.
And if both the left and right are complaining, that suggests that actually the news is being fairly reported.
There is something that does irritate me about news reports from all sides which shows (probably) unconscious bias: if some one 'admits' somthing rather than 'says', 'claims' rather than 'reveals', then the reporter has already put their own spin on the news.
'understands' is another beauty.
I get annoyed at the BBC editorialising. "Government humiliated in House of Commons vote". Surely if you are supposed to be neutral, you keep the headline as neutral as possible "Government loses House of Commons vote".
Mr. Tyson, I have sympathy with that view. I do think we'll revisit it as a nation, but the problem is that resources is a factor, which will lead some/many to feel that any move to euthanasia or suchlike will be driven not by compassion but by the bottom line.
You couldn't make up Italy....the stigma of putting someone in a care home is bad enough. Many oldies are cared for at home by their daughters who live around the corner who clean them and change them.
At my father in laws care home some family members come for hours each day and sit with their parents...these are old people themselves who can no longer care for their parents at home. We pay for someone 5 hours a day to go and see him for two sessions...if he misses one time he goes bonkers and says that he's been deserted..... as well as the care costs. We pay for three hours a day for her mum who mercifully is well. Because of Brexit we have to come back to the UK but the guilt is crippling my wife, and all our Italian friends think we are cruel....
And then you have Isam who preaches that we do not do enough. Well what is enough?
Unlike Nick Clegg I don't agree with all of it (some bits I strongly disagree with) but it is unusually well put-together and argued.
It's an extremely well-argued piece. Unfortunately it's too late: he's restating the argument which lost on the 23rd June 2016.
Well quite, that ship has passed and irrespective of the speech itself, is Blair really the best person to deliver it? – ‘The British people must resist the government because they were misled by false claims’ says Tony Blair without a twinge of irony…
This is why Blair needs to accept he is best off leaving the public stage forever. There is nothing he can ever say that will not be dismissed because of Iraq. No cause of any kind that he believes in will be served by him expressing support for it. In fact, it will always be damaged. As someone who has never hated him, thinks that the Third Way is essentially the only way forward for social democracy and can understand why he did what he did over Iraq, I regret that - but them's the facts.
Blair says there's a cartel of media on the right. Not sure he watches much television.
If TV media is so biased, why are they not regularly prosecuted for not fulfilling their statutory obligation for impartiality?
Far too many on both the left and right associate pointing out awkward truths as bias.
Yep - bias = reporting news in ways I do not like. As you say, it's something that both the left and right accuse the broadcast media of.
And if both the left and right are complaining, that suggests that actually the news is being fairly reported.
There is something that does irritate me about news reports from all sides which shows (probably) unconscious bias: if some one 'admits' somthing rather than 'says', 'claims' rather than 'reveals', then the reporter has already put their own spin on the news.
When I was at the ONS my Grade 6 banned me from writing things like "just 6%". Even though the word "just" (or "only", another banned word) wasn't passing judgment on the meaning of the statistic - it was more about using language to signal to the reader that this is a small number - she felt that we had to be really careful not to imply that the figure should be higher.
How far will you go for your parents? Cleaning their arses perhaps because that is the expectation in Italy. We are lucky...we can pay for care for our elders but many Italians cannot. That said, the daily pressure of elderly parents is suffocating and stifling. A thankless task because you can never do enough. The elderly generation is crushing Italy with their exponentially rising needs as they live longer, and probably other countries like Japan too.
The last thing we want to do is to inflict that kind of misery on middle aged families in the UK. The statement the other day by that minister to shift responsibility onto families was ridiculous...
I personally think medical advances to keep immobile human beings alive at all costs is grotesque in the extreme. It starts with premature babies, it continues with people who are injured or suffer from serious illness, and it finishes with keeping old people alive through a sack of drugs. But in the western world we are increasingly growing the numbers of very unwell people. It's not the resources they take up that bothers me, it is the unrelenting, remorseless suffering and guilt that it places on families.
Well it depends what you think life is about. I think you can say the same about children as you are about parents. Yes it is stifling I am sure, but I am sure they were stifled by dealing with us as children. I suppose Darwinians would argue we could just let them die, but I wouldn't agree that is correct.
You have a point about keeping them alive through a sackful of drugs though. You could say that if they cant live a life without being tied to a machine in a hospital they would be better off dead, but I was more talking about dementia/alzheimers suffererers
OT. For all who missed it last nights thread is well worth a look. A 'Chance The Gardener' moment where PB's finest were attempting to interpret the genius of President Trump.
I've not read anything like it since Gore Vidal's 'Messiah'
Great movie Roger...it's one that I treat myself to from time to time. Chancey Gardner was a simple man unlike Trump who is utterly complex.
After watching snippets of the press conference last night, I felt some glimmer of hope you know. I think Trump's psychotic, narcissistic thirst for recognition and adulation, combined with the fact that he is a rampant opportunist might push him ultimately into doing the right thing.
There is a great scene in Schindlers list where Schindler convinces the Nazi commandant that it is better to spare Jews, if only for a time. That is what needs to happen to Trump.
Mr. Tyson, I have sympathy with that view. I do think we'll revisit it as a nation, but the problem is that resources is a factor, which will lead some/many to feel that any move to euthanasia or suchlike will be driven not by compassion but by the bottom line.
You couldn't make up Italy....the stigma of putting someone in a care home is bad enough. Many oldies are cared for at home by their daughters who live around the corner who clean them and change them.
At my father in laws care home some family members come for hours each day and sit with their parents...these are old people themselves who can no longer care for their parents at home. We pay for someone 5 hours a day to go and see him for two sessions...if he misses one time he goes bonkers and says that he's been deserted..... as well as the care costs. We pay for three hours a day for her mum who mercifully is well. Because of Brexit we have to come back to the UK but the guilt is crippling my wife, and all our Italian friends think we are cruel....
And then you have Isam who preaches that we do not do enough. Well what is enough?
Most people do not do what you do though. You're a bit of an idiot if you take what I said about society in general as a dig at you
Blair says there's a cartel of media on the right. Not sure he watches much television.
If TV media is so biased, why are they not regularly prosecuted for not fulfilling their statutory obligation for impartiality?
Far too many on both the left and right associate pointing out awkward truths as bias.
Yep - bias = reporting news in ways I do not like. As you say, it's something that both the left and right accuse the broadcast media of.
And if both the left and right are complaining, that suggests that actually the news is being fairly reported.
There is something that does irritate me about news reports from all sides which shows (probably) unconscious bias: if some one 'admits' somthing rather than 'says', 'claims' rather than 'reveals', then the reporter has already put their own spin on the news.
'understands' is another beauty.
And many reports of 'right-wing' organisations use the word 'hails' for some unknown reason.
On-topic, the government's change of line seems at this stage to be more mood music than reality. The word austerity may be gone, but there is still the deficit to be brought down, and the Treasury quite happy to use Brexit risk as a bogeyman. Likewise, on social conservatism, immigration cuts are promised in the future from Brexit, and grammar schools were offered as a token, but is there really any major reversal in social policy underway and exercising the contributers on here. I've not seen too much evidence yet.
Pulling a few cords and a bit of rhetoric in a certain direction, things having changed massively since the 1970s, does not a full return to Butskellism make as far as I can see.
OT. For all who missed it last nights thread is well worth a look. A 'Chance The Gardener' moment where PB's finest were attempting to interpret the genius of President Trump.
I've not read anything like it since Gore Vidal's 'Messiah'
Great movie Roger...it's one that I treat myself to from time to time. Chancey Gardner was a simple man.
After watching snippets of the press conference last night, I felt some glimmer of hope you know. I think Trump's psychotic, narcissistic thirst for recognition and adulation, combined with the fact that he is a rampant opportunist might push him ultimately into doing the right thing.
Until the last line I thought you were being serious!
On-topic, the government's change of line seems at this stage to be more mood music than reality. The word austerity may be gone, but there is still the deficit to be brought down, and the Treasury quite happy to use Brexit risk as a bogeyman. Likewise, on social conservatism, immigration cuts are promised in the future from Brexit, and grammar schools were offered as a token, but is there really any major reversal in social policy underway and exercising the contributers on here. I've not seen too much evidence yet.
Pulling a few cords and a bit of rhetoric in a certain direction, things having changed massively since the 1970s, does not a full return to Butskellism make as far as I can see.
Why is selection by ability regarded as more socially conservative than selection by ability to pay?
Comments
Far too many on both the left and right associate pointing out awkward truths as bias.
Will others pick up on the bat signal?
Blair's great idea: Leave voters will change their minds if Brexit is explained "in easy to understand ways"
There's no need to build the ovens. Labour is doing away with itself, no outside help needed....
For those keeping score:
Leaks: REAL
News: FAKE
Good polls: REAL
Bad polls: FAKE
Wikileaks: REAL
Things I say: DUNNO, SOMEONE TOLD ME
Tw@.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39002351
Either way, seizing on awkward photos is ridiculously childish, I guess the lefties are just making two wrongs a right after Ed and the sandwich.
There might be a rejoin one.
Would like to be a fly on the way next time he meets HMQ.
I'm not actually opposed to the general idea of DfID, but, as Charles says up thread, the fixation on the percentage of GDP rather than the outcomes desired must encourage huge waste. How many here have been in a department where you have money in a budget that must be spent by the end of the financial year or it is lost? How carefully considered were the spending decisions made?
Depends on the EU, though - if they say: OK we'll go back to Dave's deal and the status quo ante (ie no Schengen and Euro) then I can see it appealing to a group of voters.
Firstly, the Cameron government wasn't 'economically dry as dust'. Osborne managed the transition from the profligacy he inherited - let's never forget, Darling's spending was an eye-watering 33% more than income - towards a more sane balance very sensitively. Some people criticise him for getting spending under control far too slowly; certainly he gave a high priority to avoiding big rises in unemployment.
Secondly, I don't really see the sharp distinction between the May/Hammond government and the Cameron/Osborne one. Of course, the economic realities of Brexit mean that deficit reduction is having to be postponed yet again, but Hammond is simply maintaining Osborne's very successful approach of gently improving the public finances without scaring the horses. Nor do I see any big distinction on social issues; both May and Cameron are firmly in the one-nation Tory tradition, even though the personal styles of the two PMs are quite different.
Of course, over-arching all of this is Brexit. That will dominate Theresa May's premiership, whether she likes it or not. Minor differences in style or emphasis between her and her predecessor are a side-show.
Edit: Also, on immigration, what's the difference between Cameron and May? Both want to reduce net immigration substantially, which, given the humoungous numbers we've seen in recent years, is sensible emough. The only difference is that Brexit makes it a bit easier.
"Why is Tony Blair so unpopular"
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33849764
In a democracy, not everybody wins.
Did No kidnap Yes voters in Scotland?
The Scots recently voted to remain part of the UK. The UK recently voted to leave the EU. We could call these things democracy.
That Blair himself may be too tainted to get a hearing, or that facts have become unfashionable in this age of Trump, are separate matters.
Did you enjoy Donald's "presser" yesterday?
You get one guess.
Spain: 0.14
Italy:0.16
France: 0.36
Germany: 0.41
UK: 0.71
http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/documentupload/ODA 2014 Tables and Charts.pdf
https://docs.google.com/document/d/140ztvaHeLH7-v3C5pbhvzasYWd5VuQhzH4tHxyIkL0w/edit
Unlike Nick Clegg I don't agree with all of it (some bits I strongly disagree with) but it is unusually well put-together and argued.
hmmm
"Mr Speaker, let me ask my first question to the PM through the medium of interpretative dance"
On the speech, I listened to much of it. One thing that struck me was the rarity (total absence?) of 'the EU' in favour of his preferred 'Europe'.
The part on Scottish independence was nothing less than an attempt to wreck the UK if it doesn't turn the way he wants it to. Giving campaigning lines to a party that seeks to end the UK is not an act worthy of a former PM.
How far will you go for your parents? Cleaning their arses perhaps because that is the expectation in Italy. We are lucky...we can pay for care for our elders but many Italians cannot. That said, the daily pressure of elderly parents is suffocating and stifling. A thankless task because you can never do enough. The elderly generation is crushing Italy with their exponentially rising needs as they live longer, and probably other countries like Japan too.
The last thing we want to do is to inflict that kind of misery on middle aged families in the UK. The statement the other day by that minister to shift responsibility onto families was ridiculous...
I personally think medical advances to keep immobile human beings alive at all costs is grotesque in the extreme. It starts with premature babies, it continues with people who are injured or suffer from serious illness, and it finishes with keeping old people alive through a sack of drugs. But in the western world we are increasingly growing the numbers of very unwell people. It's not the resources they take up that bothers me, it is the unrelenting, remorseless suffering and guilt that it places on families.
Most people agreed his speech to Parliament that got us into the Iraq war so was masterpiece... And look how that turned out...
The bit with questions
FFW about 20mins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct0H_ndjavM
I've not read anything like it since Gore Vidal's 'Messiah'
#nowords
At my father in laws care home some family members come for hours each day and sit with their parents...these are old people themselves who can no longer care for their parents at home. We pay for someone 5 hours a day to go and see him for two sessions...if he misses one time he goes bonkers and says that he's been deserted..... as well as the care costs. We pay for three hours a day for her mum who mercifully is well. Because of Brexit we have to come back to the UK but the guilt is crippling my wife, and all our Italian friends think we are cruel....
And then you have Isam who preaches that we do not do enough. Well what is enough?
You have a point about keeping them alive through a sackful of drugs though. You could say that if they cant live a life without being tied to a machine in a hospital they would be better off dead, but I was more talking about dementia/alzheimers suffererers
After watching snippets of the press conference last night, I felt some glimmer of hope you know. I think Trump's psychotic, narcissistic thirst for recognition and adulation, combined with the fact that he is a rampant opportunist might push him ultimately into doing the right thing.
There is a great scene in Schindlers list where Schindler convinces the Nazi commandant that it is better to spare Jews, if only for a time. That is what needs to happen to Trump.
Pulling a few cords and a bit of rhetoric in a certain direction, things having changed massively since the 1970s, does not a full return to Butskellism make as far as I can see.
One of my favourite films too and prophetic
They don't ask, if your local councillor has snuffed it/been on the take/done a runner, how would you vote in a local by election?
"The LBC listeners are all extreme right wing fanatics."
Are you from Yorkshire? "They're all queer 'cept for me and thee. And I'm not so sure about thee."