Presumably they both realise that if May doesn't win (and that means doesn't get a majority) then the Fox takeover of Sky will be off.
OFCOM report back to Culture Secretary has been delayed until after GE so deal can't be approved before then.
And zero chance anything other than a Con majority Government will approve it, whatever OFCOM says.
I think the way it works is that Murdoch leaves the day to day headlines to his editors (contrary to popular opinion he isn't on the phone every day telling his editors word for word what he wants them to write) but he does make the "big calls" so if/when The Sun formally endorses Theresa that endorsement will come from Rupert.
Far too many people here seem absolutely convinced that no unlikely thing can ever happen when, if the last year at has taught us nothing else, we ought to know that unlikely s**t happens all the time.
The Tories getting 50% in the election is quite unlikely...
Why do you say that?
My 2 cents:
1. The historical trends are unfavourable. No party has gained 50% since WW2, and the winning party %age has trended sharply downhill.
2. The Tories got 36% just 2 years ago. Britain is an equable country and we are an equable people. I can't see the Tories putting on 14% in such a short space of time, especially when so little has changed. Don't laugh: Labour were already pretty useless last time, and Brexit although huge is still only one factor among many others.
3. Although Labour are tanking, the Tories aren't the only game in town. There is still the LibDems, Greens and Ukip, so ex-Labour voters do have other options. Having said that, it's likely that none of those parties, especially Ukip, will put up a full slate of candidates, so that'll push the Tories a bit closer to 50.
If I were a betting man I'd plump for 43%...
The Tories actually polled 37.8% in GB 2 years ago.
I see the NFL is involved to some extent in the financing of Tottenham's new stadium. They plan to have 2 NFL games there each year for a decade from 2018-19.
This season they have back to back games at both Wembley and Twickenham.
If Tessa does lose this election would she be allowed to stay on as LOTO? Or would it finally be the moment for Boris to seize the crown?
If Tessa loses this election against Jezza, she'll have been no confidenced by the Tory party before the sun has risen on June 9th
Maybe George will be wishing he'd hung around in a few weeks...
George can still lead from the Lords until a seat opens up.
But I'm glad more and more PBers are now saying what I've been saying for months.
Theresa May is fucking crap.
Within a few months you'll be praying that George Osborne becomes PM.
Dumping the tax lock will be the last straw for me. Spoke to my dad today and he's 9n the same train. What are we if we're not for low taxation. Hammond is rubbish and needs to be sacked.
Low taxation doesn't mean backing yourself into a corner or springing an elephant trap for yourself. It's an albatross around the neck of government. Watering it down doesn't mean suddenly we are going to steal Melenchons tax plans, just a little extra wiggle room. I'd be happy if they had specific things in mind like for instance a large increase in the upper earnings limit coupled with moves to bring the lower limit up nearer the income tax threshold plus some move on the self employed anomalies.
No, but the government dumping it weeks after having to U-turn on tax rises is enough to raise suspicion that this is going to be a tax and spend administration.
Theresa May has enough unfunded hobby horses of her own and Hammond doesn't have the balls to grasp the nettle of in working benefits and corporate subsidies for Starbucks and other poorly paying employers.
As you might be able to tell, I'm incensed by this decision. We are not the party of raising tax, the tax lock shouldn't be difficult to adhere to for a proper small state Conservative. The issue is that Theresa is a big government Conservative, she believes in the power of the state rather than the individual.
You have and the other whingers on here have nowhere to go. You can set up your own 1% elite libertarian party. good luck with that!
The Tories outperformed EVERY poll (But 1) in terms of vote share as the polls should have been measuring it.
The Tories ended up on 36.9%, but this includes NI - without NI they got 37.8%. No poll had 38%, one poll in the entirety of 2015 had them on 39%. Most polls overestimated Labour too.
Wasn't this the famous PB golden rule of polling? The Tories always do better than the polls say. Or perhaps it was the opposite: Labour always do worse than they indicate.
I think OGH's golden rule was that the lowest Labour poll score was the most likely to be right.
Sky News on May's potentially unpopular decisions on tax, pensions and aid:
The fact that the Prime Minister is able to make (or not make) these pledges is telling.
It seems inconceivable that David Cameron would have retreated from these vote-winning measures in 2015 when he felt the Labour party was breathing down his neck.
Likewise he assumed he wouldn't win the 2015 election outright and therefore that manifesto was not meant to be the governing document.
He assumed he would have to trade away measures in negotiations with the Lib Dems so felt he could be looser with the manifesto's contents.
For Theresa May and Philip Hammond, they neither perceive a threat from the opposition nor do they believe they will have to build a coalition.
Whatever is in their manifesto they will find themselves attached to and expected to uphold, lest they risk the wrath of the electorate. Therefore they're being careful.
And with an expected big win, feel they can take a few unpopular decisions now and spare themselves trouble later.
I see it doesn't take much for panic to set in. The election isn't in full swing yet, these are the early skirmishes. Clearly the PM intends to fight this election in her way and on her terms. That's fine. Scrapping the aid target would be silly, the amounts are minuscule in the grand scheme of things. It's perfectly reasonable to keep the target and look at how it's delivered. On the triple lock I think it's wise to look at it, at the moment government policy is massively intergenerationally unfair. The tax lock needs to be revised in some way because it is overly prescriptive, I think there are ways of squaring it. I tend to be on the side of promissory minimalism in that the less you pledge the less you can be caught breaking. Also the more loosely you draw whatever promises you do make the more leeway you have if things turn sour.
The Labour campaign is a catastrophe it is scooting along just above implosion already. It isn't going to survive the full onslaught. Now will that translate into a vote and seat meltdown? Possibly. I think the polls will narrow slightly, I suspect the Conservatives will win by 15 points it thereabouts not the 20-25 of current polling. It will be a substantial victory.
The problem isn't that the government want to get rid of the tax lock for the sake of flexibility, they want to do it to raise taxes so they can spend more money. How is that any different from what Labour would do? How can any self-respecting Conservative defend tax and spend. It is and has always been a disaster.
There is some targeted additional spend, and I'd far rather it was funded through taxation than additional borrowing. Not all additional spending is bad. Also the process of Brexit will impact economic performance, id rather the government hadn't hamstrung itself in terms of dealing with it. Im as averse to tax raising and unnecessary spending as any conservative but I try to avoid becoming an ideologue about it.
So when we do it it's targeted spending, when Labour do it it's splurging. Why bother being a Tory government if we're going to raise taxes, just draft in Ed Miliband and let him be PM.
If Tessa does lose this election would she be allowed to stay on as LOTO? Or would it finally be the moment for Boris to seize the crown?
If Tessa loses this election against Jezza, she'll have been no confidenced by the Tory party before the sun has risen on June 9th
Maybe George will be wishing he'd hung around in a few weeks...
George can still lead from the Lords until a seat opens up.
But I'm glad more and more PBers are now saying what I've been saying for months.
Theresa May is fucking crap.
Within a few months you'll be praying that George Osborne becomes PM.
Dumping the tax lock will be the last straw for me. Spoke to my dad today and he's 9n the same train. What are we if we're not for low taxation. Hammond is rubbish and needs to be sacked.
A serious question Max.
Which would you chose:
Low tax or balanced books ?
Cut spending and achieve both.
So what £50bn plus from current government spending would you cut ?
Tax credits, housing benefits for in working people.
The Tories outperformed EVERY poll (But 1) in terms of vote share as the polls should have been measuring it.
The Tories ended up on 36.9%, but this includes NI - without NI they got 37.8%. No poll had 38%, one poll in the entirety of 2015 had them on 39%. Most polls overestimated Labour too.
Wasn't this the famous PB golden rule of polling? The Tories always do better than the polls say. Or perhaps it was the opposite: Labour always do worse than they indicate.
I think OGH's golden rule was that the lowest Labour poll score was the most likely to be right.
That rule failed in 2010 but worked in 2015.
I suspect that the Cleggasm affected things somehow.
Theresa,make sure you look straight into the camera if you do any leaders debates ;-) sure fire winner.
I see it doesn't take much for panic to set in. The election isn't in full swing yet, these are the early skirmishes. Clearly the PM intends to fight this election in her way and on her terms. That's fine. Scrapping the aid target would be silly, the amounts are minuscule in the grand scheme of things. It's perfectly reasonable to keep the target and look at how it's delivered. On the triple lock I think it's wise to look at it, at the moment government policy is massively intergenerationally unfair. The tax lock needs to be revised in some way because it is overly prescriptive, I think there are ways of squaring it. I tend to be on the side of promissory minimalism in that the less you pledge the less you can be caught breaking. Also the more loosely you draw whatever promises you do make the more leeway you have if things turn sour.
The Labour campaign is a catastrophe it is scooting along just above implosion already. It isn't going to survive the full onslaught. Now will that translate into a vote and seat meltdown? Possibly. I think the polls will narrow slightly, I suspect the Conservatives will win by 15 points it thereabouts not the 20-25 of current polling. It will be a substantial victory.
The problem isn't that the government want to get rid of the tax lock for the sake of flexibility, they want to do it to raise taxes so they can spend more money. How is that any different from what Labour would do? How can any self-respecting Conservative defend tax and spend. It is and has always been a disaster.
Is that true? The pledge stopped them shuffling NI around because they couldn't raise any individual part even though it wouldn't have bumped up the total take, right?
If Tessa does lose this election would she be allowed to stay on as LOTO? Or would it finally be the moment for Boris to seize the crown?
If Tessa loses this election against Jezza, she'll have been no confidenced by the Tory party before the sun has risen on June 9th
Maybe George will be wishing he'd hung around in a few weeks...
George can still lead from the Lords until a seat opens up.
But I'm glad more and more PBers are now saying what I've been saying for months.
Theresa May is fucking crap.
Within a few months you'll be praying that George Osborne becomes PM.
t may is crap osborne is even worse if ever a man deserved being sodomized with a wire haired toilet brush it is george osborne
Now I think it's widely known on here that I'm no fan of Osborne (indeed the one and only time I got bitch-slapped from OGH himself was when I called George a "creep")
I see it doesn't take much for panic to set in. The election isn't in full swing yet, these are the early skirmishes. Clearly the PM intends to fight this election in her way and on her terms. That's fine. Scrapping the aid target would be silly, the amounts are minuscule in the grand scheme of things. It's perfectly reasonable to keep the target and look at how it's delivered. On the triple lock I think it's wise to look at it, at the moment government policy is massively intergenerationally unfair. The tax lock needs to be revised in some way because it is overly prescriptive, I think there are ways of squaring it. I tend to be on the side of promissory minimalism in that the less you pledge the less you can be caught breaking. Also the more loosely you draw whatever promises you do make the more leeway you have if things turn sour.
The Labour campaign is a catastrophe it is scooting along just above implosion already. It isn't going to survive the full onslaught. Now will that translate into a vote and seat meltdown? Possibly. I think the polls will narrow slightly, I suspect the Conservatives will win by 15 points it thereabouts not the 20-25 of current polling. It will be a substantial victory.
The problem isn't that the government want to get rid of the tax lock for the sake of flexibility, they want to do it to raise taxes so they can spend more money. How is that any different from what Labour would do? How can any self-respecting Conservative defend tax and spend. It is and has always been a disaster.
Is that true? The pledge stopped them shuffling NI around because they couldn't raise any individual part even though it wouldn't have bumped up the total take, right?
The total take was going to rise by £0.4bn per year from that policy. It was a tax raising measure disguised as fairness.
If Tessa does lose this election would she be allowed to stay on as LOTO? Or would it finally be the moment for Boris to seize the crown?
If Tessa loses this election against Jezza, she'll have been no confidenced by the Tory party before the sun has risen on June 9th
Maybe George will be wishing he'd hung around in a few weeks...
George can still lead from the Lords until a seat opens up.
But I'm glad more and more PBers are now saying what I've been saying for months.
Theresa May is fucking crap.
Within a few months you'll be praying that George Osborne becomes PM.
Dumping the tax lock will be the last straw for me. Spoke to my dad today and he's 9n the same train. What are we if we're not for low taxation. Hammond is rubbish and needs to be sacked.
Low taxation doesn't mean backing yourself into a corner or springing an elephant trap for yourself. It's an albatross around the neck of government. Watering it down doesn't mean suddenly we are going to steal Melenchons tax plans, just a little extra wiggle room. I'd be happy if they had specific things in mind like for instance a large increase in the upper earnings limit coupled with moves to bring the lower limit up nearer the income tax threshold plus some move on the self employed anomalies.
No, but the government dumping it weeks after having to U-turn on tax rises is enough to raise suspicion that this is going to be a tax and spend administration.
Theresa May has enough unfunded hobby horses of her own and Hammond doesn't have the balls to grasp the nettle of in working benefits and corporate subsidies for Starbucks and other poorly paying employers.
As you might be able to tell, I'm incensed by this decision. We are not the party of raising tax, the tax lock shouldn't be difficult to adhere to for a proper small state Conservative. The issue is that Theresa is a big government Conservative, she believes in the power of the state rather than the individual.
You have and the other whingers on here have nowhere to go. You can set up your own 1% elite libertarian party. good luck with that!
If Tessa does lose this election would she be allowed to stay on as LOTO? Or would it finally be the moment for Boris to seize the crown?
If Tessa loses this election against Jezza, she'll have been no confidenced by the Tory party before the sun has risen on June 9th
Maybe George will be wishing he'd hung around in a few weeks...
George can still lead from the Lords until a seat opens up.
But I'm glad more and more PBers are now saying what I've been saying for months.
Theresa May is fucking crap.
Within a few months you'll be praying that George Osborne becomes PM.
t may is crap osborne is even worse if ever a man deserved being sodomized with a wire haired toilet brush it is george osborne
Now I think it's widely known on here that I'm no fan of Osborne (indeed the one and only time I got bitch-slapped from OGH himself was when I called George a "creep")
But even I wouldn't go that far...
then you are far too kind, I was being restrained in my contempt for the man
If Tessa does lose this election would she be allowed to stay on as LOTO? Or would it finally be the moment for Boris to seize the crown?
If Tessa loses this election against Jezza, she'll have been no confidenced by the Tory party before the sun has risen on June 9th
Maybe George will be wishing he'd hung around in a few weeks...
George can still lead from the Lords until a seat opens up.
But I'm glad more and more PBers are now saying what I've been saying for months.
Theresa May is fucking crap.
Within a few months you'll be praying that George Osborne becomes PM.
Dumping the tax lock will be the last straw for me. Spoke to my dad today and he's 9n the same train. What are we if we're not for low taxation. Hammond is rubbish and needs to be sacked.
Low taxation doesn't mean backing yourself into a corner or springing an elephant trap for yourself. It's an albatross around the neck of government. Watering it down doesn't mean suddenly we are going to steal Melenchons tax plans, just a little extra wiggle room. I'd be happy if they had specific things in mind like for instance a large increase in the upper earnings limit coupled with moves to bring the lower limit up nearer the income tax threshold plus some move on the self employed anomalies.
No, but the government dumping it weeks after having to U-turn on tax rises is enough to raise suspicion that this is going to be a tax and spend administration.
Theresa May has enough unfunded hobby horses of her own and Hammond doesn't have the balls to grasp the nettle of in working benefits and corporate subsidies for Starbucks and other poorly paying employers.
As you might be able to tell, I'm incensed by this decision. We are not the party of raising tax, the tax lock shouldn't be difficult to adhere to for a proper small state Conservative. The issue is that Theresa is a big government Conservative, she believes in the power of the state rather than the individual.
I think she just gets that if the state simply retreats some people fall through the cracks. I often think we get terminology wrong in respect of government. What is required is an effective state first and foremost. The trouble is the left think hyper involvement which usually bloats is effective. The right then see the bloating and trim but create a small ineffective state. I want a state no bigger than it needs to be effective in allowing the individual to flourish and supporting those who need more intervention.
If Tessa does lose this election would she be allowed to stay on as LOTO? Or would it finally be the moment for Boris to seize the crown?
If Tessa loses this election against Jezza, she'll have been no confidenced by the Tory party before the sun has risen on June 9th
Maybe George will be wishing he'd hung around in a few weeks...
George can still lead from the Lords until a seat opens up.
But I'm glad more and more PBers are now saying what I've been saying for months.
Theresa May is fucking crap.
Within a few months you'll be praying that George Osborne becomes PM.
Dumping the tax lock will be the last straw for me. Spoke to my dad today and he's 9n the same train. What are we if we're not for low taxation. Hammond is rubbish and needs to be sacked.
Low taxation doesn't mean backing yourself into a corner or springing an elephant trap for yourself. It's an albatross around the neck of government. Watering it down doesn't mean suddenly we are going to steal Melenchons tax plans, just a little extra wiggle room. I'd be happy if they had specific things in mind like for instance a large increase in the upper earnings limit coupled with moves to bring the lower limit up nearer the income tax threshold plus some move on the self employed anomalies.
No, but the government dumping it weeks after having to U-turn on tax rises is enough to raise suspicion that this is going to be a tax and spend administration.
Theresa May has enough unfunded hobby horses of her own and Hammond doesn't have the balls to grasp the nettle of in working benefits and corporate subsidies for Starbucks and other poorly paying employers.
As you might be able to tell, I'm incensed by this decision. We are not the party of raising tax, the tax lock shouldn't be difficult to adhere to for a proper small state Conservative. The issue is that Theresa is a big government Conservative, she believes in the power of the state rather than the individual.
You have and the other whingers on here have nowhere to go. You can set up your own 1% elite libertarian party. good luck with that!
I hope May stays on course with this.
True, but I won't be taking time off work to campaign or help out now, and I'm definitely not going to make a donation.
The Conservatives may stick with 0.7% of GDP spent on Development aid but what counts as aid will change to include the defence of developing nations and improving their governance and reducing their crime for example.d
The Tories outperformed EVERY poll (But 1) in terms of vote share as the polls should have been measuring it.
The Tories ended up on 36.9%, but this includes NI - without NI they got 37.8%. No poll had 38%, one poll in the entirety of 2015 had them on 39%. Most polls overestimated Labour too.
Wasn't this the famous PB golden rule of polling? The Tories always do better than the polls say. Or perhaps it was the opposite: Labour always do worse than they indicate.
I think OGH's golden rule was that the lowest Labour poll score was the most likely to be right.
That rule failed in 2010 but worked in 2015.
I suspect that the Cleggasm affected things somehow.
Nah most of the polls got Labour in the 28%-29% range versus their actual score of 29.7%
governement should ensure the isle is defended,the isle is policed, every person should have a roof over their head, medical care, food on the table and clothes on their back. Want more than that then fucking work for it
Shocking fact in the France article posted earlier. It's not just the United States.
"In January 2016, the national statistical institute Insée announced that life expectancy had fallen for both sexes in France for the first time since World War II, and it’s the native French working class that is likely driving the decline."
I see it doesn't take much for panic to set in. The election isn't in full swing yet, these are the early skirmishes. Clearly the PM intends to fight this election in her way and on her terms. That's fine. Scrapping the aid target would be silly, the amounts are minuscule in the grand scheme of things. It's perfectly reasonable to keep the target and look at how it's delivered. On the triple lock I think it's wise to look at it, at the moment government policy is massively intergenerationally unfair. The tax lock needs to be revised in some way because it is overly prescriptive, I think there are ways of squaring it. I tend to be on the side of promissory minimalism in that the less you pledge the less you can be caught breaking. Also the more loosely you draw whatever promises you do make the more leeway you have if things turn sour.
The Labour campaign is a catastrophe it is scooting along just above implosion already. It isn't going to survive the full onslaught. Now will that translate into a vote and seat meltdown? Possibly. I think the polls will narrow slightly, I suspect the Conservatives will win by 15 points it thereabouts not the 20-25 of current polling. It will be a substantial victory.
The problem isn't that the government want to get rid of the tax lock for the sake of flexibility, they want to do it to raise taxes so they can spend more money. How is that any different from what Labour would do? How can any self-respecting Conservative defend tax and spend. It is and has always been a disaster.
Is that true? The pledge stopped them shuffling NI around because they couldn't raise any individual part even though it wouldn't have bumped up the total take, right?
The total take was going to rise by £0.4bn per year from that policy. It was a tax raising measure disguised as fairness.
Government spending is nearly £800bn, the deficit several tens of billions and you're quibbling over a sum that is little more than an accounting error.
If Tessa does lose this election would she be allowed to stay on as LOTO? Or would it finally be the moment for Boris to seize the crown?
If Tessa loses this election against Jezza, she'll have been no confidenced by the Tory party before the sun has risen on June 9th
Maybe George will be wishing he'd hung around in a few weeks...
George can still lead from the Lords until a seat opens up.
But I'm glad more and more PBers are now saying what I've been saying for months.
Theresa May is fucking crap.
Within a few months you'll be praying that George Osborne becomes PM.
Dumping the tax lock will be the last straw for me. Spoke to my dad today and he's 9n the same train. What are we if we're not for low taxation. Hammond is rubbish and needs to be sacked.
Low taxation is good but a balanced budget is better, not least because reducing the debt over time will allow taxes to be cut permanently.
If the government had given up on low tax, it'd be proposing all sorts of new spending.
I see it doesn't take much for panic to set in. The election isn't in full swing yet, these are the early skirmishes. Clearly the PM intends to fight this election in her way and on her terms. That's fine. Scrapping the aid target would be silly, the amounts are minuscule in the grand scheme of things. It's perfectly reasonable to keep the target and look at how it's delivered. On the triple lock I think it's wise to look at it, at the moment government policy is massively intergenerationally unfair. The tax lock needs to be revised in some way because it is overly prescriptive, I think there are ways of squaring it. I tend to be on the side of promissory minimalism in that the less you pledge the less you can be caught breaking. Also the more loosely you draw whatever promises you do make the more leeway you have if things turn sour.
The Labour campaign is a catastrophe it is scooting along just above implosion already. It isn't going to survive the full onslaught. Now will that translate into a vote and seat meltdown? Possibly. I think the polls will narrow slightly, I suspect the Conservatives will win by 15 points it thereabouts not the 20-25 of current polling. It will be a substantial victory.
The problem isn't that the government want to get rid of the tax lock for the sake of flexibility, they want to do it to raise taxes so they can spend more money. How is that any different from what Labour would do? How can any self-respecting Conservative defend tax and spend. It is and has always been a disaster.
There is some targeted additional spend, and I'd far rather it was funded through taxation than additional borrowing. Not all additional spending is bad. Also the process of Brexit will impact economic performance, id rather the government hadn't hamstrung itself in terms of dealing with it. Im as averse to tax raising and unnecessary spending as any conservative but I try to avoid becoming an ideologue about it.
So when we do it it's targeted spending, when Labour do it it's splurging. Why bother being a Tory government if we're going to raise taxes, just draft in Ed Miliband and let him be PM.
UK government spending fell to its lowest point around the time we decided not to join the Euro and then started climbing. If only Ken Clarke had been in Number 11 instead of Gordon Brown...
I see it doesn't take much for panic to set in. The election isn't in full swing yet, these are the early skirmishes. Clearly the PM intends to fight this election in her way and on her terms. That's fine. Scrapping the aid target would be silly, the amounts are minuscule in the grand scheme of things. It's perfectly reasonable to keep the target and look at how it's delivered. On the triple lock I think it's wise to look at it, at the moment government policy is massively intergenerationally unfair. The tax lock needs to be revised in some way because it is overly prescriptive, I think there are ways of squaring it. I tend to be on the side of promissory minimalism in that the less you pledge the less you can be caught breaking. Also the more loosely you draw whatever promises you do make the more leeway you have if things turn sour.
The Labour campaign is a catastrophe it is scooting along just above implosion already. It isn't going to survive the full onslaught. Now will that translate into a vote and seat meltdown? Possibly. I think the polls will narrow slightly, I suspect the Conservatives will win by 15 points it thereabouts not the 20-25 of current polling. It will be a substantial victory.
The problem isn't that the government want to get rid of the tax lock for the sake of flexibility, they want to do it to raise taxes so they can spend more money. How is that any different from what Labour would do? How can any self-respecting Conservative defend tax and spend. It is and has always been a disaster.
Is that true? The pledge stopped them shuffling NI around because they couldn't raise any individual part even though it wouldn't have bumped up the total take, right?
The total take was going to rise by £0.4bn per year from that policy. It was a tax raising measure disguised as fairness.
There is some targeted additional spend, and I'd far rather it was funded through taxation than additional borrowing. Not all additional spending is bad. Also the process of Brexit will impact economic performance, id rather the government hadn't hamstrung itself in terms of dealing with it. Im as averse to tax raising and unnecessary spending as any conservative but I try to avoid becoming an ideologue about it.
So when we do it it's targeted spending, when Labour do it it's splurging. Why bother being a Tory government if we're going to raise taxes, just draft in Ed Miliband and let him be PM.
Because Labour were massively increasing taxes with NI shooting up repeatedly under the last Labour government. NI being a particularly pernicious tax because a so-called "penny" increase is actually a 2% increase in tax - one percent of wages taken off the employee and a further one percent off the employer too.
However just a few weeks ago the government tried to do a tidying up exercise to fix a problem with NI. The primary NI rate was not getting changed, most people affected would be paying less tax - and overall the reform was on its own merits regarded as fair and reasonable. But it broke the manifesto promise so was dropped.
I would very much like to see NI abolished and merged into income tax with the thresholds getting aligned and employers NI abolished. To do that right would be a sane reform that would reduce bureaucracy, reduce overall taxes, reduce the tax burden on employing people. But it would increase some tax rates/bands to make up for others getting reduced/abolished. If it isn't possible to do even simple reforms like the NI reform then what hope is there of wholesale improvements to the system like this with this commitment in place?
I see it doesn't take much for panic to set in. The election isn't in full swing yet, these are the early skirmishes. Clearly the PM intends to fight this election in her way and on her terms. That's fine. Scrapping the aid target would be silly, the amounts are minuscule in the grand scheme of things. It's perfectly reasonable to keep the target and look at how it's delivered. On the triple lock I think it's wise to look at it, at the moment government policy is massively intergenerationally unfair. The tax lock needs to be revised in some way because it is overly prescriptive, I think there are ways of squaring it. I tend to be on the side of promissory minimalism in that the less you pledge the less you can be caught breaking. Also the more loosely you draw whatever promises you do make the more leeway you have if things turn sour.
The Labour campaign is a catastrophe it is scooting along just above implosion already. It isn't going to survive the full onslaught. Now will that translate into a vote and seat meltdown? Possibly. I think the polls will narrow slightly, I suspect the Conservatives will win by 15 points it thereabouts not the 20-25 of current polling. It will be a substantial victory.
The problem isn't that the government want to get rid of the tax lock for the sake of flexibility, they want to do it to raise taxes so they can spend more money. How is that any different from what Labour would do? How can any self-respecting Conservative defend tax and spend. It is and has always been a disaster.
There is some targeted additional spend, and I'd far rather it was funded through taxation than additional borrowing. Not all additional spending is bad. Also the process of Brexit will impact economic performance, id rather the government hadn't hamstrung itself in terms of dealing with it. Im as averse to tax raising and unnecessary spending as any conservative but I try to avoid becoming an ideologue about it.
So when we do it it's targeted spending, when Labour do it it's splurging. Why bother being a Tory government if we're going to raise taxes, just draft in Ed Miliband and let him be PM.
You're young aren't you? And you've clearly never looked after a set of accounts, much less engaged with public spending or empathised with those it helps. The world isn't black and white, and Governments (even Tory ones) need the flexibility to manage the public finances in a way that carries the public.
For God sake,the con's should be on the front foot with 20% lead but what have had is theresa running away from tv debates,Theresa running away from pension lock,Theresa running away from tax hikes and the only firm hard stance is on oversea's aid - which is a vote loser in my opinion.
What we have got is corbyn on the front foot,pull your f-king finger out Theresa.
I know radio 4 is hardly representative, but they had a Labour MP on to talk about the disaster that Jeremy Corbyn is. I don't suppose they have to look very hard for these Corbyn-knifing Labour MPs, and they could have a different one on Today/The World at One/The World Tonight and probably not have to give out any repeat appearances during the election campaign.
The election campaign will determine whether May can achieve a 1931-style landslide, or merely one of 1983 proportions. The Coalition of Chaos messaging is going to be hammered home relentlessly, and the Labour infighting will make it look only too real.
By the way, who is selecting all the new Conservative MPs that are about to win seats off Labour?
The total take was going to rise by £0.4bn per year from that policy. It was a tax raising measure disguised as fairness.
Government spending is nearly £800bn, the deficit several tens of billions and you're quibbling over a sum that is little more than an accounting error.
£0.4billion is 400 million pounds. From memory, that's two hospitals.
Shocking fact in the France article posted earlier. It's not just the United States.
"In January 2016, the national statistical institute Insée announced that life expectancy had fallen for both sexes in France for the first time since World War II, and it’s the native French working class that is likely driving the decline."
Shocking fact in the France article posted earlier. It's not just the United States.
"In January 2016, the national statistical institute Insée announced that life expectancy had fallen for both sexes in France for the first time since World War II, and it’s the native French working class that is likely driving the decline."
The total take was going to rise by £0.4bn per year from that policy. It was a tax raising measure disguised as fairness.
Government spending is nearly £800bn, the deficit several tens of billions and you're quibbling over a sum that is little more than an accounting error.
£0.4billion is 400 million pounds. From memory, that's two hospitals.
It's one and one seventh of a hospital from memory.
The world isn't black and white, and Governments (even Tory ones) need the flexibility to manage the public finances in a way that carries the public.
Fair point, but MaxPB is right: the Conservatives are not behaving like the low-tax free-trade libertarian Atlanticist party it previously presented itself as. In fairness to May, she never pretended to be that.
The Tories outperformed EVERY poll (But 1) in terms of vote share as the polls should have been measuring it.
The Tories ended up on 36.9%, but this includes NI - without NI they got 37.8%. No poll had 38%, one poll in the entirety of 2015 had them on 39%. Most polls overestimated Labour too.
Wasn't this the famous PB golden rule of polling? The Tories always do better than the polls say. Or perhaps it was the opposite: Labour always do worse than they indicate.
I think OGH's golden rule was that the lowest Labour poll score was the most likely to be right.
That rule failed in 2010 but worked in 2015.
I suspect that the Cleggasm affected things somehow.
Theresa,make sure you look straight into the camera if you do any leaders debates ;-) sure fire winner.
The total take was going to rise by £0.4bn per year from that policy. It was a tax raising measure disguised as fairness.
Government spending is nearly £800bn, the deficit several tens of billions and you're quibbling over a sum that is little more than an accounting error.
£0.4billion is 400 million pounds. From memory, that's two hospitals.
Looking at the Total Labour Seats Over/Under markets, those nice folk at Skybet appear to offer the best deal with the customary 5/6 either way odds on Labour winning MORE than 160.5 seats. This compares favourably with the current mid-spread prices where Sporting goes 171 seats and Spreadex 173 seats ..... appreciably higher in both cases. The 161+ Labour seats level at which the bookie would pay out compares with the total of 232 seats which the party won in 2015, thereby requiring a net reduction of up to 71 seats before the bet would be lost. That looks fair value to me, but DYOR.
What a difference a day makes, or even a few hours.
Reading the posts on here this evening (not least those of Ave_it who seems to have jumped ship) and you could easily convince yourself that the forthcoming GE is going to be a mightily close run thing!
The papers can hardly run seven weeks of "Tory Landslide" alternating with "Loony Corbyn" (and Arctic Blast/Summer Scorcher if you're the Express)
The total take was going to rise by £0.4bn per year from that policy. It was a tax raising measure disguised as fairness.
Government spending is nearly £800bn, the deficit several tens of billions and you're quibbling over a sum that is little more than an accounting error.
£0.4billion is 400 million pounds. From memory, that's two hospitals.
It's one and one seventh of a hospital from memory.
To build it? The site and (some of) the kit? Depends what you call a hospital but for a DGH you're at £400m plus. But then you have to staff, run, and maintain it every year. It doesn't matter if we're talking hospitals or frigates it's the whole life cost that kills you. In that context £400m really is a rounding error. But then we know what Reagan had to say on the odd 100m adding up.
Shocking fact in the France article posted earlier. It's not just the United States.
"In January 2016, the national statistical institute Insée announced that life expectancy had fallen for both sexes in France for the first time since World War II, and it’s the native French working class that is likely driving the decline."
I suspect that's why AndyJS started his comment with "It's not just the United States"
I understand even the US middle-class, particularly women, are being hit hard by prescription drug addiction and this is reducing life expectancy. Not sure how much political will there is to deal with the issue, but I was impressed by Chris Christie:
The world isn't black and white, and Governments (even Tory ones) need the flexibility to manage the public finances in a way that carries the public.
Fair point, but MaxPB is right: the Conservatives are not behaving like the low-tax free-trade libertarian Atlanticist party it previously presented itself as. In fairness to May, she never pretended to be that.
Wasn't May the Tory Home Secretary who cut police budgets and police numbers? She's hardly a high-spending statist.
Exactly. With Ukip a smouldering ruin, she's very close now to uniting the Right; this also leaves low-tax libertarians with nowhere else to go. So she can now turn her attention to chunks of Labour's working class base, including (but not limited to) those who have broken the Labour habit by voting Ukip in the past, and may now be ready to complete the journey to her side. The aim must surely be to build a 21st Century version of pre-Thatcher, One Nation Toryism, and to create a huge new voter coalition revolving, basically, around provincial, small-c conservative values.
Socialists and liberal internationalists aren't going to like it very much, but the Tories are going to try to sweep up just about everybody else.
True (unfortunately): I doubt I would enjoy such an outcome.
But consider the irony: by rejecting the low-tax free-trade Hayekian past that Thatcher embodied, and instead becoming small-town, small-c, dirigiste, inward-looking, high-tax-and-spend, focussed on meeting needs but careless of dreams, she is, possibly deliberately, enacting a final European victory: she's turning the Conservative Party into Christian Democrats...
The world isn't black and white, and Governments (even Tory ones) need the flexibility to manage the public finances in a way that carries the public.
Fair point, but MaxPB is right: the Conservatives are not behaving like the low-tax free-trade libertarian Atlanticist party it previously presented itself as. In fairness to May, she never pretended to be that.
Wasn't May the Tory Home Secretary who cut police budgets and police numbers? She's hardly a high-spending statist.
There is some targeted additional spend, and I'd far rather it was funded through taxation than additional borrowing. Not all additional spending is bad. Also the process of Brexit will impact economic performance, id rather the government hadn't hamstrung itself in terms of dealing with it. Im as averse to tax raising and unnecessary spending as any conservative but I try to avoid becoming an ideologue about it.
So when we do it it's targeted spending, when Labour do it it's splurging. Why bother being a Tory government if we're going to raise taxes, just draft in Ed Miliband and let him be PM.
Because Labour were massively increasing taxes with NI shooting up repeatedly under the last Labour government. NI being a particularly pernicious tax because a so-called "penny" increase is actually a 2% increase in tax - one percent of wages taken off the employee and a further one percent off the employer too.
However just a few weeks ago the government tried to do a tidying up exercise to fix a problem with NI. The primary NI rate was not getting changed, most people affected would be paying less tax - and overall the reform was on its own merits regarded as fair and reasonable. But it broke the manifesto promise so was dropped.
I would very much like to see NI abolished and merged into income tax with the thresholds getting aligned and employers NI abolished. To do that right would be a sane reform that would reduce bureaucracy, reduce overall taxes, reduce the tax burden on employing people. But it would increase some tax rates/bands to make up for others getting reduced/abolished. If it isn't possible to do even simple reforms like the NI reform then what hope is there of wholesale improvements to the system like this with this commitment in place?
Thank you Mr Thompson,
I agree, but you have articulated that better than I could. For what it is worth I would go further and abolish things like ISAs anything and everything to keep the system simple and the standard rate as low as possible.
The total take was going to rise by £0.4bn per year from that policy. It was a tax raising measure disguised as fairness.
Government spending is nearly £800bn, the deficit several tens of billions and you're quibbling over a sum that is little more than an accounting error.
£0.4billion is 400 million pounds. From memory, that's two hospitals.
It's one and one seventh of a hospital from memory.
To build it? The site and (some of) the kit? Depends what you call a hospital but for a DGH you're at £400m plus. But then you have to staff, run, and maintain it every year. It doesn't matter if we're talking hospitals or frigates it's the whole life cost that kills you. In that context £400m really is a rounding error. But then we know what Reagan had to say on the odd 100m adding up.
Weirdly (and just to move the goalposts for a second), about seven years ago there were still some of the old village hospitals around, with about six beds. They were in North Wales I think
Corbyn ... Negatives - Stuck in 1967, illiterate, barmy. Positives ... Too thick to lie well. May ... Negatives - Dull as ditchwater, political schemer. Positives ... Likes grammar schools. Farron ... Negatives - Tongue firmly around EU's appendix, anti-democratic. Positives ... God-botherer. Lucas or whoever ... Negatives - La-La land inhabitant. Positives ... none. Nuttall ... Negatives ... Fantasist, yesterday's man. Positives ... A just-in-case option.
I blame the politicians.
Lol -can a God-botherer be a positive ;-) the lucas one -lol
The thing I personally like about God botherers is that you can be totally confident that for a bare minimum of one hour per week, they can be totally relied upon to f*** off and bother someone other than me. That makes them infinitely better than most non-God botherers in my experience.
The total take was going to rise by £0.4bn per year from that policy. It was a tax raising measure disguised as fairness.
Government spending is nearly £800bn, the deficit several tens of billions and you're quibbling over a sum that is little more than an accounting error.
£0.4billion is 400 million pounds. From memory, that's two hospitals.
It's one and one seventh of a hospital from memory.
To build it? The site and (some of) the kit? Depends what you call a hospital but for a DGH you're at £400m plus. But then you have to staff, run, and maintain it every year. It doesn't matter if we're talking hospitals or frigates it's the whole life cost that kills you. In that context £400m really is a rounding error. But then we know what Reagan had to say on the odd 100m adding up.
Weirdly (and just to move the goalposts for a second), about seven years ago there were still some of the old village hospitals around, with about six beds. They were in North Wales I think
There are still some cottage hospitals around with sub-20 beds. I don't know of any with as few as six though!
The total take was going to rise by £0.4bn per year from that policy. It was a tax raising measure disguised as fairness.
Government spending is nearly £800bn, the deficit several tens of billions and you're quibbling over a sum that is little more than an accounting error.
£0.4billion is 400 million pounds. From memory, that's two hospitals.
It's one and one seventh of a hospital from memory.
To build it? The site and (some of) the kit? Depends what you call a hospital but for a DGH you're at £400m plus. But then you have to staff, run, and maintain it every year. It doesn't matter if we're talking hospitals or frigates it's the whole life cost that kills you. In that context £400m really is a rounding error. But then we know what Reagan had to say on the odd 100m adding up.
Weirdly (and just to move the goalposts for a second), about seven years ago there were still some of the old village hospitals around, with about six beds. They were in North Wales I think
There are still some cottage hospitals around with sub-20 beds. I don't know of any with as few as six though!
They did exist, although they were very few. Proper outliers. A professor I know gives a real-life example of an outlier: a woman with a PhD who lives in Orkney/Shetlands/Western Isles and drives a lorry. She's a real person (there was a BBC article about her) and an example of when you do data checking, you can't take anything for granted.
The total take was going to rise by £0.4bn per year from that policy. It was a tax raising measure disguised as fairness.
Government spending is nearly £800bn, the deficit several tens of billions and you're quibbling over a sum that is little more than an accounting error.
£0.4billion is 400 million pounds. From memory, that's two hospitals.
It's one and one seventh of a hospital from memory.
To build it? The site and (some of) the kit? Depends what you call a hospital but for a DGH you're at £400m plus. But then you have to staff, run, and maintain it every year. It doesn't matter if we're talking hospitals or frigates it's the whole life cost that kills you. In that context £400m really is a rounding error. But then we know what Reagan had to say on the odd 100m adding up.
Weirdly (and just to move the goalposts for a second), about seven years ago there were still some of the old village hospitals around, with about six beds. They were in North Wales I think
In a way, that's where we're going back to: fewer DGHs and more community care. The trouble is it's mostly being driven by a desire to chase mythical savings (you have to build all the community space first and you need a lot of it so you rarely make year one savings) rather than to move services to meet demand. Add in an NHS model which is neither market driven nor centrally planned (you can argue for either but having neither one nor tother doesn't work) and you get limited savings but very bad local press.
The total take was going to rise by £0.4bn per year from that policy. It was a tax raising measure disguised as fairness.
Government spending is nearly £800bn, the deficit several tens of billions and you're quibbling over a sum that is little more than an accounting error.
£0.4billion is 400 million pounds. From memory, that's two hospitals.
It's one and one seventh of a hospital from memory.
To build it? The site and (some of) the kit? Depends what you call a hospital but for a DGH you're at £400m plus. But then you have to staff, run, and maintain it every year. It doesn't matter if we're talking hospitals or frigates it's the whole life cost that kills you. In that context £400m really is a rounding error. But then we know what Reagan had to say on the odd 100m adding up.
Weirdly (and just to move the goalposts for a second), about seven years ago there were still some of the old village hospitals around, with about six beds. They were in North Wales I think
In a way, that's where we're going back to: fewer DGHs and more community care. The trouble is it's mostly being driven by a desire to chase mythical savings (you have to build all the community space first and you need a lot of it so you rarely make year one savings) rather than to move services to meet demand. Add in an NHS model which is neither market driven nor centrally planned (you can argue for either but having neither one nor tother doesn't work) and you get limited savings but very bad local press.
Looking at the Total Labour Seats Over/Under markets, those nice folk at Skybet appear to offer the best deal with the customary 5/6 either way odds on Labour winning MORE than 160.5 seats. This compares favourably with the current mid-spread prices where Sporting goes 171 seats and Spreadex 173 seats ..... appreciably higher in both cases. The 161+ Labour seats level at which the bookie would pay out compares with the total of 232 seats which the party won in 2015, thereby requiring a net reduction of up to 71 seats before the bet would be lost. That looks fair value to me, but DYOR.
UPDATE at 2.08a.m.
I've just noticed that Bet365 are offering this same bet at the same odds of 5/6, but at the slightly lower fulcrum price of 158.5 seats for backing Labour to exceed this seat tally. That's just 2 seats lower than the corresponding seats total quoted by Skybet and therefore 73 seats fewer than Labour won in 2015.
I see it doesn't take much for panic to set in. The election isn't in full swing yet, these are the early skirmishes. Clearly the PM intends to fight this election in her way and on her terms. That's fine. Scrapping the aid target would be silly, the amounts are minuscule in the grand scheme of things. It's perfectly reasonable to keep the target and look at how it's delivered. On the triple lock I think it's wise to look at it, at the moment government policy is massively intergenerationally unfair. The tax lock needs to be revised in some way because it is overly prescriptive, I think there are ways of squaring it. I tend to be on the side of promissory minimalism in that the less you pledge the less you can be caught breaking. Also the more loosely you draw whatever promises you do make the more leeway you have if things turn sour.
The Labour campaign is a catastrophe it is scooting along just above implosion already. It isn't going to survive the full onslaught. Now will that translate into a vote and seat meltdown? Possibly. I think the polls will narrow slightly, I suspect the Conservatives will win by 15 points it thereabouts not the 20-25 of current polling. It will be a substantial victory.
The problem isn't that the government want to get rid of the tax lock for the sake of flexibility, they want to do it to raise taxes so they can spend more money. How is that any different from what Labour would do? How can any self-respecting Conservative defend tax and spend. It is and has always been a disaster.
There is some targeted additional spend, and I'd far rather it was funded through taxation than additional borrowing. Not all additional spending is bad. Also the process of Brexit will impact economic performance, id rather the government hadn't hamstrung itself in terms of dealing with it. Im as averse to tax raising and unnecessary spending as any conservative but I try to avoid becoming an ideologue about it.
So when we do it it's targeted spending, when Labour do it it's splurging. Why bother being a Tory government if we're going to raise taxes, just draft in Ed Miliband and let him be PM.
You're young aren't you? And you've clearly never looked after a set of accounts, much less engaged with public spending or empathised with those it helps. The world isn't black and white, and Governments (even Tory ones) need the flexibility to manage the public finances in a way that carries the public.
"Throwing money at the problem" = PB Toryspeak for spending on things I disagree with.
The world isn't black and white, and Governments (even Tory ones) need the flexibility to manage the public finances in a way that carries the public.
Fair point, but MaxPB is right: the Conservatives are not behaving like the low-tax free-trade libertarian Atlanticist party it previously presented itself as. In fairness to May, she never pretended to be that.
May is Blair/Brown tax and spend with Erdogan style social conservatism and mawkish nationalism tacked on. Delightful.
First, there has been a great deal of movement in vote intentions since 2015 amongst both Remainers and Leavers. In Wave 10 only 56% of Remainers and 56% of Leavers said they would vote for the same party as they voted for in 2015. The Remain side is much more fragmented than the Leave side, where the Conservatives have the largest chunk of the vote.
Second, there are a large number of undecided voters – the “don’t knows” constitute the third largest “party” for both Remain and Leave voters.
Third, a sizeable chunk of UKIP voters have defected to the Conservatives. Since leaving Europe is now official Conservative party policy, some voters may being seeing less of a need for a separate party devoted just to that issues.
Fourth, 2015 Labour voters have been defecting in high numbers on both the Remain and Leave sides. Labour’s best move here is tricky. While Labour leave supporters have been more likely to leave Labour than Remain supporters, Labour also started with more Remain voters to begin with. The net result is that Labour is losing a fairly similar absolute number of Remain and Leave voters.
Fifth, the scale of a Liberal Democrat revival from Remain voters is fairly small at the time of wave 10, only 10% of Labour Remain voters and 8% of Conservative Remain voters had defected to the Liberal Democrats.
The world isn't black and white, and Governments (even Tory ones) need the flexibility to manage the public finances in a way that carries the public.
Fair point, but MaxPB is right: the Conservatives are not behaving like the low-tax free-trade libertarian Atlanticist party it previously presented itself as. In fairness to May, she never pretended to be that.
May is Blair/Brown tax and spend with Erdogan style social conservatism and mawkish nationalism tacked on. Delightful.
I think it's too early to judge Theresa May just yet. Maybe she's just being too dangerously honest in steering the media and therefore the public towards what they might expect under her Premiership, but she'd better take care not to overcook things, otherwise she might find her would-be majority disappearing like the morning mist. I've actually been very impressed by her degree of straightforward determination and that includes the alacrity with which she sacked both Gove and Osborne within a couple of hours of entering No.10 as Prime Minister.That took guts which she clearly has in abundance.
"Definite to vote this way" in today's Ipsos poll Le Pen 85% Fillon 83% Macron 73% Melenchon 67% Hamon 51%"
Wow, should that determination to vote be borne out, then the contest between Fillon and Macron for the No.2 run-off place becomes very tight indeed.
I'm not sure we can read too much into that. If you go back four months, when Le Pen was in the high 20s, she had the highest certainty to vote too. And if you look at the Dutch elections, PVV had the highest certainty to vote but trailed off very badly at the end.
The world isn't black and white, and Governments (even Tory ones) need the flexibility to manage the public finances in a way that carries the public.
Fair point, but MaxPB is right: the Conservatives are not behaving like the low-tax free-trade libertarian Atlanticist party it previously presented itself as. In fairness to May, she never pretended to be that.
May is Blair/Brown tax and spend with Erdogan style social conservatism and mawkish nationalism tacked on. Delightful.
I think it's too early to judge Theresa May just yet. Maybe she's just being too dangerously honest in steering the media and therefore the public towards what they might expect under her Premiership, but she'd better take care not to overcook things, otherwise she might find her would-be majority disappearing like the morning mist. I've actually been very impressed by her degree of straightforward determination and that includes the alacrity with which she sacked both Gove and Osborne within a couple of hours of entering No.10 as Prime Minister.That took guts which she clearly has in abundance.
As was pointed out earlier in the thread, Cameron stood on Manifestos he didn't think he'd have to fully implement and could always blame the Lib Dems or minority government when a policy was discarded- including I suspect EURef - look how that worked out when he actually had to implement what he'd promised!
May must be acutely aware that there's a very good chance she'll be held to her manifesto.
The world isn't black and white, and Governments (even Tory ones) need the flexibility to manage the public finances in a way that carries the public.
Fair point, but MaxPB is right: the Conservatives are not behaving like the low-tax free-trade libertarian Atlanticist party it previously presented itself as. In fairness to May, she never pretended to be that.
May is Blair/Brown tax and spend with Erdogan style social conservatism and mawkish nationalism tacked on. Delightful.
I think it's too early to judge Theresa May just yet. Maybe she's just being too dangerously honest in steering the media and therefore the public towards what they might expect under her Premiership, but she'd better take care not to overcook things, otherwise she might find her would-be majority disappearing like the morning mist. I've actually been very impressed by her degree of straightforward determination and that includes the alacrity with which she sacked both Gove and Osborne within a couple of hours of entering No.10 as Prime Minister.That took guts which she clearly has in abundance.
As was pointed out earlier in the thread, Cameron stood on Manifestos he didn't think he'd have to fully implement and could always blame the Lib Dems or minority government when a policy was discarded- including I suspect EURef - look how that worked out when he actually had to implement what he'd promised!
May must be acutely aware that there's a very good chance she'll be held to her manifesto.
I also wonder whether there's another factor at play here in the sense that Mrs May would prefer not to have too big a majority.
I remember the wily Willie Whitelaw, Margaret Thatcher's loyal No.2 being roundly criticised for suggesting that the Tories' three figure majority during the eighties was too big for its own good by encouraging the formation of backbench cliques, cabals and other discontents. In essence he was probably right and the optimum majority is arguably around 60 - 80 seats, rendering the Government well and truly fireproof in terms of by-elections and the odd MP who chooses to cross the floor, whilst providing a good stock of hopefully emerging talent to be promoted over the course of a 5 year parliament. Numerically this would equate to a tally of around 360 Tory MPs or 30 more than sit in the House at present.
The world isn't black and white, and Governments (even Tory ones) need the flexibility to manage the public finances in a way that carries the public.
t.
May is Blair/Brown tax and spend with Erdogan style social conservatism and mawkish nationalism tacked on. Delightful.
I think it's too early to judge Theresa May just yet. Maybe she's just being too dangerously honest in steering the media and therefore the public towards what they might expect under her Premiership, but she'd better take care not to overcook things, otherwise she might find her would-be majority disappearing like the morning mist. I've actually been very impressed by her degree of straightforward determination and that includes the alacrity with which she sacked both Gove and Osborne within a couple of hours of entering No.10 as Prime Minister.That took guts which she clearly has in abundance.
As was pointed out earlier in the thread, Cameron stood on Manifestos he didn't think he'd have to fully implement and could always blame the Lib Dems or minority government when a policy was discarded- including I suspect EURef - look how that worked out when he actually had to implement what he'd promised!
May must be acutely aware that there's a very good chance she'll be held to her manifesto.
I also wonder whether there's another factor at play here in the sense that Mrs May would prefer not to have too big a majority.
I remember the wily Willie Whitelaw, Margaret Thatcher's loyal No.2 being roundly criticised for suggesting that the Tories' three figure majority during the eighties was too big for its own good by encouraging the formation of backbench cliques, cabals and other discontents. In essence he was probably right and the optimum majority is arguably around 60 - 80 seats, rendering the Government well and truly fireproof in terms of by-elections and the odd MP who chooses to cross the floor, whilst providing a good stock of hopefully emerging talent to be promoted over the course of a 5 year parliament. Numerically this would equate to a tally of around 360 Tory MPs or 30 more than sit in the House at present.
Related to this is that the Tories would prefer to keep the Labour Party alive, as it usually fulfils the role of the ideal opponent as far as the Conservativee are concerned. The last thing they would want is a new more centrist force emerging, free of the union-link and the left-wing activists, which would make a range of currently safe Tory seats more competitive.
"Definite to vote this way" in today's Ipsos poll Le Pen 85% Fillon 83% Macron 73% Melenchon 67% Hamon 51%"
Wow, should that determination to vote be borne out, then the contest between Fillon and Macron for the No.2 run-off place becomes very tight indeed.
Critical thing for me from those figures is what a third of the Melenchon support does, if it does not continue to support him. That represents 6% of the elctorate.
It is highly unlikely to go to the other left wing candidate. Hamon, because that would be a wasted vote. In the head to head between Le Pen and Macron on the ifop rolling poll it shows 51% of Melenchon's suporters going to Macron in the second round with only 12% going to Le Pen, the rest abstaining. If Melenchon's support turns out to be as flakey as the Ipsos poll suggests, then Macron is likely to be the major beneficiary and could be worth as much as another 3% for him.
Shocking fact in the France article posted earlier. It's not just the United States.
"In January 2016, the national statistical institute Insée announced that life expectancy had fallen for both sexes in France for the first time since World War II, and it’s the native French working class that is likely driving the decline."
Comments
This season they have back to back games at both Wembley and Twickenham.
I hope May stays on course with this.
The Tories want to be free of the 2015 manifesto - a manifesto they never thought they would be given a free reign to implement.
I'm all for it.
I doubt the beneficiaries will be though.
Now I think it's widely known on here that I'm no fan of Osborne (indeed the one and only time I got bitch-slapped from OGH himself was when I called George a "creep")
But even I wouldn't go that far...
Lab 1.57
LD 2.87
Con 7.0
Green 26.0
UKIP 151.0
www.betfair.com/sport/politics
Opinium had them at 27% (still within the MOE)
It Angus Reid at 24% that was the humdinger
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010
governement should ensure the isle is defended,the isle is policed, every person should have a roof over their head, medical care, food on the table and clothes on their back. Want more than that then fucking work for it
"In January 2016, the national statistical institute Insée announced that life expectancy had fallen for both sexes in France for the first time since World War II, and it’s the native French working class that is likely driving the decline."
https://www.city-journal.org/html/french-coming-apart-15125.html
If the government had given up on low tax, it'd be proposing all sorts of new spending.
However just a few weeks ago the government tried to do a tidying up exercise to fix a problem with NI. The primary NI rate was not getting changed, most people affected would be paying less tax - and overall the reform was on its own merits regarded as fair and reasonable. But it broke the manifesto promise so was dropped.
I would very much like to see NI abolished and merged into income tax with the thresholds getting aligned and employers NI abolished. To do that right would be a sane reform that would reduce bureaucracy, reduce overall taxes, reduce the tax burden on employing people. But it would increase some tax rates/bands to make up for others getting reduced/abolished. If it isn't possible to do even simple reforms like the NI reform then what hope is there of wholesale improvements to the system like this with this commitment in place?
The election campaign will determine whether May can achieve a 1931-style landslide, or merely one of 1983 proportions. The Coalition of Chaos messaging is going to be hammered home relentlessly, and the Labour infighting will make it look only too real.
By the way, who is selecting all the new Conservative MPs that are about to win seats off Labour?
Remoaners 31.96 41.27 11.79 1.16 6.04 6.52 0.82
Brakesiteers 43.65 20.99 4.29 24.84 1.62 3.17 0.39
Derived from various sources.
Corbyn ... Negatives - Stuck in 1967, illiterate, barmy. Positives ... Too thick to lie well.
May ... Negatives - Dull as ditchwater, political schemer. Positives ... Likes grammar schools.
Farron ... Negatives - Tongue firmly around EU's appendix, anti-democratic. Positives ... God-botherer.
Lucas or whoever ... Negatives - La-La land inhabitant. Positives ... none.
Nuttall ... Negatives ... Fantasist, yesterday's man. Positives ... A just-in-case option.
I blame the politicians.
Looking at the Total Labour Seats Over/Under markets, those nice folk at Skybet appear to offer the best deal with the customary 5/6 either way odds on Labour winning MORE than 160.5 seats. This compares favourably with the current mid-spread prices where Sporting goes 171 seats and Spreadex 173 seats ..... appreciably higher in both cases.
The 161+ Labour seats level at which the bookie would pay out compares with the total of 232 seats which the party won in 2015, thereby requiring a net reduction of up to 71 seats before the bet would be lost.
That looks fair value to me, but DYOR.
I understand even the US middle-class, particularly women, are being hit hard by prescription drug addiction and this is reducing life expectancy. Not sure how much political will there is to deal with the issue, but I was impressed by Chris Christie:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdYMx7sycW4
But is there a similar (perhaps smaller scale) issue with this in Europe? Or are there other "lifestyle factors" in play here?
But consider the irony: by rejecting the low-tax free-trade Hayekian past that Thatcher embodied, and instead becoming small-town, small-c, dirigiste, inward-looking, high-tax-and-spend, focussed on meeting needs but careless of dreams, she is, possibly deliberately, enacting a final European victory: she's turning the Conservative Party into Christian Democrats...
I agree, but you have articulated that better than I could. For what it is worth I would go further and abolish things like ISAs anything and everything to keep the system simple and the standard rate as low as possible.
Replying to @GoodwinMJ
"Definite to vote this way" in today's Ipsos poll
Le Pen 85%
Fillon 83%
Macron 73%
Melenchon 67%
Hamon 51%"
I've just noticed that Bet365 are offering this same bet at the same odds of 5/6, but at the slightly lower fulcrum price of 158.5 seats for backing Labour to exceed this seat tally.
That's just 2 seats lower than the corresponding seats total quoted by Skybet and therefore 73 seats fewer than Labour won in 2015.
http://www.britishelectionstudy.com/bes-findings/has-brexit-broken-british-voting/#.WPquN4ExWaN
First, there has been a great deal of movement in vote intentions since 2015 amongst both Remainers and Leavers. In Wave 10 only 56% of Remainers and 56% of Leavers said they would vote for the same party as they voted for in 2015. The Remain side is much more fragmented than the Leave side, where the Conservatives have the largest chunk of the vote.
Second, there are a large number of undecided voters – the “don’t knows” constitute the third largest “party” for both Remain and Leave voters.
Third, a sizeable chunk of UKIP voters have defected to the Conservatives. Since leaving Europe is now official Conservative party policy, some voters may being seeing less of a need for a separate party devoted just to that issues.
Fourth, 2015 Labour voters have been defecting in high numbers on both the Remain and Leave sides. Labour’s best move here is tricky. While Labour leave supporters have been more likely to leave Labour than Remain supporters, Labour also started with more Remain voters to begin with. The net result is that Labour is losing a fairly similar absolute number of Remain and Leave voters.
Fifth, the scale of a Liberal Democrat revival from Remain voters is fairly small at the time of wave 10, only 10% of Labour Remain voters and 8% of Conservative Remain voters had defected to the Liberal Democrats.
I've actually been very impressed by her degree of straightforward determination and that includes the alacrity with which she sacked both Gove and Osborne within a couple of hours of entering No.10 as Prime Minister.That took guts which she clearly has in abundance.
May must be acutely aware that there's a very good chance she'll be held to her manifesto.
UKIP on negative 3 in Hornsey and Green voters over 100% likely to vote remain there
https://www.bloomberg.com/energy
I remember the wily Willie Whitelaw, Margaret Thatcher's loyal No.2 being roundly criticised for suggesting that the Tories' three figure majority during the eighties was too big for its own good by encouraging the formation of backbench cliques, cabals and other discontents. In essence he was probably right and the optimum majority is arguably around 60 - 80 seats, rendering the Government well and truly fireproof in terms of by-elections and the odd MP who chooses to cross the floor, whilst providing a good stock of hopefully emerging talent to be promoted over the course of a 5 year parliament.
Numerically this would equate to a tally of around 360 Tory MPs or 30 more than sit in the House at present.
It is highly unlikely to go to the other left wing candidate. Hamon, because that would be a wasted vote. In the head to head between Le Pen and Macron on the ifop rolling poll it shows 51% of Melenchon's suporters going to Macron in the second round with only 12% going to Le Pen, the rest abstaining. If Melenchon's support turns out to be as flakey as the Ipsos poll suggests, then Macron is likely to be the major beneficiary and could be worth as much as another 3% for him.