Priti Patel, the international development secretary, paid her husband tens of thousands of pounds to run her office while he had two other jobs, including a previously undisclosed role in the City. - The Times
Sorry not sure I understand here - I could pay my other half £5,000 a year. It wouldn't change anything as the money is ours anyway. Whats the problem with her paying her husband money ?
Isn't it an expense so deducted from her income? So her taxable income is decreased? Normal thing is for a spouse to get a wage 1 pound under the NI contributions limits. Although given that her husband has two jobs surely it's taxable and NI able for him?
Priti Patel, the international development secretary, paid her husband tens of thousands of pounds to run her office while he had two other jobs, including a previously undisclosed role in the City. - The Times
Sorry not sure I understand here - I could pay my other half £5,000 a year. It wouldn't change anything as the money is ours anyway. Whats the problem with her paying her husband money ?
It's not her money that she is spending. She is spending a parliamentary allowance...
Now I see, now it is clear !
Priti Patel, the international development secretary, paid her husband tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money to run her office while he had two other jobs, including a previously undisclosed role in the City. - The Times
Priti Patel, the international development secretary, paid her husband tens of thousands of pounds to run her office while he had two other jobs, including a previously undisclosed role in the City. - The Times
Sorry not sure I understand here - I could pay my other half £5,000 a year. It wouldn't change anything as the money is ours anyway. Whats the problem with her paying her husband money ?
He took on the role in February 2014 but has also been working as a marketing consultant for Nasdaq, the American stock exchange, and serving as a paid councillor in south London.
MPs’ staff must reveal outside roles if there is a risk of a conflict of interest but Mr Sawyer’s work at Nasdaq was not publicly disclosed. His job was said to have included organising events and receptions for clients, arranging research papers and working on the Nasdaq stand at conferences. He was listed as the main marketing contact for Nasdaq NLX, a European interest-rate futures market.
Staff are also required to reveal jobs that are “in any way advantaged by the privileged access to parliament afforded by [a] pass”.
Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the committee on standards in public life, believes that Mr Sawyer’s marketing job easily met that test, given the crossover of interests between the financial sector, and politics and should have been declared.
Priti Patel, the international development secretary, paid her husband tens of thousands of pounds to run her office while he had two other jobs, including a previously undisclosed role in the City. - The Times
Good news for the country. Priti Patel is spectacularly mediocre, at best, and should be nowhere near the cabinet. Though, to be fair, that applies to just about every current member of it. Yesterday, there was some serious speculation that Amber Rudd might replace Philip Hammond as Chancellor!! :-D
Hopefully, the Tories are going to dig up some talent among their new arrivals. What they have right now is very poor fare indeed - from the PM down.
The ineptitude of the Shadow Cabinet does rather take the spotlight off the motley crew of mediocrities in the Cabinet. If Hammond gets the push there will be no one of ability in any role.
Having only heard insults from Labour and the Lib Dems since the referendum, many of those that voted Leave are being pushed – as much as pulled – towards Team Theresa.
Almost every day for the past twelve months, the sort of posh left-wing voices that get to go on the BBC have sounded as if they are seeking to delegitimise what the people decided. “The demos was duped”, arrogant opinion-formers imply. Gina Miller’s efforts to frustrate Brexit were reported with great glee. Millions of voters have noticed. Eurocrats in Brussels have issued what sound like carefully choreographed threats, designed to cajole and intimidate. “Brexit cannot be a success” Jean Claude Juncker insisted.
For many voters, June 8th is a chance to answer back. Giving Mrs May a massive mandate would cut through all that nonsense.
What I don't get is why Brexiteers like Carswell feel they have to misrepresent what Juncker said about Brexit. He expressed an opinion. It was no more or less legitimate than someone saying Brexit can be a success.
And, of course, if they believe Juncker did say what he is reported to have said, they must give credence to the rest of the report in which the quote was contained. Mustn't they?
The main problem for th eTories in this is that it's a weird thing to appear to lead off with when thewy're so far perceived to have said very little about their policies.
They may well increase taxes and NI, but aren't sure. They may well abolish the triple loc, but won't say definitely. They are in favour of relaxing planning controls in the countrytside, but won't say how. But they are DEFINITELY in favour of giving the chance to reintroduce fox-hunting.
Isn't that a bit odd, even if you're a Conservative AND rather like fox-hunting?
I think the Polling on Grammar schools supports May.
The voters are stupid.
Yes the public support more grammar schools but the public also support renationalisation of the railways and we know that's a bad idea.
Why? This gets quoted as a truism, but the private sector has has no magic means of running things better. The argument for privatisation is partly investment, though that runs a bit thin given the DfT role in tracks and rail, and partly risk management. Mostly the latter. We've concluded we'd rather that a company and its shareholders take the risk, and be rewarded for doing so.
But there's a legitimate political argument for seeing it the other way. In practice the Gvt bails out that risk and so the balance of risk and reward is all wrong.
Other problems associated with being in the public sector include to fold to unreasonable demands from trade unions to save bad press, the unability to pay attractive salaries to exceptional people because of civil service paygrades and maintaining differentials, and the inbuilt incentive to bureacratise and empire build because of the inbuilt implication that cash will be found, rather than the threat of going out of business if you piss money against the wall. None of this is unsurmountable, but the track record is not good.
No idea how sophisticated an argument Labour plans to make (suspect not very) but I think you can make the case that most of that applies to he current TOCs as they only really manage something very closely defined by DfT. they are neither truly public nor truly private. There's certainly no real risk of going out of business.
Labour could argue that the time has come to choose an approach, and that a truly privatised solution can't work because lines would close and commuters would likely lose their subsidy.
I have a theory that the Tories find alot of voters out the woodwork who don't bother for locals (More to do with the fact they're the Government rather than the Tories to be honest):
When we have a look at the final result this graph might prove my point...
Priti Patel, the international development secretary, paid her husband tens of thousands of pounds to run her office while he had two other jobs, including a previously undisclosed role in the City. - The Times
Good news for the country. Priti Patel is spectacularly mediocre, at best, and should be nowhere near the cabinet. Though, to be fair, that applies to just about every current member of it. Yesterday, there was some serious speculation that Amber Rudd might replace Philip Hammond as Chancellor!! :-D
Hopefully, the Tories are going to dig up some talent among their new arrivals. What they have right now is very poor fare indeed - from the PM down.
I live in the countryside..Foxes in the field behind. I have never hunted - I would fall off the horse.. And don't follow it..
The League Against Cruel Sports say "“Are we really going to turn the clock back to a time when killing animals for fun was legal?"
Which is utter nonsense..considering all the other animals you can legally kill..and in the case of rats you SHOULD kill..
So frankly I - and many others - don't give a damn about the issue.
| Many City dwellers have not got a clue about the countryside..
There is a difference between killing an animal for a perceived necessity like pest control and torturing one to death as part of a pissed up laugh.
Hunted foxes are killed at least as painlessly as those killed in any other way.
It's small-time snobs like you that are the most depressing feature of the UK. The more vociferous Remainers clearly revel in Brexit because whatever its drawbacks, it legitimises their saying out loud what they've always thought, how stupid and horrible the proles are. Now you've found something to hate "toffs" about too (and of the people I hunt with, I would guess only about 20% are higher-rate taxpayers). Well done you.
"...the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable,"
I have always dreamed of seeing a post of yours which did not contain serious errors of fact and logic; I would have thought even you could manage it with a partial quotation lifted off the internet. But no: "the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable" is what Wilde wrote. Incidentally, he didn't say it directly, he put it in the mouth of a character in a play who turns out to be a twat.
But please, regale us with the views of other convicted paedophiles. What did Jimmy think about it? Gary?
I post facts to the best of my ability, if I have inserted a superfluous 'full' then I apologise (although I never claimed it was a quote). You seem to specialise in personal abuse.
You do realise what " means?
LOL
Plus, "unspeakable" looks abusive to me; sticking it in a misquotation just makes it passive-aggressive abuse.
"The number of UK Independence Party candidates contesting the General Election in Yorkshire will be significantly smaller than it was two years ago. The party fought all 54 seats in the region in 2015 but as nominations closed last night Ukip looked set to field 33 candidates compared to the Greens’ 35."
Having only heard insults from Labour and the Lib Dems since the referendum, many of those that voted Leave are being pushed – as much as pulled – towards Team Theresa.
Almost every day for the past twelve months, the sort of posh left-wing voices that get to go on the BBC have sounded as if they are seeking to delegitimise what the people decided. “The demos was duped”, arrogant opinion-formers imply. Gina Miller’s efforts to frustrate Brexit were reported with great glee. Millions of voters have noticed. Eurocrats in Brussels have issued what sound like carefully choreographed threats, designed to cajole and intimidate. “Brexit cannot be a success” Jean Claude Juncker insisted.
For many voters, June 8th is a chance to answer back. Giving Mrs May a massive mandate would cut through all that nonsense.
The Brexit vote already proving a stunning success for UK workers wanting a boost in pay...
"Once adjusted for inflation, the Bank’s outlook for this year translated into a 0.8% drop in average pay, according to the Resolution Foundation thinktank. Its analysis found average pay was now expected to be £320 lower this year than predicted in the Bank’s February inflation report and £915 lower than it forecast in the May 2016 report that preceded the referendum."
Hopefully, the Tories are going to dig up some talent among their new arrivals. What they have right now is very poor fare indeed - from the PM down.
Happily for them the Shadow Cabinet is even more inept and fifth rate, so they shine by comparison.
Rudd vs Abbott Hamond vs McDonnell Johnson vs Mrs Bucket Fallon vs Griffith Truss vs Burgon Greening vs Rayner May vs Corbyn
All a bit crap I think we will agree, but the least crap by an order of magnitude is in all cases on the blue side at the moment.
I totally agree, though some of the match-ups are close (Greening/Rayner, Boris/Thornberry, for example; while Ashworth beats Hunt and Starmer is at least level pegging with Davis). The difference is that Labour is not picking from a full team. As I have noted previously, utterly mediocre beats totally useless each and every time. But it is no good for the country. Because May herself is so insecure, inflexible and generally mediocre, she clearly has a problem with empowering independent thinkers (the contrast with Thatcher and even Cameron and Blair is marked). That might work for her, but it is no good for the country.
Iain Martin✔@iainmartin1 Re Gardiner, one of worst aspects of these people who ruined Labour is the shamelessness. Rather than feel shame they're puffed up + pious.
(((Dan Hodges)))✔@DPJHodges Barry Gardiner claims when Jeremy Corbyn said he couldn't think of circumstances he would deploy troops it was "a throw away remark".
David Wooding✔@DavidWooding Labour's Barry Gardiner sounds like he has been overdosing on the grumpy pills before his interview to defend Corbyn on @BBCr4today.
James Tapsfield @JamesTapsfield Gardiner seems strangely outraged that people should take Corbyn's own words and quote them
The main problem for th eTories in this is that it's a weird thing to appear to lead off with when thewy're so far perceived to have said very little about their policies.
They may well increase taxes and NI, but aren't sure. They may well abolish the triple loc, but won't say definitely. They are in favour of relaxing planning controls in the countrytside, but won't say how. But they are DEFINITELY in favour of giving the chance to reintroduce fox-hunting.
Isn't that a bit odd, even if you're a Conservative AND rather like fox-hunting?
Despite that, people still rate the Conservative campaign better than Labour's.
Having only heard insults from Labour and the Lib Dems since the referendum, many of those that voted Leave are being pushed – as much as pulled – towards Team Theresa.
Almost every day for the past twelve months, the sort of posh left-wing voices that get to go on the BBC have sounded as if they are seeking to delegitimise what the people decided. “The demos was duped”, arrogant opinion-formers imply. Gina Miller’s efforts to frustrate Brexit were reported with great glee. Millions of voters have noticed. Eurocrats in Brussels have issued what sound like carefully choreographed threats, designed to cajole and intimidate. “Brexit cannot be a success” Jean Claude Juncker insisted.
For many voters, June 8th is a chance to answer back. Giving Mrs May a massive mandate would cut through all that nonsense.
I imagine the Remoaners wouldn't bat an eyelid if May said 'the EU will never become a success'....
Nope, as you well know he expressed an opinion. But I understand that the case for Brexit is so weak that its more extreme supporters have to pretend it was something it wasn't.
Priti Patel, the international development secretary, paid her husband tens of thousands of pounds to run her office while he had two other jobs, including a previously undisclosed role in the City. - The Times
Good news for the country. Priti Patel is spectacularly mediocre, at best, and should be nowhere near the cabinet. Though, to be fair, that applies to just about every current member of it. Yesterday, there was some serious speculation that Amber Rudd might replace Philip Hammond as Chancellor!! :-D
Hopefully, the Tories are going to dig up some talent among their new arrivals. What they have right now is very poor fare indeed - from the PM down.
The ineptitude of the Shadow Cabinet does rather take the spotlight off the motley crew of mediocrities in the Cabinet. If Hammond gets the push there will be no one of ability in any role.
May only wants yes men and women sitting round the cabinet table. And absolutely no-one who might lead to her getting bad headlines in the right wing press. So Hammond is undoubtedly going to be gone sooner rather than later.
I would imagine if it went to a free vote in the Commons, the pro-hunting vote would do better than public opinion would suggest on the back of the Prime Minister's support but I expect it would still lose.
We've been before with capital punishment which, I suspect, might have majority public support but has never got close to winning a free vote in the Commons. Once we leave the EU, I believe, we would have greater freedom (ECHR ?) to see if restoring the death penalty is desirable.
The GE remains a distant thing here in East Ham - looking back, the best Conservative performance in what was then Newham North East wasn't 1983 but 1987. The seat briefly had a Conservative MP in the mid 70s when it was held by Reg Prentice who famously crossed the floor in 1977. He didn't try to defend the seat in 1979 when it was regained by Labour's Ron Leighton (who has a road named after him).
The Conservatives polled just after 30% then and did fractionally better in 1987 but their vote (and Leighton's) fell in 1983 as the Liberals advanced to 20%. The 1983 election was the only time Leighton's vote fell below 50%.
By 1992, Labour were back at 58% and Stephen Timms substantially increased that in the 1994 by-election when the Lib Dem candidate Alec Kellaway defected to Labour just before polling day (he went on to be a long-serving Labour Councillor on Newham and died last year or in 2015). Timms' Conservative opponent in 1994 was one Philip Hammond (not sure what happened to him!).
The recent London poll suggested an overall 2% swing from Labour to Conservative since 2010 and given Timms bucked the trend last time with a 5% swing in his favour it's possible there won't be so much change. I wonder if East Ham will, after the election, be Labour's safest seat.
I have a theory that the Tories find alot of voters out the woodwork who don't bother for locals (More to do with the fact they're the Government rather than the Tories to be honest):
When we have a look at the final result this graph might prove my point...
The main problem for th eTories in this is that it's a weird thing to appear to lead off with when thewy're so far perceived to have said very little about their policies.
They may well increase taxes and NI, but aren't sure. They may well abolish the triple loc, but won't say definitely. They are in favour of relaxing planning controls in the countrytside, but won't say how. But they are DEFINITELY in favour of giving the chance to reintroduce fox-hunting.
Isn't that a bit odd, even if you're a Conservative AND rather like fox-hunting?
So much for the Tories not getting control of Nottingham Council
The main problem for th eTories in this is that it's a weird thing to appear to lead off with when thewy're so far perceived to have said very little about their policies.
They may well increase taxes and NI, but aren't sure. They may well abolish the triple loc, but won't say definitely. They are in favour of relaxing planning controls in the countrytside, but won't say how. But they are DEFINITELY in favour of giving the chance to reintroduce fox-hunting.
Isn't that a bit odd, even if you're a Conservative AND rather like fox-hunting?
The Tories do not have a problem because Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the Labour party.
Hopefully, the Tories are going to dig up some talent among their new arrivals. What they have right now is very poor fare indeed - from the PM down.
Happily for them the Shadow Cabinet is even more inept and fifth rate, so they shine by comparison.
Rudd vs Abbott Hamond vs McDonnell Johnson vs Mrs Bucket Fallon vs Griffith Truss vs Burgon Greening vs Rayner May vs Corbyn
All a bit crap I think we will agree, but the least crap by an order of magnitude is in all cases on the blue side at the moment.
I totally agree, though some of the match-ups are close (Greening/Rayner, Boris/Thornberry, for example; while Ashworth beats Hunt and Starmer is at least level pegging with Davis). The difference is that Labour is not picking from a full team. As I have noted previously, utterly mediocre beats totally useless each and every time. But it is no good for the country. Because May herself is so insecure, inflexible and generally mediocre, she clearly has a problem with empowering independent thinkers (the contrast with Thatcher and even Cameron and Blair is marked). That might work for her, but it is no good for the country.
Because May herself is so insecure, inflexible and generally mediocre, she clearly has a problem with empowering independent thinkers (the contrast with Thatcher and even Cameron and Blair is marked). That might work for her, but it is no good for the country.
Apologies for snipping your words a tad, but, in contrast, this was a fascinating opinion piece from Denis MacShane in yesterday's City AM:
May might be mediocre but her insecurity makes her flexible rather than inflexible. She shamelessly follows public opinion (or the Daily Mail editorial) far more than Blair or Cameron ever did.
The main problem for th eTories in this is that it's a weird thing to appear to lead off with when thewy're so far perceived to have said very little about their policies.
They may well increase taxes and NI, but aren't sure. They may well abolish the triple loc, but won't say definitely. They are in favour of relaxing planning controls in the countrytside, but won't say how. But they are DEFINITELY in favour of giving the chance to reintroduce fox-hunting.
Isn't that a bit odd, even if you're a Conservative AND rather like fox-hunting?
So much for the Tories not getting control of Nottingham Council
Morning all. Looking at the poll last night on the manifesto the striking stat is that 42-20 think the Tories have had the better campaign. That's nonsense of course, they haven't done anything or said anything, labour have put out by far the more populist policies and been much more visible. What it does make clear is that minds have been made up and the result is already set as in the 40s versus in the 20s with the change shared between the rest. Done and dusted.
The main problem for th eTories in this is that it's a weird thing to appear to lead off with when thewy're so far perceived to have said very little about their policies.
They may well increase taxes and NI, but aren't sure. They may well abolish the triple loc, but won't say definitely. They are in favour of relaxing planning controls in the countrytside, but won't say how. But they are DEFINITELY in favour of giving the chance to reintroduce fox-hunting.
Isn't that a bit odd, even if you're a Conservative AND rather like fox-hunting?
So much for the Tories not getting control of Nottingham Council
The Brexit vote already proving a stunning success for UK workers wanting a boost in pay...
"Once adjusted for inflation, the Bank’s outlook for this year translated into a 0.8% drop in average pay, according to the Resolution Foundation thinktank. Its analysis found average pay was now expected to be £320 lower this year than predicted in the Bank’s February inflation report and £915 lower than it forecast in the May 2016 report that preceded the referendum."
Just as well Germany and the rest of the Eurozone are growing so rapidly and can drag us along behind them.
Its amazing but I don't recall you being at all interested in workers pay previously.
For example in September 2011 when pay rises were 2.2% and CPI was 4.5% or in March 2013 when pay rises were 0.5% and CPI was 2.5% or in June 2014 when pay rises were -0.1% and CPI was 1.8% and on and on and on:
Morning all. Looking at the poll last night on the manifesto the striking stat is that 42-20 think the Tories have had the better campaign. That's nonsense of course, they haven't done anything or said anything, labour have put out by far the more populist policies and been much more visible. What it does make clear is that minds have been made up and the result is already set as in the 40s versus in the 20s with the change shared between the rest. Done and dusted.
Yet we know the campaign is multi-layered and multi-faceted. The tiny proportion who see a canvasser on their doorstep aren't defining the campaign and nor so much is the wall-to-wall press coverage on the mainstream media.
It's in the world of Facebook, Twitter and social media that this election (and I suspect all elections for now) are being fought. The Conservatives have a superb social media campaign which I now think was instrumental in winning them their 2015 majority.
Once identified, prospective Conservative voters are bombarded with anti-Labour ads (which can be much stronger than anything on a poster for example I imagine there's an anti-Labour one which claims Corbyn will sell pensioners and take children to be forcibly re-educated in Stalinist camps modelled on North Korea or something like that and only May can save you, your family, your neighbours and their pets from disaster.
That's canvassing 2017-style and you only have to travel on a Tube (or indeed any form of public transport) to see how many mobile users head straight for Facebook or Twitter rather than other websites. The other parties are catching up but the Conservatives, to paraphrase Me Steinman, "got a good head start".
The main problem for th eTories in this is that it's a weird thing to appear to lead off with when thewy're so far perceived to have said very little about their policies.
They may well increase taxes and NI, but aren't sure. They may well abolish the triple loc, but won't say definitely. They are in favour of relaxing planning controls in the countrytside, but won't say how. But they are DEFINITELY in favour of giving the chance to reintroduce fox-hunting.
Isn't that a bit odd, even if you're a Conservative AND rather like fox-hunting?
So much for the Tories not getting control of Nottingham Council
Providing "strong and stable leadership for Nottinghamshire....."
I thought it might be nice to take my wife to that place in Majorca you mentioned ...when we go in October. I think i'll have to save up to go there. its 534 quid a night at the moment....
That this House welcomes John Pilger's column for the New Statesman issue of 13th December, reminding readers of the devastating human cost of the so-termed 'humanitarian' invasion of Kosovo, led by NATO and the United States in the Spring of 1999, without any sanction of the United Nations Security Council; congratulates John Pilger on his expose of the fraudulent justifications for intervening in a 'genocide' that never really existed in Kosovo; recalls President Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen claimed, entirely without foundation, that 'we've now seen about 100,000 military-aged [Albanian] men missing.....they may have been murdered' and that David Scheffer, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, announced with equal inaccuracy that as many as '225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59' may have been killed; recalls that the leader of a Spanish forensic team sent to Kosovo returned home, complaining angrily that he and his colleagues had become part of 'a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines, because we did not find one mass grave'; further recalls that one year later, the International War Crimes Tribunal, a body de facto set up by NATO, announced that the final count of bodies found in Kosovo's 'mass graves' was 2,788; believes the pollution impact of the bombing of Kosovo is still emerging, including the impact of the use of depleted uranium munitions; and calls on the Government to provide full assistance in the clean up of Kosovo.
The main problem for th eTories in this is that it's a weird thing to appear to lead off with when thewy're so far perceived to have said very little about their policies.
They may well increase taxes and NI, but aren't sure. They may well abolish the triple loc, but won't say definitely. They are in favour of relaxing planning controls in the countrytside, but won't say how. But they are DEFINITELY in favour of giving the chance to reintroduce fox-hunting.
Isn't that a bit odd, even if you're a Conservative AND rather like fox-hunting?
The Tories do not have a problem because Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the Labour party.
Corbyn is crap but then EdM was crap and Brown was crap and by the end Blair was crap.
And lets face it the alternative leaders within Labour are pretty crap as well.
So its look the Labour party has a pretty fundamental problem with its recruitment.
One of my biggest gripes is that first class is no longer sufficiently swish to justify the price they charge.
You used to get your own cosy compartment on the slam doors with huge cosy armchair seats, and a styled seat head cover protector.
What's really needed is a Waitrose class where you don't have to travel with Leave voters
What's needed is "I need to work class" which includes basic seats, decent sized tables, and power; "I am on holiday" class which has a good amount of room, nice comfy seats, designed for both adults and kids, with table seats and foldaway table seats; and "I just want to get there class" which is rows of airline-style seats. The first two are priced to subsidize the latter, but there are more of them, so they can cost proportionately less than so-called first class while subsidizing the last one to the same degree. But none are meant to be 'luxury' - they are all "fit for purpose".
The Brexit vote already proving a stunning success for UK workers wanting a boost in pay...
"Once adjusted for inflation, the Bank’s outlook for this year translated into a 0.8% drop in average pay, according to the Resolution Foundation thinktank. Its analysis found average pay was now expected to be £320 lower this year than predicted in the Bank’s February inflation report and £915 lower than it forecast in the May 2016 report that preceded the referendum."
Just as well Germany and the rest of the Eurozone are growing so rapidly and can drag us along behind them.
Its amazing but I don't recall you being at all interested in workers pay previously.
For example in September 2011 when pay rises were 2.2% and CPI was 4.5% or in March 2013 when pay rises were 0.5% and CPI was 2.5% or in June 2014 when pay rises were -0.1% and CPI was 1.8% and on and on and on:
The 2011/12 pay slowdown was fallout from the earlier recession and largely unavoidable. It was also heavily offset by the large increases in Personal Allowance.
The current pay slowdown was entirely self inflicted (ironically by those who thought they were voting for a pay rise) and will have little to no offsetting by tax cuts.
The main problem for th eTories in this is that it's a weird thing to appear to lead off with when thewy're so far perceived to have said very little about their policies.
They may well increase taxes and NI, but aren't sure. They may well abolish the triple loc, but won't say definitely. They are in favour of relaxing planning controls in the countrytside, but won't say how. But they are DEFINITELY in favour of giving the chance to reintroduce fox-hunting.
Isn't that a bit odd, even if you're a Conservative AND rather like fox-hunting?
Wondering if May is planning to use Fox Hunting in the same way as Blair. It will keep the right happy (and distracted) whilst she develops a softer Brexit.
PS Like the "eTories". Is that the Yorkshire branch or some new fangled digital group?
The main problem for th eTories in this is that it's a weird thing to appear to lead off with when thewy're so far perceived to have said very little about their policies.
They may well increase taxes and NI, but aren't sure. They may well abolish the triple loc, but won't say definitely. They are in favour of relaxing planning controls in the countrytside, but won't say how. But they are DEFINITELY in favour of giving the chance to reintroduce fox-hunting.
Isn't that a bit odd, even if you're a Conservative AND rather like fox-hunting?
Wondering if May is planning to use Fox Hunting in the same way as Blair. It will keep the right happy (and distracted) whilst she develops a softer Brexit.
PS Like the "eTories". Is that the Yorkshire branch or some new fangled digital group?
Mr. Eagles, must be something worse than that for this run of bad luck.
I was bloody annoyed when Vandoorne's car failed to fail last race. Would've given me two short odds winning tips rather than a small red for the weekend.
My word is there anything that winds people up more than the trivial issue of fox hunting, I live in an area where country folk love animals but aren't sentimental about them. City dwellers need to understand that farmers kill foxes all the time, they don't read them a bedside story first. Foxes are essentially nice looking rats.
"What it does make clear is that minds have been made up."
I'm afraid so. Labpur can promise the moon on a stick and show costed accounts - it will make no difference. At hest, Jezza may mean well, but he's a dead man walking. Like an amusing old uncle who's gone doo-lally.
Priti Patel, the international development secretary, paid her husband tens of thousands of pounds to run her office while he had two other jobs, including a previously undisclosed role in the City. - The Times
Good news for the country. Priti Patel is spectacularly mediocre, at best, and should be nowhere near the cabinet. Though, to be fair, that applies to just about every current member of it. Yesterday, there was some serious speculation that Amber Rudd might replace Philip Hammond as Chancellor!! :-D
Hopefully, the Tories are going to dig up some talent among their new arrivals. What they have right now is very poor fare indeed - from the PM down.
Is there any Tory you've ever rated as more than mediocre?
I hope this isn't just a partisan attack line you're pushing.
Priti Patel, the international development secretary, paid her husband tens of thousands of pounds to run her office while he had two other jobs, including a previously undisclosed role in the City. - The Times
Good news for the country. Priti Patel is spectacularly mediocre, at best, and should be nowhere near the cabinet. Though, to be fair, that applies to just about every current member of it. Yesterday, there was some serious speculation that Amber Rudd might replace Philip Hammond as Chancellor!! :-D
Hopefully, the Tories are going to dig up some talent among their new arrivals. What they have right now is very poor fare indeed - from the PM down.
Is there any Tory you've ever rated as more than mediocre?
I hope this isn't just a partisan attack line you're pushing.
The current Tory front bench is defintely weak. Andrew Tyrie was good. Shame he's gone.
"What it does make clear is that minds have been made up."
I'm afraid so. Labpur can promise the moon on a stick and show costed accounts - it will make no difference. At hest, Jezza may mean well, but he's a dead man walking. Like an amusing old uncle who's gone doo-lally.
It's just a question now of how far the electorate let's labour collapse
Priti Patel, the international development secretary, paid her husband tens of thousands of pounds to run her office while he had two other jobs, including a previously undisclosed role in the City. - The Times
Good news for the country. Priti Patel is spectacularly mediocre, at best, and should be nowhere near the cabinet. Though, to be fair, that applies to just about every current member of it. Yesterday, there was some serious speculation that Amber Rudd might replace Philip Hammond as Chancellor!! :-D
Hopefully, the Tories are going to dig up some talent among their new arrivals. What they have right now is very poor fare indeed - from the PM down.
Is there any Tory you've ever rated as more than mediocre?
I hope this isn't just a partisan attack line you're pushing.
To be fair, SO's as partisan against Corbyn's Labour atm as he is against the Conservatives.
There's another way of looking at it: which politicians have altered the country undoubtedly for the better?
Some Levers may splutter into their coffee, but Heseltine is one for me. He drove forwards the redevelopment of the Docklands, which revitalised London. He also helped other areas with the Development Corporations.
My word is there anything that winds people up more than the trivial issue of fox hunting, I live in an area where country folk love animals but aren't sentimental about them. City dwellers need to understand that farmers kill foxes all the time, they don't read them a bedside story first. Foxes are essentially nice looking rats.
You seem to think city dwellers are unfamiliar with foxes. Urban foxes are endemic. I've seen them walking down my street in central London.
My word is there anything that winds people up more than the trivial issue of fox hunting, I live in an area where country folk love animals but aren't sentimental about them. City dwellers need to understand that farmers kill foxes all the time, they don't read them a bedside story first. Foxes are essentially nice looking rats.
Because May herself is so insecure, inflexible and generally mediocre, she clearly has a problem with empowering independent thinkers (the contrast with Thatcher and even Cameron and Blair is marked). That might work for her, but it is no good for the country.
Apologies for snipping your words a tad, but, in contrast, this was a fascinating opinion piece from Denis MacShane in yesterday's City AM:
May might be mediocre but her insecurity makes her flexible rather than inflexible. She shamelessly follows public opinion (or the Daily Mail editorial) far more than Blair or Cameron ever did.
Both Blair and Cameron followed public opinion a lot.
My word is there anything that winds people up more than the trivial issue of fox hunting, I live in an area where country folk love animals but aren't sentimental about them. City dwellers need to understand that farmers kill foxes all the time, they don't read them a bedside story first. Foxes are essentially nice looking rats.
You seem to think city dwellers are unfamiliar with foxes. Urban foxes are endemic. I've seen them walking down my street in central London.
I never said they were unfamiliar, I said they don't understand that farmers kill them all the time, not for fun but because they are a nuisance.
That is what city dwellers don't understand, farmers kill things without sentiment but for good reason.
The main problem for th eTories in this is that it's a weird thing to appear to lead off with when thewy're so far perceived to have said very little about their policies.
They may well increase taxes and NI, but aren't sure. They may well abolish the triple loc, but won't say definitely. They are in favour of relaxing planning controls in the countrytside, but won't say how. But they are DEFINITELY in favour of giving the chance to reintroduce fox-hunting.
Isn't that a bit odd, even if you're a Conservative AND rather like fox-hunting?
I disagree with a lot of what Nick Palmer says and still find his transformation from Blairite to Brownite to Millifan to Corbynite pretty amazing even in today's unpredictable, volatile political arena but I think what he says here is pretty close to mark in many ways.
I'm very pro-May and will definitely be a Con voter with her as leader (were it Johnson or Gove things would be very different) but have been disappointed with her campaign so far. There needs to be more to it than simply 'best leader to deliver Brexit' and the odd bit of red meat to her right-wing on Grammar Schools and fox hunting.
The polls show that she is the most popular leader since goodness knows when so why is she being kept away from the public? Get her out there meeting people.
Corbyn has had a good campaign so far IMO with a radical manifesto however away with the fairies it may be and lots of out and about with voters showing him in a much better light - definitely better than the Tories. Despite all that there's not a chance in hell I'd vote Labour while he's leader mind...
I think an important point is that under Blair, fox hunting was part of a wider narrative that the government didn't really care for "inefficient" rural areas and that, to use the Eye's expression, DEFRA was there for the Elimination of Farming and Rural Affairs. That narrative doesn't exist under this government.
My word is there anything that winds people up more than the trivial issue of fox hunting, I live in an area where country folk love animals but aren't sentimental about them. City dwellers need to understand that farmers kill foxes all the time, they don't read them a bedside story first. Foxes are essentially nice looking rats.
You seem to think city dwellers are unfamiliar with foxes. Urban foxes are endemic. I've seen them walking down my street in central London.
Yup and they'll start (as they have... getting into peoples houses) its not a nice thing, children have been attacked
My word is there anything that winds people up more than the trivial issue of fox hunting, I live in an area where country folk love animals but aren't sentimental about them. City dwellers need to understand that farmers kill foxes all the time, they don't read them a bedside story first. Foxes are essentially nice looking rats.
You seem to think city dwellers are unfamiliar with foxes. Urban foxes are endemic. I've seen them walking down my street in central London.
I never said they were unfamiliar, I said they don't understand that farmers kill them all the time, not for fun but because they are a nuisance.
That is what city dwellers don't understand, farmers kill things without sentiment but for good reason.
City dwellers are very well aware that foxes are a nuisance.
The Brexit vote already proving a stunning success for UK workers wanting a boost in pay...
"Once adjusted for inflation, the Bank’s outlook for this year translated into a 0.8% drop in average pay, according to the Resolution Foundation thinktank. Its analysis found average pay was now expected to be £320 lower this year than predicted in the Bank’s February inflation report and £915 lower than it forecast in the May 2016 report that preceded the referendum."
Just as well Germany and the rest of the Eurozone are growing so rapidly and can drag us along behind them.
Its amazing but I don't recall you being at all interested in workers pay previously.
For example in September 2011 when pay rises were 2.2% and CPI was 4.5% or in March 2013 when pay rises were 0.5% and CPI was 2.5% or in June 2014 when pay rises were -0.1% and CPI was 1.8% and on and on and on:
The 2011/12 pay slowdown was fallout from the earlier recession and largely unavoidable. It was also heavily offset by the large increases in Personal Allowance.
The current pay slowdown was entirely self inflicted (ironically by those who thought they were voting for a pay rise) and will have little to no offsetting by tax cuts.
Pathetic - you're someone who supports uncontrolled immigration for the purpose of putting downward pressure on workers pay.
Why don't you man up and tell everyone that you think stagnant pay rates are a good thing.
Not to mention that the uncontrolled immigration putting downward pressure on pay rates didn't stop last June and will continue for another two years.
Instead you try to explain away pay falls which hadn't been seen since the nineteenth century:
Priti Patel, the international development secretary, paid her husband tens of thousands of pounds to run her office while he had two other jobs, including a previously undisclosed role in the City. - The Times
Good news for the country. Priti Patel is spectacularly mediocre, at best, and should be nowhere near the cabinet. Though, to be fair, that applies to just about every current member of it. Yesterday, there was some serious speculation that Amber Rudd might replace Philip Hammond as Chancellor!! :-D
Hopefully, the Tories are going to dig up some talent among their new arrivals. What they have right now is very poor fare indeed - from the PM down.
Is there any Tory you've ever rated as more than mediocre?
I hope this isn't just a partisan attack line you're pushing.
I didn't like their politics, but both Gove and Osborne were (are) head and shoulders above any member of the current cabinet. Cameron, too. I like Hammond, but fear he is next to go as May clearly wants nodders round the table with her. The quality of the current cabinet is desperately poor.
Corbyn is crap but then EdM was crap and Brown was crap and by the end Blair was crap.
And lets face it the alternative leaders within Labour are pretty crap as well.
So its look the Labour party has a pretty fundamental problem with its recruitment.
Hague was crap, IDS was crap, Cameron ended up crap as did Major and May will end up crap too.
So its looks like the Conservative Party has a pretty fundamental problem with its recruitment
That's a partisan view, and one could throw in Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown, Ming Campbell, and Neil Kinnock into the "crap" stakes, just for starters, but the real question is this: is the right talent being attracted to parliament?
As far as I can tell, either you make the right contacts and get parachuted in as a business public semi-celebrity, or you do a long apprenticeship in public affairs/media/politics from graduation until your early 30s, until you become professional enough with a broad enough network to get you selected.
I keep hearing about contemporaries of mine being selected for seats. Good for them, and they've almost all been heavily involved in politics for at least 10 years, and have tenacity and determination.
That doesn't' necessarily make them free, independent thinkers, or good ministerial material.
My word is there anything that winds people up more than the trivial issue of fox hunting, I live in an area where country folk love animals but aren't sentimental about them. City dwellers need to understand that farmers kill foxes all the time, they don't read them a bedside story first. Foxes are essentially nice looking rats.
You seem to think city dwellers are unfamiliar with foxes. Urban foxes are endemic. I've seen them walking down my street in central London.
I never said they were unfamiliar, I said they don't understand that farmers kill them all the time, not for fun but because they are a nuisance.
That is what city dwellers don't understand, farmers kill things without sentiment but for good reason.
City dwellers are very well aware that foxes are a nuisance.
So how do you propose that their numbers are controlled?
My word is there anything that winds people up more than the trivial issue of fox hunting, I live in an area where country folk love animals but aren't sentimental about them. City dwellers need to understand that farmers kill foxes all the time, they don't read them a bedside story first. Foxes are essentially nice looking rats.
You seem to think city dwellers are unfamiliar with foxes. Urban foxes are endemic. I've seen them walking down my street in central London.
I never said they were unfamiliar, I said they don't understand that farmers kill them all the time, not for fun but because they are a nuisance.
That is what city dwellers don't understand, farmers kill things without sentiment but for good reason.
City dwellers are very well aware that foxes are a nuisance.
So how do you propose that their numbers are controlled?
Corbyn is crap but then EdM was crap and Brown was crap and by the end Blair was crap.
And lets face it the alternative leaders within Labour are pretty crap as well.
So its look the Labour party has a pretty fundamental problem with its recruitment.
Hague was crap, IDS was crap, Cameron ended up crap as did Major and May will end up crap too.
So its looks like the Conservative Party has a pretty fundamental problem with its recruitment
Yes, May is less than 1 year into the job and so far getting away with it by wrapping herself in the flag without having to yet deliver on Brexit, and by diverting the country's attention from everything else that she's failing to deliver. It won't take a lot for those ratings to collapse a couple of years down the line.
That's a partisan view, and one could throw in Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown, Ming Campbell, and Neil Kinnock into the "crap" stakes, just for starters, but the real question is this: is the right talent being attracted to parliament?
As far as I can tell, either you make the right contacts and get parachuted in as a business public semi-celebrity, or you do a long apprenticeship in public affairs/media/politics from graduation until your early 30s, until you become professional enough with a broad enough network to get you selected.
I keep hearing about contemporaries of mine being selected for seats. Good for them, and they've almost all been heavily involved in politics for at least 10 years, and have tenacity and determination.
That doesn't' necessarily make them free, independent thinkers, or good ministerial material.
It was more a response to "another Richard" and his cheap anti-Labour jibe.
It was also a reminder all political careers end in failure and very few politicians are fondly remembered. Yes, all have their supporters but all have significant negative views. One day, May will not be viewed as fondly as she is now.
That decline may be swift or slow, I don't know but it will happen.
Your points are entirely valid and are part of a deeper conversation we need to have about the kind of politics we want and the kind of people we want to be leading us. I am, for example, very dubious about claims businessmen and women make good political figures, Some might but running the country is, as President Trump is discovering, not the same as running an enterprise.
In business you can command and control, in politics you have to cajole and convince and that's not a skill all business people have.
Priti Patel, the international development secretary, paid her husband tens of thousands of pounds to run her office while he had two other jobs, including a previously undisclosed role in the City. - The Times
Good news for the country. Priti Patel is spectacularly mediocre, at best, and should be nowhere near the cabinet. Though, to be fair, that applies to just about every current member of it. Yesterday, there was some serious speculation that Amber Rudd might replace Philip Hammond as Chancellor!! :-D
Hopefully, the Tories are going to dig up some talent among their new arrivals. What they have right now is very poor fare indeed - from the PM down.
Is there any Tory you've ever rated as more than mediocre?
I hope this isn't just a partisan attack line you're pushing.
I didn't like their politics, but both Gove and Osborne were (are) head and shoulders above any member of the current cabinet. Cameron, too. I like Hammond, but fear he is next to go as May clearly wants nodders round the table with her. The quality of the current cabinet is desperately poor.
I can agree on Gove and Osborne. But I don't think Cameron is head and shoulders above May.
Fallon, Hunt and Grayling (forgetting their politics) are current competent ministers. Amber Rudd has very little room to shine.
Francis Maude, David Laws, Owen Paterson, Danny Alexander, Esther McVey were also effective ministers in the last Government.
William Hague would have been superb had his confidence not been destroyed.
My word is there anything that winds people up more than the trivial issue of fox hunting, I live in an area where country folk love animals but aren't sentimental about them. City dwellers need to understand that farmers kill foxes all the time, they don't read them a bedside story first. Foxes are essentially nice looking rats.
You seem to think city dwellers are unfamiliar with foxes. Urban foxes are endemic. I've seen them walking down my street in central London.
Yup and they'll start (as they have... getting into peoples houses) its not a nice thing, children have been attacked
That's a partisan view, and one could throw in Ed Miliband, Gordon Brown, Ming Campbell, and Neil Kinnock into the "crap" stakes, just for starters, but the real question is this: is the right talent being attracted to parliament?
As far as I can tell, either you make the right contacts and get parachuted in as a business public semi-celebrity, or you do a long apprenticeship in public affairs/media/politics from graduation until your early 30s, until you become professional enough with a broad enough network to get you selected.
I keep hearing about contemporaries of mine being selected for seats. Good for them, and they've almost all been heavily involved in politics for at least 10 years, and have tenacity and determination.
That doesn't' necessarily make them free, independent thinkers, or good ministerial material.
It was more a response to "another Richard" and his cheap anti-Labour jibe.
It was also a reminder all political careers end in failure and very few politicians are fondly remembered. Yes, all have their supporters but all have significant negative views. One day, May will not be viewed as fondly as she is now.
That decline may be swift or slow, I don't know but it will happen.
Your points are entirely valid and are part of a deeper conversation we need to have about the kind of politics we want and the kind of people we want to be leading us. I am, for example, very dubious about claims businessmen and women make good political figures, Some might but running the country is, as President Trump is discovering, not the same as running an enterprise.
In business you can command and control, in politics you have to cajole and convince and that's not a skill all business people have.
The current resident of the White House is a good example
Most people do not put keeping the fox hunting ban as a major factor in how they vote apart from animal rights radicals who will already be voting Labour or LD or SNP or Green anyway. However supporters of foxhunting do put it at the top of their list and they do campaign and leaflet hard if required which would help the Tories in rural marginals, especially in Scotland. Many of them will be far from riffs, indeed in country areas a lot of working class people too are involved in fox hunting
The opposite also applies. Anti-hunt campaigners were active in the centre of Chester on numerous occasions on the run up to 2015. There were a number of letters in the local press attacking the then MPs pro-hunting stance. He was ousted by 96 votes.
In the areas where pro-hunting helps the Tories I suspect they would win without their assistance
I doubt hunting affects too many votes but it stands to reason that if opponents outnumber supporters by 4 to 1 any affect it does have is likely to be to the benefit of anti-hunting candidates.
I wonder if being pro-hunting in Vauxhall might be the final nail in Kate Hoey's coffin.
My word is there anything that winds people up more than the trivial issue of fox hunting, I live in an area where country folk love animals but aren't sentimental about them. City dwellers need to understand that farmers kill foxes all the time, they don't read them a bedside story first. Foxes are essentially nice looking rats.
You seem to think city dwellers are unfamiliar with foxes. Urban foxes are endemic. I've seen them walking down my street in central London.
I never said they were unfamiliar, I said they don't understand that farmers kill them all the time, not for fun but because they are a nuisance.
That is what city dwellers don't understand, farmers kill things without sentiment but for good reason.
City dwellers are very well aware that foxes are a nuisance.
Well, exactly. I live just outside London - in Watford, and we've seen foxes in our garden several times.
My word is there anything that winds people up more than the trivial issue of fox hunting, I live in an area where country folk love animals but aren't sentimental about them. City dwellers need to understand that farmers kill foxes all the time, they don't read them a bedside story first. Foxes are essentially nice looking rats.
You seem to think city dwellers are unfamiliar with foxes. Urban foxes are endemic. I've seen them walking down my street in central London.
I never said they were unfamiliar, I said they don't understand that farmers kill them all the time, not for fun but because they are a nuisance.
That is what city dwellers don't understand, farmers kill things without sentiment but for good reason.
City dwellers are very well aware that foxes are a nuisance.
So how do you propose that their numbers are controlled?
You seem to think I'm some treehugging opponent of culls. I'm not. I'm unconvinced that dressing up in hunting pink and rampaging through the countryside on horseback with packs of hounds is a particularly efficient means of culling.
Participating in collective bouts of animal cruelty troubles me, no matter how necessary it is that fox numbers should be controlled or how picturesque it might be. Poisoning pigeons in the park makes for a great song and would be socially useful, but if it wasn't done in a humane manner you would be prosecuted for it. The argument for me is the extent to which something that is morally wrong should be unlawful. I wouldn't criminalise adultery. Which side of the line should this be?
It's not as though the subject hasn't been exhaustively discussed in recent years. Public opinion seems pretty settled on the matter too. So while I'm a firm "don't know" on the subject, it seems pretty baffling to reopen the subject again now.
Bit of wishful thinking on his part I think, polling and local election results shows huge chunks of the UKIP vote going to the Tories pretty much everywhere.
Comments
Priti Patel, the international development secretary, paid her husband tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money to run her office while he had two other jobs, including a previously undisclosed role in the City. - The Times
MPs’ staff must reveal outside roles if there is a risk of a conflict of interest but Mr Sawyer’s work at Nasdaq was not publicly disclosed. His job was said to have included organising events and receptions for clients, arranging research papers and working on the Nasdaq stand at conferences. He was listed as the main marketing contact for Nasdaq NLX, a European interest-rate futures market.
Staff are also required to reveal jobs that are “in any way advantaged by the privileged access to parliament afforded by [a] pass”.
Sir Alistair Graham, former chairman of the committee on standards in public life, believes that Mr Sawyer’s marketing job easily met that test, given the crossover of interests between the financial sector, and politics and should have been declared.
Then we'll talk.
And, of course, if they believe Juncker did say what he is reported to have said, they must give credence to the rest of the report in which the quote was contained. Mustn't they?
They may well increase taxes and NI, but aren't sure.
They may well abolish the triple loc, but won't say definitely.
They are in favour of relaxing planning controls in the countrytside, but won't say how.
But they are DEFINITELY in favour of giving the chance to reintroduce fox-hunting.
Isn't that a bit odd, even if you're a Conservative AND rather like fox-hunting?
Rudd vs Abbott
Hamond vs McDonnell
Johnson vs Mrs Bucket
Fallon vs Griffith
Truss vs Burgon
Greening vs Rayner
May vs Corbyn
All a bit crap I think we will agree, but the least crap by an order of magnitude is in all cases on the blue side at the moment.
Labour could argue that the time has come to choose an approach, and that a truly privatised solution can't work because lines would close and commuters would likely lose their subsidy.
Do these people realise how ridiculous they appear?
When we have a look at the final result this graph might prove my point...
https://twitter.com/WinLD/status/862610934547795968
Plus, "unspeakable" looks abusive to me; sticking it in a misquotation just makes it passive-aggressive abuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renationalization_of_YPF#Resulting_dispute
I'm unsure it's working well for them ...
Read more at: http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/ukip-candidate-numbers-drop-in-yorkshire-1-8539361
Does anyone have a national total for kipper candidates yet?
And the likely source of the leak has expressed similar views:
Brexit will never become a success
http://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-will-never-be-a-success-junckers-top-aide/
I imagine the Remoaners wouldn't bat an eyelid if May said 'the EU will never become a success'....
"Once adjusted for inflation, the Bank’s outlook for this year translated into a 0.8% drop in average pay, according to the Resolution Foundation thinktank. Its analysis found average pay was now expected to be £320 lower this year than predicted in the Bank’s February inflation report and £915 lower than it forecast in the May 2016 report that preceded the referendum."
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/11/bank-of-england-living-standards-interest-rates-inflation
Just as well Germany and the rest of the Eurozone are growing so rapidly and can drag us along behind them.
Nick Robinson✔@bbcnickrobinson
Wonder if BarryGardiner had three ShreddedWheat this morning? @BBCr4today
Iain Martin✔@iainmartin1
Re Gardiner, one of worst aspects of these people who ruined Labour is the shamelessness. Rather than feel shame they're puffed up + pious.
(((Dan Hodges)))✔@DPJHodges
Barry Gardiner claims when Jeremy Corbyn said he couldn't think of circumstances he would deploy troops it was "a throw away remark".
David Wooding✔@DavidWooding
Labour's Barry Gardiner sounds like he has been overdosing on the grumpy pills before his interview to defend Corbyn on @BBCr4today.
James Tapsfield @JamesTapsfield
Gardiner seems strangely outraged that people should take Corbyn's own words and quote them
I would imagine if it went to a free vote in the Commons, the pro-hunting vote would do better than public opinion would suggest on the back of the Prime Minister's support but I expect it would still lose.
We've been before with capital punishment which, I suspect, might have majority public support but has never got close to winning a free vote in the Commons. Once we leave the EU, I believe, we would have greater freedom (ECHR ?) to see if restoring the death penalty is desirable.
The GE remains a distant thing here in East Ham - looking back, the best Conservative performance in what was then Newham North East wasn't 1983 but 1987. The seat briefly had a Conservative MP in the mid 70s when it was held by Reg Prentice who famously crossed the floor in 1977. He didn't try to defend the seat in 1979 when it was regained by Labour's Ron Leighton (who has a road named after him).
The Conservatives polled just after 30% then and did fractionally better in 1987 but their vote (and Leighton's) fell in 1983 as the Liberals advanced to 20%. The 1983 election was the only time Leighton's vote fell below 50%.
By 1992, Labour were back at 58% and Stephen Timms substantially increased that in the 1994 by-election when the Lib Dem candidate Alec Kellaway defected to Labour just before polling day (he went on to be a long-serving Labour Councillor on Newham and died last year or in 2015). Timms' Conservative opponent in 1994 was one Philip Hammond (not sure what happened to him!).
The recent London poll suggested an overall 2% swing from Labour to Conservative since 2010 and given Timms bucked the trend last time with a 5% swing in his favour it's possible there won't be so much change. I wonder if East Ham will, after the election, be Labour's safest seat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler's_Ford
Hmm.
If you want a risky bet that *could* come off, weather and circumstances permitting, Verstappen is 41 for pole on Ladbrokes.
http://www.nottinghampost.com/conservatives-strike-coalition-deal-to-take-control-of-nottinghamshire-county-council/story-30323555-detail/story.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39883635
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/02/i-hope-trump-listens-to-ivanka-on-climate-change-mike-bloomberg-says.html
http://www.cityam.com/264477/theresa-may-wisely-u-turns-while-jeremy-corbyn-hasnt
May might be mediocre but her insecurity makes her flexible rather than inflexible. She shamelessly follows public opinion (or the Daily Mail editorial) far more than Blair or Cameron ever did.
By the way, do we have the results from last night's by-elections?
What it does make clear is that minds have been made up and the result is already set as in the 40s versus in the 20s with the change shared between the rest. Done and dusted.
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/862939095391248384
For example in September 2011 when pay rises were 2.2% and CPI was 4.5% or in March 2013 when pay rises were 0.5% and CPI was 2.5% or in June 2014 when pay rises were -0.1% and CPI was 1.8% and on and on and on:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/timeseries/kac3/lms
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/timeseries/l55o/mm23
Probably a lot of upgrades which might shuffle the order a bit. Force India and Red Bull may be ones to watch.
It's in the world of Facebook, Twitter and social media that this election (and I suspect all elections for now) are being fought. The Conservatives have a superb social media campaign which I now think was instrumental in winning them their 2015 majority.
Once identified, prospective Conservative voters are bombarded with anti-Labour ads (which can be much stronger than anything on a poster for example I imagine there's an anti-Labour one which claims Corbyn will sell pensioners and take children to be forcibly re-educated in Stalinist camps modelled on North Korea or something like that and only May can save you, your family, your neighbours and their pets from disaster.
That's canvassing 2017-style and you only have to travel on a Tube (or indeed any form of public transport) to see how many mobile users head straight for Facebook or Twitter rather than other websites. The other parties are catching up but the Conservatives, to paraphrase Me Steinman, "got a good head start".
That this House welcomes John Pilger's column for the New Statesman issue of 13th December, reminding readers of the devastating human cost of the so-termed 'humanitarian' invasion of Kosovo, led by NATO and the United States in the Spring of 1999, without any sanction of the United Nations Security Council; congratulates John Pilger on his expose of the fraudulent justifications for intervening in a 'genocide' that never really existed in Kosovo; recalls President Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen claimed, entirely without foundation, that 'we've now seen about 100,000 military-aged [Albanian] men missing.....they may have been murdered' and that David Scheffer, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes, announced with equal inaccuracy that as many as '225,000 ethnic Albanian men aged between 14 and 59' may have been killed; recalls that the leader of a Spanish forensic team sent to Kosovo returned home, complaining angrily that he and his colleagues had become part of 'a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines, because we did not find one mass grave'; further recalls that one year later, the International War Crimes Tribunal, a body de facto set up by NATO, announced that the final count of bodies found in Kosovo's 'mass graves' was 2,788; believes the pollution impact of the bombing of Kosovo is still emerging, including the impact of the use of depleted uranium munitions; and calls on the Government to provide full assistance in the clean up of Kosovo.
https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2004-05/392
https://twitter.com/patrickwintour/status/862931928403644416
And lets face it the alternative leaders within Labour are pretty crap as well.
So its look the Labour party has a pretty fundamental problem with its recruitment.
The current pay slowdown was entirely self inflicted (ironically by those who thought they were voting for a pay rise) and will have little to no offsetting by tax cuts.
So its looks like the Conservative Party has a pretty fundamental problem with its recruitment
PS Like the "eTories". Is that the Yorkshire branch or some new fangled digital group?
I was bloody annoyed when Vandoorne's car failed to fail last race. Would've given me two short odds winning tips rather than a small red for the weekend.
"What it does make clear is that minds have been made up."
I'm afraid so. Labpur can promise the moon on a stick and show costed accounts - it will make no difference. At hest, Jezza may mean well, but he's a dead man walking. Like an amusing old uncle who's gone doo-lally.
I hope this isn't just a partisan attack line you're pushing.
Perhaps they've always been crap.
There's another way of looking at it: which politicians have altered the country undoubtedly for the better?
Some Levers may splutter into their coffee, but Heseltine is one for me. He drove forwards the redevelopment of the Docklands, which revitalised London. He also helped other areas with the Development Corporations.
This is very significant in my opinion & tells us a lot about where thinking in May's team is (thread)
http://www.itv.com/news/2017-05-12/theresa-may-claims-labour-has-deserted-the-working-class/
Have grasped the value divide that has underpinned (a) 2001-2010 w class apathy -> (b) 2012-2015 rise of Ukip -> (c) 2016 vote for Brexit
Grasped that workers closer to Right on cultural axis - value national ID, patriotism, limits on migration, anti-EU- & as imp as economics
One reason since 2010 Lab lost votes due to disconnect on this cultural terrain eg
This not new. Since 1997 others shown how Lab "liberal consensus" on pro-EU & pro-immigration alienated large chunk of Labour electorate
I found it symbolic of Labour's dire state that when Geoff Evans recently explained this on Newsnight (some) Lab MPs insulted him
In June some of those Labour MPs will lose their seats because they and party failed to grasp what was happening to Labour's electorate
May & Team, meanwhile, will hoover up C2/DE workers by talking not about redistribution & trident but patriotism, community & belonging
Blue Labour agenda now being turned back on Labour. Perhaps 2010-2015 Miliband & others failed to take this as far as it could have gone
Any new centre left party will have to take it far more seriously. Winning coalition in UK Lab needs more than bland Macron Third Way-ism
That is what city dwellers don't understand, farmers kill things without sentiment but for good reason.
I'm very pro-May and will definitely be a Con voter with her as leader (were it Johnson or Gove things would be very different) but have been disappointed with her campaign so far. There needs to be more to it than simply 'best leader to deliver Brexit' and the odd bit of red meat to her right-wing on Grammar Schools and fox hunting.
The polls show that she is the most popular leader since goodness knows when so why is she being kept away from the public? Get her out there meeting people.
Corbyn has had a good campaign so far IMO with a radical manifesto however away with the fairies it may be and lots of out and about with voters showing him in a much better light - definitely better than the Tories. Despite all that there's not a chance in hell I'd vote Labour while he's leader mind...
I think an important point is that under Blair, fox hunting was part of a wider narrative that the government didn't really care for "inefficient" rural areas and that, to use the Eye's expression, DEFRA was there for the Elimination of Farming and Rural Affairs. That narrative doesn't exist under this government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21399709
The more prevalent they become, the worse it will get.. They are NOT cuddly animals.
Why don't you man up and tell everyone that you think stagnant pay rates are a good thing.
Not to mention that the uncontrolled immigration putting downward pressure on pay rates didn't stop last June and will continue for another two years.
Instead you try to explain away pay falls which hadn't been seen since the nineteenth century:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/16/uk-workers-wage-squeeze-longest-since-1870s
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/11/british-pay-squeeze-worst-150-years-tuc-study
As far as I can tell, either you make the right contacts and get parachuted in as a business public semi-celebrity, or you do a long apprenticeship in public affairs/media/politics from graduation until your early 30s, until you become professional enough with a broad enough network to get you selected.
I keep hearing about contemporaries of mine being selected for seats. Good for them, and they've almost all been heavily involved in politics for at least 10 years, and have tenacity and determination.
That doesn't' necessarily make them free, independent thinkers, or good ministerial material.
I'd like to see some pollsters try it rather than wasting their time/effort on guff such as 'Do you support Corbyn's school meals plan'
Tut-tutting?
Writing letters to the Guardian?
It was also a reminder all political careers end in failure and very few politicians are fondly remembered. Yes, all have their supporters but all have significant negative views. One day, May will not be viewed as fondly as she is now.
That decline may be swift or slow, I don't know but it will happen.
Your points are entirely valid and are part of a deeper conversation we need to have about the kind of politics we want and the kind of people we want to be leading us. I am, for example, very dubious about claims businessmen and women make good political figures, Some might but running the country is, as President Trump is discovering, not the same as running an enterprise.
In business you can command and control, in politics you have to cajole and convince and that's not a skill all business people have.
Fallon, Hunt and Grayling (forgetting their politics) are current competent ministers. Amber Rudd has very little room to shine.
Francis Maude, David Laws, Owen Paterson, Danny Alexander, Esther McVey were also effective ministers in the last Government.
William Hague would have been superb had his confidence not been destroyed.
In the areas where pro-hunting helps the Tories I suspect they would win without their assistance
I doubt hunting affects too many votes but it stands to reason that if opponents outnumber supporters by 4 to 1 any affect it does have is likely to be to the benefit of anti-hunting candidates.
I wonder if being pro-hunting in Vauxhall might be the final nail in Kate Hoey's coffin.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15281180.Shock_at_death_of_a__great_servant__of_The_Herald/
Participating in collective bouts of animal cruelty troubles me, no matter how necessary it is that fox numbers should be controlled or how picturesque it might be. Poisoning pigeons in the park makes for a great song and would be socially useful, but if it wasn't done in a humane manner you would be prosecuted for it. The argument for me is the extent to which something that is morally wrong should be unlawful. I wouldn't criminalise adultery. Which side of the line should this be?
It's not as though the subject hasn't been exhaustively discussed in recent years. Public opinion seems pretty settled on the matter too. So while I'm a firm "don't know" on the subject, it seems pretty baffling to reopen the subject again now.
Interestingly, there are foxes round here but, perhaps because they prefer hunting rabbits and the like, they never seem to bother with the bins.
Or maybe Yorkshire foxes are just more polite than cockney ones
The definition of rich where taxes are raised certainly ain't going to be 80k, make like 8k.
http://www.thenational.scot/news/15277950.Boys_Brigade_and_Kirk_both_condemn_Twitter_troll_Tory_councillor_who_bragged_about_the_size_of_his_manhood_on_dating_website/