O/T - Serious question to those (like SO) who are so vehement in criticism of the "No deal is better than a bad deal" line of the Government. Taking at face value their claims that they accept that Brexit will happen, what do they actually think the Government should publicise as their minimum red lines.
Hypothetical it may be, but how would they actually react if the EU, say, stated that they will refuse to negotiate any trade deal unless the UK promised £50billion annual payment in return. And that's without even seeing how worthwhile the trade deal would be?
If you don't accept "no deal" as an option, then what is the point of negotiating? And what is the alternative to any fait d'accompli presented by the EU?
It is carpet-haggling 1.01. The guy in the carpet bazaar has to believe you will walk away. Or you get to the point Cameron ended up - where he walked in and said "My man, I am DESPERATE to buy a carpet and I have this much to spend...." - and is then surprised when the guy goes out back and returns with a flea-ridden rug. Which he still ends up proudly displaying on his floor as this great "steal of a deal" he did down the souk....
Carpet-haggling 1.01. They have to believe you will walk out without a carpet. Corbyn has already said he will buy a carpet, regardless. The man is a fool.
Difference is, in this situation the carpet seller knows walking away will also cost you dearly.
It really isn't hard.
They also know it will cost them.as dearly. Both sides will be desperate to get a deal done once the election is over.
O/T - Serious question to those (like SO) who are so vehement in criticism of the "No deal is better than a bad deal" line of the Government. Taking at face value their claims that they accept that Brexit will happen, what do they actually think the Government should publicise as their minimum red lines.
Hypothetical it may be, but how would they actually react if the EU, say, stated that they will refuse to negotiate any trade deal unless the UK promised £50billion annual payment in return. And that's without even seeing how worthwhile the trade deal would be?
If you don't accept "no deal" as an option, then what is the point of negotiating? And what is the alternative to any fait d'accompli presented by the EU?
It is carpet-haggling 1.01. The guy in the carpet bazaar has to believe you will walk away. Or you get to the point Cameron ended up - where he walked in and said "My man, I am DESPERATE to buy a carpet and I have this much to spend...." - and is then surprised when the guy goes out back and returns with a flea-ridden rug. Which he still ends up proudly displaying on his floor as this great "steal of a deal" he did down the souk....
Carpet-haggling 1.01. They have to believe you will walk out without a carpet. Corbyn has already said he will buy a carpet, regardless. The man is a fool.
Difference is, in this situation the carpet seller knows walking away will also cost you dearly.
It really isn't hard.
Most sensible people don't dispute that. But that doesn't address the question.
(ignoring the argument that taking short term pain but being out of the EU is a better basis for a long deal that benefits both parties).
Absolutely the reality of 'Can't pay ( dad's care bills) we'll take the property away' is frightening especially for those who had their children later in life or for those needing care earlier in their 70s. This potentially affects all house owners and affects many families full on.
Its also a lottery based on whether we ( baby boomers) or for younger readers parents get dementia compared to cancer, strokes, heart disease, disabilities which currently may demand no house sale. It goes to the heart of what type of society we are- most UK voters would prefer the Lib Dem approach pay a few more pennies on income tax for European style health and social care - pool the risk or at least get a balance - not indifferent right wing American public policy misery.
Simon Hughes on SKY News saying hes out on the doorstep every day and the Lib Dems will win seats from Labour and the Conservatives BUT says Conservatives will win
The first point is probably right but did he avoid the net vs absolute question?
I see you're in trolling mode this morning! I am 53 today and feeling old, so will not partake. Off to Aldeburgh for the weekend later. Looking forward to hearing and seeing the sea, and eating and drinking my fill. My wife has said it's my birthday present; but as I'm paying for it and driving us there I am not sure how that works!
53 is old ............... Tsk .............
Happy Birthday Young Un .....
It's all relative. If you've never been 53 before, it's old. I was 27 last week, I'm sure ;-)
I turn 30 this summer, that feels old.
Happy birthday! Have a good one.
30 was a tough one. I was quite unhappy about it. Felt far too grown up. Thankfully, I have got a lot more relaxed about birthdays over the last 25 years.
I'm over double thatand I can say the passing of the years certainly seems to accelarate as you get older.
On topic I'm just not that sure that the social care proposals will lose that many votes amongst the over 65s.
Firstly the likelihood is that they identify as Tory in the first place. The proposals are not a vote winner, and probably during the campaign people would respond as don't know or less likely to vote. But come next Thursday and given the choice of May or Corbyn I cannot see how someone worried about financial impact of the Tory proposals will switch from away from them and risk a Corbyn government.
Secondly for those that are impacted the greatest burden will fall in safe Tory seats and motivation and likelihood to vote will be disproportionately in those. If you are in Berkshire or Surrey then withholding your vote will not let your opponents in so is more likely to happen. Most people will know they live in a marginal.
I think the biggest error in the Tory manifesto was having no policies to sell on the doorstep. Negotiating Brexit is just terrible. It's like saying come and shop at Tesco because we have fantastic departmental meetings.
O/T - Serious question to those (like SO) who are so vehement in criticism of the "No deal is better than a bad deal" line of the Government. Taking at face value their claims that they accept that Brexit will happen, what do they actually think the Government should publicise as their minimum red lines.
Hypothetical it may be, but how would they actually react if the EU, say, stated that they will refuse to negotiate any trade deal unless the UK promised £50billion annual payment in return. And that's without even seeing how worthwhile the trade deal would be?
If you don't accept "no deal" as an option, then what is the point of negotiating? And what is the alternative to any fait d'accompli presented by the EU?
It is carpet-haggling 1.01. The guy in the carpet bazaar has to believe you will walk away. Or you get to the point Cameron ended up - where he walked in and said "My man, I am DESPERATE to buy a carpet and I have this much to spend...." - and is then surprised when the guy goes out back and returns with a flea-ridden rug. Which he still ends up proudly displaying on his floor as this great "steal of a deal" he did down the souk....
Carpet-haggling 1.01. They have to believe you will walk out without a carpet. Corbyn has already said he will buy a carpet, regardless. The man is a fool.
Difference is, in this situation the carpet seller knows walking away will also cost you dearly.
It really isn't hard.
They also know it will cost them.as dearly. Both sides will be desperate to get a deal done once the election is over.
Nonsense. You do know the EU does less trade with us, in percentage terms, than we do with them, don't you?
And that to them the EU is more than an economic entity?
Simon Hughes on SKY News saying hes out on the doorstep every day and the Lib Dems will win seats from Labour and the Conservatives BUT says Conservatives will win
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
Absolutely the reality of 'Can't pay ( dad's care bills) we'll take the property away' is frightening especially for those who had their children later in life or for those needing care earlier in their 70s. This potentially affects all house owners and affects many families full on.
Its also a lottery based on whether we ( baby boomers) or for younger readers parents get dementia compared to cancer, strokes, heart disease, disabilities which currently may demand no house sale. It goes to the heart of what type of society we are- most UK voters would prefer the Lib Dem approach pay a few more pennies on income tax for European style health and social care - pool the risk or at least get a balance - not indifferent right wing American public policy misery.
There are a huge amount of people in the country who struggle to make their pay last to the end of the month. People with no prospect of owning a house or inheriting a house, people for whom a few more pence on income tax would make their lives even harder. Sure they would happily spend 40 years of working life struggling harder so the haves could pass on the house to Tristan and Jemima
Quite. The dementia tax threatens to be the most effective wealth tax we have ever had. So, of course, Labour is against it. Inherited wealth must be protected apparently.
I still think Labour running to the defence of millionaires keeping their WFA is the most bizarre thing that has happened in this election. How the hell do they defend that on the doorsteps of council estates/social housing?
They don't have to because the Tories bungled it by saying it would stay in Scotland.
This is Hillary 16 levels of shit. Worst campaign I've ever seen by the Tory party.
Worst by a million miles. Where are the Cabinet Ministers .. Perhaps, I have just switched off cause I cannot bear to listen to it any more. Especially 5 live voxpops.. URRRRGH.
Absolutely the reality of 'Can't pay ( dad's care bills) we'll take the property away' is frightening especially for those who had their children later in life or for those needing care earlier in their 70s. This potentially affects all house owners and affects many families full on.
Its also a lottery based on whether we ( baby boomers) or for younger readers parents get dementia compared to cancer, strokes, heart disease, disabilities which currently may demand no house sale. It goes to the heart of what type of society we are- most UK voters would prefer the Lib Dem approach pay a few more pennies on income tax for European style health and social care - pool the risk or at least get a balance - not indifferent right wing American public policy misery.
There are a huge amount of people in the country who struggle to make their pay last to the end of the month. People with no prospect of owning a house or inheriting a house, people for whom a few more pence on income tax would make their lives even harder. Sure they would happily spend 40 years of working life struggling harder so the haves could pass on the house to Tristan and Jemima
Quite. The dementia tax threatens to be the most effective wealth tax we have ever had. So, of course, Labour is against it. Inherited wealth must be protected apparently.
I still think Labour running to the defence of millionaires keeping their WFA is the most bizarre thing that has happened in this election. How the hell do they defend that on the doorsteps of council estates/social housing?
They don't have to because the Tories bungled it by saying it would stay in Scotland.
This is Hillary 16 levels of shit. Worst campaign I've ever seen by the Tory party.
I think the problem was more that there wasn't a level placed on where the WFA would be withdrawn (with suspicion that it would be linked to tax credits for easy administration). That enabled Labour to scare people a lot lower than millionaire level.
I suspect that the vast majority of people could save much of the £75 lost by shopping around for their energy supplier.
Simon Hughes on SKY News saying hes out on the doorstep every day and the Lib Dems will win seats from Labour and the Conservatives BUT says Conservatives will win
A clip from what has been described as the worst interview ever between Andrew Neil and Tim Farron.. What's interesting is the the director/camera operator's decision to make Neil look like Richard 111. Hitchcock would be proud of this one (around (45 secs)
O/T - Serious question to those (like SO) who are so vehement in criticism of the "No deal is better than a bad deal" line of the Government. Taking at face value their claims that they accept that Brexit will happen, what do they actually think the Government should publicise as their minimum red lines.
Hypothetical it may be, but how would they actually react if the EU, say, stated that they will refuse to negotiate any trade deal unless the UK promised £50billion annual payment in return. And that's without even seeing how worthwhile the trade deal would be?
If you don't accept "no deal" as an option, then what is the point of negotiating? And what is the alternative to any fait d'accompli presented by the EU?
Hypothetically there must be a point where walking away is better than the best available alternative. In practice the alternative is extremely unlikely to be bad enough to be worth it. Going into a negotiation in that basis will lead to a bad result. The actual negotiating space is better than nothing but less than what we have already. You should negotiate for a lot better than nothing and the smallest downgrade. On that basis I think an acceptable deal is possible, even if we do end up worse off than we are now.
From what I have seen, Labour have a better approach to the Brexit negotiations than the Conservatives.
O/T - Serious question to those (like SO) who are so vehement in criticism of the "No deal is better than a bad deal" line of the Government. Taking at face value their claims that they accept that Brexit will happen, what do they actually think the Government should publicise as their minimum red lines.
Hypothetical it may be, but how would they actually react if the EU, say, stated that they will refuse to negotiate any trade deal unless the UK promised £50billion annual payment in return. And that's without even seeing how worthwhile the trade deal would be?
If you don't accept "no deal" as an option, then what is the point of negotiating? And what is the alternative to any fait d'accompli presented by the EU?
It is carpet-haggling 1.01. The guy in the carpet bazaar has to believe you will walk away. Or you get to the point Cameron ended up - where he walked in and said "My man, I am DESPERATE to buy a carpet and I have this much to spend...." - and is then surprised when the guy goes out back and returns with a flea-ridden rug. Which he still ends up proudly displaying on his floor as this great "steal of a deal" he did down the souk....
Carpet-haggling 1.01. They have to believe you will walk out without a carpet. Corbyn has already said he will buy a carpet, regardless. The man is a fool.
Difference is, in this situation the carpet seller knows walking away will also cost you dearly.
It really isn't hard.
They also know it will cost them.as dearly. Both sides will be desperate to get a deal done once the election is over.
Nonsense. You do know the EU does less trade with us, in percentage terms, than we do with them, don't you?
And that to them the EU is more than an economic entity?
All of northern Europe would almost assuredly fall into a recession with no deal. The UK consumer is one of the main engines of growth for Northern Europe, if the EU decided to cut it off then it is definitely going to cause them as much pain as us. Remember that we are already less reliant on EU trade than any other EU nations for exports, but one of the most reliant for imports. We have a truly huge trade deficit with the EU, it funds literally millions of jobs in Northern Europe, usually well paid industrial ones. Now if they choose the non-rational path in order to defend whatever they believe the EU is, then that's their choice, but the European workers who lose their jobs from it won't see the greater good.
Anecdote alert Wss in a pub last night after a canvass session with a load of other Tory canvassers. A load of youngsters come up and started talking to us. They then burst into sing with Tory scum tory scum tory scum.... They again said they were going to vote for Corbyn but 7 out of 8 of them werent registered and got very upset when we pointed out they had missed the deadline to do so.
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. There is an overriding managerial style in the Tory effort, something that looks pretty unattractive when you keep making mistakes. Where is the vision?
Why did she not focus so much more on what she wants to do in education, for example? I am not a fan of grammar schools but a strong commitment to helping those from every background succeed could have been a rallying point.
Not just the left. In practice, Trump's decision will change nothing and cost more US jobs than it saves as cleantech investors and businesses look elsewhere. Geopolitically it marks the moment that the US gave up on global leadership, clearing the path for others to take over. Mrs May has thrown the UK's lot in with a loser, all in the hope of a trade deal she's not going to get.
tsk
I ask a simple question about coal and before you know it its the new world order
what if it was just the Left was wrong in 1985 ?
It was. So was the right. Deindustrialisation was handled appallingly in the UK (see squandering of North Sea oil money, for example). We continue to pay the price now - particularly outside London.
Very true, but not something anyone seems to want to talk about.
Not just the left. In practice, Trump's decision will change nothing and cost more US jobs than it saves as cleantech investors and businesses look elsewhere. Geopolitically it marks the moment that the US gave up on global leadership, clearing the path for others to take over. Mrs May has thrown the UK's lot in with a loser, all in the hope of a trade deal she's not going to get.
tsk
I ask a simple question about coal and before you know it its the new world order
what if it was just the Left was wrong in 1985 ?
It was. So was the right. Deindustrialisation was handled appallingly in the UK (see squandering of North Sea oil money, for example). We continue to pay the price now - particularly outside London.
lol
if you could just have kept that to the first two wordsthat would have been a brave post :-)
I see you're in trolling mode this morning! I am 53 today and feeling old, so will not partake. Off to Aldeburgh for the weekend later. Looking forward to hearing and seeing the sea, and eating and drinking my fill. My wife has said it's my birthday present; but as I'm paying for it and driving us there I am not sure how that works!
Happy birthday and here's to many more of them!
Sounds as though your wife has a remarkable notion of how to get people to pay for their own giveaways. Would she be interested in a job in London, complete with grace and favour flat and country house, modest salary, rumoured to become vacant shortly? She would appear to be the ideal CotE!
She is very good at spending other people's money!!! A place in the first Corbyn cabinet awaits. I got home from a couple of days working in London last night to find her and my daughter had put a Labour poster in our window!! We've been married 28 years. They have been truly wonderful. But that was a low blow.
Dear oh dear. Do they not read your contributions to PB?
Many happy returns of the day.
Cheers! We have discussed, but our house is a democracy. The will of the people must be respected, even if it stinks :-)
Happy birthday sir. Enjoy the Suffolk coast, surely one of the loveliest places in the world. Try The Anchor at Walberswick if you can.
O/T - Serious question to those (like SO) who are so vehement in criticism of the "No deal is better than a bad deal" line of the Government. Taking at face value their claims that they accept that Brexit will happen, what do they actually think the Government should publicise as their minimum red lines.
Hypothetical it may be, but how would they actually react if the EU, say, stated that they will refuse to negotiate any trade deal unless the UK promised £50billion annual payment in return. And that's without even seeing how worthwhile the trade deal would be?
If you don't accept "no deal" as an option, then what is the point of negotiating? And what is the alternative to any fait d'accompli presented by the EU?
Hypothetically there must be a point where walking away is better than the best available alternative. In practice the alternative is extremely unlikely to be bad enough to be worth it. Going into a negotiation in that basis will lead to a bad result. The actual negotiating space is better than nothing but less than what we have already. You should negotiate for a lot better than nothing and the smallest downgrade. On that basis I think an acceptable deal is possible, even if we do end up worse off than we are now.
From what I have seen, Labour have a better approach to the Brexit negotiations than the Conservatives.
What you see as a downgrade many other people don't see as a downgrade. It is your opinion that what we currently have is the best solution. Until you understand that it is your opinion and not fact your posts are not worth reading, as usual.
Only a week away from meltdown on here, this place is so entertaining after elections. The day after the referendum was amazing.
Conservative majority tightened slightly to 1.22, bizarrely NOM is shorter (5.7) than any other Conservative majority size bracket where 50-74 is shortest at 7.2.
150-174 can be backed at 15.0 which is great value.
I appreciate that in certain parts the tories are loathed but this election is so straightforward to predict, they win with a huge majority.
O/T - Serious question to those (like SO) who are so vehement in criticism of the "No deal is better than a bad deal" line of the Government. Taking at face value their claims that they accept that Brexit will happen, what do they actually think the Government should publicise as their minimum red lines.
Hypothetical it may be, but how would they actually react if the EU, say, stated that they will refuse to negotiate any trade deal unless the UK promised £50billion annual payment in return. And that's without even seeing how worthwhile the trade deal would be?
If you don't accept "no deal" as an option, then what is the point of negotiating? And what is the alternative to any fait d'accompli presented by the EU?
Hypothetically there must be a point where walking away is better than the best available alternative. In practice the alternative is extremely unlikely to be bad enough to be worth it. Going into a negotiation in that basis will lead to a bad result. The actual negotiating space is better than nothing but less than what we have already. You should negotiate for a lot better than nothing and the smallest downgrade. On that basis I think an acceptable deal is possible, even if we do end up worse off than we are now.
From what I have seen, Labour have a better approach to the Brexit negotiations than the Conservatives.
So effectively you accept that no deal is better than a (very) bad deal.
Isn't therefore the issue here where the definition of "bad deal" lies. Clearly if the Government is saying that they will walk away unless they get all the benefits/rights of EU membership and none of the responsibilities (financial or otherwise) then that is nonsensical. But is that what they are saying?
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
It was a Brexit election. There is nothing to talk about in Brexit - it is going to happen. Obvious from the first hour of the first strategy meeting for how to fight this election. And Labour were always going to pull numbers out their arse and offer sweeties to all. Obvious from the first hour of the first strategy meeting for how to fight this election.
The Tories can still win a massive majority. Fight Labour on both fronts - give the people the £350m a week extra for the NHS they clearly want. By the end of this term, after she has negotiated Brexit, there will be a solid benefit that people can point to about leaving the EU. OK, she may end up having to raise tax to achieve it by 2022. So they may have to end up stealing the LibDems only policy, the 1p on tax for the NHS. So what. They have already suffered the pain of refusing to raise Income Tax. Make some bloody mileage out of it.
There is still time for it being about the only thing people remember from this campaign. "Theresa stands by delivering Brexit, so that the NHS can get the money it needs...bless her, she's got my vote...."
Absolutely the reality of 'Can't pay ( dad's care bills) we'll take the property away' is frightening especially for those who had their children later in life or for those needing care earlier in their 70s. This potentially affects all house owners and affects many families full on.
Its also a lottery based on whether we ( baby boomers) or for younger readers parents get dementia compared to cancer, strokes, heart disease, disabilities which currently may demand no house sale. It goes to the heart of what type of society we are- most UK voters would prefer the Lib Dem approach pay a few more pennies on income tax for European style health and social care - pool the risk or at least get a balance - not indifferent right wing American public policy misery.
There are a huge amount of people in the country who struggle to make their pay last to the end of the month. People with no prospect of owning a house or inheriting a house, people for whom a few more pence on income tax would make their lives even harder. Sure they would happily spend 40 years of working life struggling harder so the haves could pass on the house to Tristan and Jemima
Quite. The dementia tax threatens to be the most effective wealth tax we have ever had. So, of course, Labour is against it. Inherited wealth must be protected apparently.
I still think Labour running to the defence of millionaires keeping their WFA is the most bizarre thing that has happened in this election. How the hell do they defend that on the doorsteps of council estates/social housing?
Combined with utter confusion about the freezing of benefits. So keeping a universal WFA is a more important use of resources than reversing "the evil tory cuts". Its really bizarre.
Oh and £9bn a year for largely middle class students who are going to earn significantly more in the future as well. Of course those in the gig economy should be paying taxes to fund that as well. Labour seem to really have it in for what was their core support.
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
Mr. Roger, saw a tiny clip of that on Twitter. Farron came across as an absolute dick (constantly trying to talk over Neil when being asked a question on a second referendum). It really wasn't a good look.
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. There is an overriding managerial style in the Tory effort, something that looks pretty unattractive when you keep making mistakes. Where is the vision?
Why did she not focus so much more on what she wants to do in education, for example? I am not a fan of grammar schools but a strong commitment to helping those from every background succeed could have been a rallying point.
There in stuff in there on that in the manifesto, but Theresa isn't a good communicator.
She badly needs a Willie. And I don't mean Nick Timothy.
Anecdote alert Wss in a pub last night after a canvass session with a load of other Tory canvassers. A load of youngsters come up and started talking to us. They then burst into sing with Tory scum tory scum tory scum.... They again said they were going to vote for Corbyn but 7 out of 8 of them werent registered and got very upset when we pointed out they had missed the deadline to do so.
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
It was a Brexit election. There is nothing to talk about in Brexit - it is going to happen. Obvious from the first hour of the first strategy meeting for how to fight this election. And Labour were always going to pull numbers out their arse and offer sweeties to all. Obvious from the first hour of the first strategy meeting for how to fight this election.
The Tories can still win a massive majority. Fight Labour on both fronts - give the people the £350m a week extra for the NHS they clearly want. By the end of this term, after she has negotiated Brexit, there will be a solid benefit that people can point to about leaving the EU. OK, she may end up having to raise tax to achieve it by 2022. So they may have to end up stealing the LibDems only policy, the 1p on tax for the NHS. So what. They have already suffered the pain of refusing to raise Income Tax. Make some bloody mileage out of it.
There is still time for it being about the only thing people remember from this campaign. "Theresa stands by delivering Brexit, so that the NHS can get the money it needs...bless her, she's got my vote...."
Yes, I honestly think that the Tories made a mistake in not pledging an additional £350m per week by the end of 2022. It would literally have won the election. Fuck the economics of doing so, I'd rather we be in charge of an unfunded economy than Labour be in charge of it.
O/T - Serious question to those (like SO) who are so vehement in criticism of the "No deal is better than a bad deal" line of the Government. Taking at face value their claims that they accept that Brexit will happen, what do they actually think the Government should publicise as their minimum red lines.
Hypothetical it may be, but how would they actually react if the EU, say, stated that they will refuse to negotiate any trade deal unless the UK promised £50billion annual payment in return. And that's without even seeing how worthwhile the trade deal would be?
If you don't accept "no deal" as an option, then what is the point of negotiating? And what is the alternative to any fait d'accompli presented by the EU?
Hypothetically there must be a point where walking away is better than the best available alternative. In practice the alternative is extremely unlikely to be bad enough to be worth it. Going into a negotiation in that basis will lead to a bad result. The actual negotiating space is better than nothing but less than what we have already. You should negotiate for a lot better than nothing and the smallest downgrade. On that basis I think an acceptable deal is possible, even if we do end up worse off than we are now.
From what I have seen, Labour have a better approach to the Brexit negotiations than the Conservatives.
So effectively you accept that no deal is better than a (very) bad deal.
Isn't therefore the issue here where the definition of "bad deal" lies. Clearly if the Government is saying that they will walk away unless they get all the benefits/rights of EU membership and none of the responsibilities (financial or otherwise) then that is nonsensical. But is that what they are saying?
Why is this so complicated. "No deal" means WTO terms. A good deal is better than that provided the cost of that deal is not greater than the benefits. Tariff free access, for example, is a good deal and worth paying something for. But not an infinite amount.
Anecdote alert Wss in a pub last night after a canvass session with a load of other Tory canvassers. A load of youngsters come up and started talking to us. They then burst into sing with Tory scum tory scum tory scum.... They again said they were going to vote for Corbyn but 7 out of 8 of them werent registered and got very upset when we pointed out they had missed the deadline to do so.
Ha! Superb.
Do you win the Tory canvasser bingo of GE2017, then?
A cry of "Tory scum" by a mob should be worth a good 50 points.
I just need Theresa to have a typically crap shift on the telly tonight to further lengthen the Tory odds, then I will place my bets on a sizeable Tory majority. This should be an easy win for the Blues, despite the hilarious PB Tory panic.
Anecdote alert Wss in a pub last night after a canvass session with a load of other Tory canvassers. A load of youngsters come up and started talking to us. They then burst into sing with Tory scum tory scum tory scum.... They again said they were going to vote for Corbyn but 7 out of 8 of them werent registered and got very upset when we pointed out they had missed the deadline to do so.
Mr. Roger, saw a tiny clip of that on Twitter. Farron came across as an absolute dick (constantly trying to talk over Neil when being asked a question on a second referendum). It really wasn't a good look.
They've been running it on radio this morning and it's even worse. Not Farron's finest hour but AN is an arrogant B...
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. There is an overriding managerial style in the Tory effort, something that looks pretty unattractive when you keep making mistakes. Where is the vision?
Why did she not focus so much more on what she wants to do in education, for example? I am not a fan of grammar schools but a strong commitment to helping those from every background succeed could have been a rallying point.
There in stuff in there on that in the manifesto, but Theresa isn't a good communicator.
She badly needs a Willie. And I don't mean Nick Timothy.
Nick Timothy has been proven to be more of an arse than a Willie.
Why are young people apparently turning to Corbyn? They have grown up in a multicultural world and don't hate immigrants, the are too young to remember what more power to the unions and creeping nationalisation could mean. He is taking his time to actually court them and most of all given the complete failure to look into the future past brexit by all parties they are choosing what is to them the least worse option.
Simon Hughes on SKY News saying hes out on the doorstep every day and the Lib Dems will win seats from Labour and the Conservatives BUT says Conservatives will win
Anecdote alert Wss in a pub last night after a canvass session with a load of other Tory canvassers. A load of youngsters come up and started talking to us. They then burst into sing with Tory scum tory scum tory scum.... They again said they were going to vote for Corbyn but 7 out of 8 of them werent registered and got very upset when we pointed out they had missed the deadline to do so.
Is this actually true? How did you move on from signing into a conversation about registration?
Sorry, this just doesn't pass my basic credulity test
Anecdote alert Wss in a pub last night after a canvass session with a load of other Tory canvassers. A load of youngsters come up and started talking to us. They then burst into sing with Tory scum tory scum tory scum.... They again said they were going to vote for Corbyn but 7 out of 8 of them werent registered and got very upset when we pointed out they had missed the deadline to do so.
Anecdote alert Wss in a pub last night after a canvass session with a load of other Tory canvassers. A load of youngsters come up and started talking to us. They then burst into sing with Tory scum tory scum tory scum.... They again said they were going to vote for Corbyn but 7 out of 8 of them werent registered and got very upset when we pointed out they had missed the deadline to do so.
Agent Gove's sabotage of the education system clearly worked.
Anecdote alert Wss in a pub last night after a canvass session with a load of other Tory canvassers. A load of youngsters come up and started talking to us. They then burst into sing with Tory scum tory scum tory scum.... They again said they were going to vote for Corbyn but 7 out of 8 of them werent registered and got very upset when we pointed out they had missed the deadline to do so.
So your opponents couldn't vote......Well that's one way of winning an election
PS. A straw in the wind, but on This Week we had Tommy Sheppard step in for John Nicolson's regular slot. Now either Nicolson was too busy defending his seat to attend while Sheppard is so confident in his seat he could attend. On the other hand, maybe they have both given up? Sheppard made much of that last Scottish IpsosMori poll where SLab and the Scottish Conservatives were neck and neck, and then proceeded to predict the Scottish Conservatives would come second in Scotland!
Sheppard is as safe as houses. Nicholson not so much.
Why are young people apparently turning to Corbyn? They have grown up in a multicultural world and don't hate immigrants, the are too young to remember what more power to the unions and creeping nationalisation could mean. He is taking his time to actually court them and most of all given the complete failure to look into the future past brexit by all parties they are choosing what is to them the least worse option.
They might turn to him but they won't vote for him.
The easiest way to predict how people react to a situation is to see how they reacted in the past. Young people don't vote, end of.
O/T - Serious question to those (like SO) who are so vehement in criticism of the "No deal is better than a bad deal" line of the Government. Taking at face value their claims that they accept that Brexit will happen, what do they actually think the Government should publicise as their minimum red lines.
Hypothetical it may be, but how would they actually react if the EU, say, stated that they will refuse to negotiate any trade deal unless the UK promised £50billion annual payment in return. And that's without even seeing how worthwhile the trade deal would be?
If you don't accept "no deal" as an option, then what is the point of negotiating? And what is the alternative to any fait d'accompli presented by the EU?
It is carpet-haggling 1.01. The guy in the carpet bazaar has to believe you will walk away. Or you get to the point Cameron ended up - where he walked in and said "My man, I am DESPERATE to buy a carpet and I have this much to spend...." - and is then surprised when the guy goes out back and returns with a flea-ridden rug. Which he still ends up proudly displaying on his floor as this great "steal of a deal" he did down the souk....
Carpet-haggling 1.01. They have to believe you will walk out without a carpet. Corbyn has already said he will buy a carpet, regardless. The man is a fool.
Difference is, in this situation the carpet seller knows walking away will also cost you dearly.
It really isn't hard.
Well, there are degrees.
It's been obvious for some time that actions of PMs since Major had left us in political zugzwang - the status quo was unsustainable but any change we made would make things worse, so all we could do was try to minimise the damage.
I assume they all thought that if it was presented as a fait accompli, we'd have acquiesced to being in a federalising EU.
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. There is an overriding managerial style in the Tory effort, something that looks pretty unattractive when you keep making mistakes. Where is the vision?
Why did she not focus so much more on what she wants to do in education, for example? I am not a fan of grammar schools but a strong commitment to helping those from every background succeed could have been a rallying point.
The issue is that all of the "positive" policies had already been heavily trailed. I think the campaign could have been based on T-Levels and education reform as the centrepiece. It's a really huge step forwards, but they'd already announced it before the election.
The manifesto became a document full of already announced policies plus the shit they didn't want to tell people. I think our PB Tory team could have read the manifesto the night before and spotted the WFA row and the dementia tax row before it happened. I remember saying it on the night along with a few others that this had the power to derail the whole campaign.
Anecdote alert Wss in a pub last night after a canvass session with a load of other Tory canvassers. A load of youngsters come up and started talking to us. They then burst into sing with Tory scum tory scum tory scum.... They again said they were going to vote for Corbyn but 7 out of 8 of them werent registered and got very upset when we pointed out they had missed the deadline to do so.
Is this actually true? How did you move on from signing into a conversation about registration?
Sorry, this just doesn't pass my basic credulity test
We engaged with them and had a bit of what my son would call "bantz" They were only singing it because they thought it was a "laugh" True story.. was their with the tory candidate for the constituency.
Anecdote alert Wss in a pub last night after a canvass session with a load of other Tory canvassers. A load of youngsters come up and started talking to us. They then burst into sing with Tory scum tory scum tory scum.... They again said they were going to vote for Corbyn but 7 out of 8 of them werent registered and got very upset when we pointed out they had missed the deadline to do so.
So your opponents couldn't vote......Well that's one way of winning an election
No, his opponents are choosing not to vote, it happens at every election.
This is the problem with the pro-EU argument - it is made on assumed facts, not reality. Access to the single market now costs us GBP10 billion per year plus a net GBP 6 billion of tariffs foregone. This compares with total exports to the EU of GBP 240 billion. There would have to be VERY significant fall in exports to make it worth the price. Average WTO tariffs to the EU would be 3-4% - the EVIDENCE is that when the pound rises or falls that much (which has the equivalent effect) there is almost no effect in the level of trade.
A bad deal that is worse than no deal would be any deal where the UK did not get very close to the level of access to EU services markets than we get now. That is all that is of value really - we have a large deficit in goods. Any deal that imposes ECJ jurisdiction is a bad deal. Any deal that requires an exit bill of any significant amount (but say GBP 20 billion being very generous to the EU) is a bad deal, because there is no legal basis to pay it, and we would not be getting valuable consideration.
In summary, a bad deal is one where the monetary value of what we get is more than what we pay. And, economically, access to the SM is not worth that much although it is certainly a benefit.
Hypothetically there must be a point where walking away is better than the best available alternative. In practice the alternative is extremely unlikely to be bad enough to be worth it. Going into a negotiation in that basis will lead to a bad result. The actual negotiating space is better than nothing but less than what we have already. You should negotiate for a lot better than nothing and the smallest downgrade. On that basis I think an acceptable deal is possible, even if we do end up worse off than we are now.
From what I have seen, Labour have a better approach to the Brexit negotiations than the Conservatives.
Absolutely the reality of 'Can't pay ( dad's care bills) we'll take the property away' is frightening especially for those who had their children later in life or for those needing care earlier in their 70s. This potentially affects all house owners and affects many families full on.
Its also a lottery based on whether we ( baby boomers) or for younger readers parents get dementia compared to cancer, strokes, heart disease, disabilities which currently may demand no house sale. It goes to the heart of what type of society we are- most UK voters would prefer the Lib Dem approach pay a few more pennies on income tax for European style health and social care - pool the risk or at least get a balance - not indifferent right wing American public policy misery.
There are a huge amount of people in the country who struggle to make their pay last to the end of the month. People with no prospect of owning a house or inheriting a house, people for whom a few more pence on income tax would make their lives even harder. Sure they would happily spend 40 years of working life struggling harder so the haves could pass on the house to Tristan and Jemima
Quite. The dementia tax threatens to be the most effective wealth tax we have ever had. So, of course, Labour is against it. Inherited wealth must be protected apparently.
I still think Labour running to the defence of millionaires keeping their WFA is the most bizarre thing that has happened in this election. How the hell do they defend that on the doorsteps of council estates/social housing?
They don't have to because the Tories bungled it by saying it would stay in Scotland.
This is Hillary 16 levels of shit. Worst campaign I've ever seen by the Tory party.
O/T - Serious question to those (like SO) who are so vehement in criticism of the "No deal is better than a bad deal" line of the Government. Taking at face value their claims that they accept that Brexit will happen, what do they actually think the Government should publicise as their minimum red lines.
Hypothetical it may be, but how would they actually react if the EU, say, stated that they will refuse to negotiate any trade deal unless the UK promised £50billion annual payment in return. And that's without even seeing how worthwhile the trade deal would be?
If you don't accept "no deal" as an option, then what is the point of negotiating? And what is the alternative to any fait d'accompli presented by the EU?
Hypothetically there must be a point where walking away is better than the best available alternative. In practice the alternative is extremely unlikely to be bad enough to be worth it. Going into a negotiation in that basis will lead to a bad result. The actual negotiating space is better than nothing but less than what we have already. You should negotiate for a lot better than nothing and the smallest downgrade. On that basis I think an acceptable deal is possible, even if we do end up worse off than we are now.
From what I have seen, Labour have a better approach to the Brexit negotiations than the Conservatives.
So effectively you accept that no deal is better than a (very) bad deal.
Isn't therefore the issue here where the definition of "bad deal" lies. Clearly if the Government is saying that they will walk away unless they get all the benefits/rights of EU membership and none of the responsibilities (financial or otherwise) then that is nonsensical. But is that what they are saying?
I'm not the government, so I don't know if they really believe their "no deal is better than a bad deal" nonsense or are just saying it because they think that's what the public want to hear. I suspect David Davies does somewhat believe it. The government appear to be paralysed by Brexit and don't know what to do.
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
It was a Brexit election. There is nothing to talk about in Brexit - it is going to happen. Obvious from the first hour of the first strategy meeting for how to fight this election. And Labour were always going to pull numbers out their arse and offer sweeties to all. Obvious from the first hour of the first strategy meeting for how to fight this election.
The Tories can still win a massive majority. Fight Labour on both fronts - give the people the £350m a week extra for the NHS they clearly want. By the end of this term, after she has negotiated Brexit, there will be a solid benefit that people can point to about leaving the EU. OK, she may end up having to raise tax to achieve it by 2022. So they may have to end up stealing the LibDems only policy, the 1p on tax for the NHS. So what. They have already suffered the pain of refusing to raise Income Tax. Make some bloody mileage out of it.
There is still time for it being about the only thing people remember from this campaign. "Theresa stands by delivering Brexit, so that the NHS can get the money it needs...bless her, she's got my vote...."
Yes, I honestly think that the Tories made a mistake in not pledging an additional £350m per week by the end of 2022. It would literally have won the election. Fuck the economics of doing so, I'd rather we be in charge of an unfunded economy than Labour be in charge of it.
I pointed this out too.
If only the PB Tories hadn't been deriding it for a year whenever I or others mentioned it.
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. There is an overriding managerial style in the Tory effort, something that looks pretty unattractive when you keep making mistakes. Where is the vision?
Why did she not focus so much more on what she wants to do in education, for example? I am not a fan of grammar schools but a strong commitment to helping those from every background succeed could have been a rallying point.
There in stuff in there on that in the manifesto, but Theresa isn't a good communicator.
She badly needs a Willie. And I don't mean Nick Timothy.
Nick Timothy is more a dick than a Willie.
But I've written a thread for Sunday on who should be Mrs May's Willie.
Anecdote alert Wss in a pub last night after a canvass session with a load of other Tory canvassers. A load of youngsters come up and started talking to us. They then burst into sing with Tory scum tory scum tory scum.... They again said they were going to vote for Corbyn but 7 out of 8 of them werent registered and got very upset when we pointed out they had missed the deadline to do so.
Are they all on the Yougov panel ?
Probably! The Telegraph has some stuff of fake Twitter accounts helping Corbyn make he trending list.
O/T - Serious question to those (like SO) who are so vehement in criticism of the "No deal is better than a bad deal" line of the Government. Taking at face value their claims that they accept that Brexit will happen, what do they actually think the Government should publicise as their minimum red lines.
Hypothetical it may be, but how would they actually react if the EU, say, stated that they will refuse to negotiate any trade deal unless the UK promised £50billion annual payment in return. And that's without even seeing how worthwhile the trade deal would be?
If you don't accept "no deal" as an option, then what is the point of negotiating? And what is the alternative to any fait d'accompli presented by the EU?
It is carpet-haggling 1.01. The guy in the carpet bazaar has to believe you will walk away. Or you get to the point Cameron ended up - where he walked in and said "My man, I am DESPERATE to buy a carpet and I have this much to spend...." - and is then surprised when the guy goes out back and returns with a flea-ridden rug. Which he still ends up proudly displaying on his floor as this great "steal of a deal" he did down the souk....
Carpet-haggling 1.01. They have to believe you will walk out without a carpet. Corbyn has already said he will buy a carpet, regardless. The man is a fool.
Difference is, in this situation the carpet seller knows walking away will also cost you dearly.
It really isn't hard.
They also know it will cost them.as dearly. Both sides will be desperate to get a deal done once the election is over.
Nonsense. You do know the EU does less trade with us, in percentage terms, than we do with them, don't you?
And that to them the EU is more than an economic entity?
All of northern Europe would almost assuredly fall into a recession with no deal. The UK consumer is one of the main engines of growth for Northern Europe, if the EU decided to cut it off then it is definitely going to cause them as much pain as us. Remember that we are already less reliant on EU trade than any other EU nations for exports, but one of the most reliant for imports. We have a truly huge trade deficit with the EU, it funds literally millions of jobs in Northern Europe, usually well paid industrial ones. Now if they choose the non-rational path in order to defend whatever they believe the EU is, then that's their choice, but the European workers who lose their jobs from it won't see the greater good.
The EU's trade with the U.K. is about the same as its trade with the US and we know the urgency with which that trade deal is being concluded...
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
It was a Brexit election. There is nothing to talk about in Brexit - it is going to happen. Obvious from the first hour of the first strategy meeting for how to fight this election. And Labour were always going to pull numbers out their arse and offer sweeties to all. Obvious from the first hour of the first strategy meeting for how to fight this election.
The Tories can still win a massive majority. Fight Labour on both fronts - give the people the £350m a week extra for the NHS they clearly want. By the end of this term, after she has negotiated Brexit, there will be a solid benefit that people can point to about leaving the EU. OK, she may end up having to raise tax to achieve it by 2022. So they may have to end up stealing the LibDems only policy, the 1p on tax for the NHS. So what. They have already suffered the pain of refusing to raise Income Tax. Make some bloody mileage out of it.
There is still time for it being about the only thing people remember from this campaign. "Theresa stands by delivering Brexit, so that the NHS can get the money it needs...bless her, she's got my vote...."
Yes, I honestly think that the Tories made a mistake in not pledging an additional £350m per week by the end of 2022. It would literally have won the election. Fuck the economics of doing so, I'd rather we be in charge of an unfunded economy than Labour be in charge of it.
I pointed this out too.
If only the PB Tories hadn't been deriding it for a year whenever I or others mentioned it.
I said it here ages before, pledge an additional £350m by the end of the five years, let inflation eat into some and then it's not much higher than the £8bn already pledged.
Bernie Saunders and Jeremy Corbyn have certainly re-engaged people in politics.Very impressed with their energy to campaign.JC has had about two years on the stump.
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. There is an overriding managerial style in the Tory effort, something that looks pretty unattractive when you keep making mistakes. Where is the vision?
Why did she not focus so much more on what she wants to do in education, for example? I am not a fan of grammar schools but a strong commitment to helping those from every background succeed could have been a rallying point.
There in stuff in there on that in the manifesto, but Theresa isn't a good communicator.
She badly needs a Willie. And I don't mean Nick Timothy.
Nick Timothy is more a dick than a Willie.
But I've written a thread for Sunday on who should be Mrs May's Willie.
The EU's trade with the U.K. is about the same as its trade with the US and we know the urgency with which that trade deal is being concluded...
That's already being conducted on a WTO basis (mostly) and the US market is 5x bigger. What you're suggesting is we move down to per capita trading on the same level as the US then the EU will lose 80% of the trade surplus it currently has with the UK, worth about £60bn per year for the EU. In addition to the loss of the £12bn net contribution per year to the EU budget.
Bernie Saunders and Jeremy Corbyn have certainly re-engaged people in politics.Very impressed with their energy to campaign.JC has had about two years on the stump.
Melenchon also did the same in France, almost beating Fillon for third
O/T - Serious question to those (like SO) who are so vehement in criticism of the "No deal is better than a bad deal" line of the Government. Taking at face value their claims that they accept that Brexit will happen, what do they actually think the Government should publicise as their minimum red lines.
Hypothetical it may be, but how would they actually react if the EU, say, stated that they will refuse to negotiate any trade deal unless the UK promised £50billion annual payment in return. And that's without even seeing how worthwhile the trade deal would be?
If you don't accept "no deal" as an option, then what is the point of negotiating? And what is the alternative to any fait d'accompli presented by the EU?
Hypothetically there must be a point where walking away is better than the best available alternative. In practice the alternative is extremely unlikely to be bad enough to be worth it. Going into a negotiation in that basis will lead to a bad result. The actual negotiating space is better than nothing but less than what we have already. You should negotiate for a lot better than nothing and the smallest downgrade. On that basis I think an acceptable deal is possible, even if we do end up worse off than we are now.
From what I have seen, Labour have a better approach to the Brexit negotiations than the Conservatives.
What you see as a downgrade many other people don't see as a downgrade. It is your opinion that what we currently have is the best solution. Until you understand that it is your opinion and not fact your posts are not worth reading, as usual.
Well I found that post worth reading even if it is opinion rather than fact. Thinking of negotiations as an option space isn't something that had crossed my mind, but it sounds like a good way of making sense of a complicated situation. And it clarifies my opinion that the "No deal is better than a bad deal" is a really stupid approach. Again, that is an opinion. But that I have never met anyone using that approach in any other negotiation situation I have ever been involved with is a fact.
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
It was a Brexit election. There is nothing to talk about in Brexit - it is going to happen. Obvious from the first hour of the first strategy meeting for how to fight this election. And Labour were always going to pull numbers out their arse and offer sweeties to all. Obvious from the first hour of the first strategy meeting for how to fight this election.
The Tories can still win a massive majority. Fight Labour on both fronts - give the people the £350m a week extra for the NHS they clearly want. By the end of this term, after she has negotiated Brexit, there will be a solid benefit that people can point to about leaving the EU. OK, she may end up having to raise tax to achieve it by 2022. So they may have to end up stealing the LibDems only policy, the 1p on tax for the NHS. So what. They have already suffered the pain of refusing to raise Income Tax. Make some bloody mileage out of it.
There is still time for it being about the only thing people remember from this campaign. "Theresa stands by delivering Brexit, so that the NHS can get the money it needs...bless her, she's got my vote...."
Yes, I honestly think that the Tories made a mistake in not pledging an additional £350m per week by the end of 2022. It would literally have won the election. Fuck the economics of doing so, I'd rather we be in charge of an unfunded economy than Labour be in charge of it.
I pointed this out too.
If only the PB Tories hadn't been deriding it for a year whenever I or others mentioned it.
They did promise an extra £8 billion a year for the next 2 years for the NHS
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
It was a Brexit election. There is nothing to talk about in Brexit - it is going to happen. Obvious from the first
There is still time for it being about the only thing people remember from this campaign. "Theresa stands by delivering Brexit, so that the NHS can get the money it needs...bless her, she's got my vote...."
Yes, I honestly think that the Tories made a mistake in not pledging an additional £350m per week by the end of 2022. It would literally have won the election. Fuck the economics of doing so, I'd rather we be in charge of an unfunded economy than Labour be in charge of it.
I pointed this out too.
If only the PB Tories hadn't been deriding it for a year whenever I or others mentioned it.
I said it here ages before, pledge an additional £350m by the end of the five years, let inflation eat into some and then it's not much higher than the £8bn already pledged.
The people want a Socialist Brexit, a Melenchon/Corbyn Brexit, not a Hannanite one.
It takes a heart of stone not to laugh at the Tory panic, while May scrabbles around.
Whoever wins the election is going to have to meet those demands, or the pitchforks and torches will be on their way to Westminster. That is how populist movements end.
Is no deal better than a bad deal? Not relevant. Is it what people want to hear? The reaction to her saying it on her interview says yes. As much as there is a youth movement for the kindly old goat Uncle Jezza, there's a movement to be bloody awkward and stick it to Brussels 'for once' The blitz spirit, the plucky vicars daughter standing up to the faceless eurocrats and saying no no no. It plays to patriotism. It will be working, hard, under the radar. As much as the Corbgasm is 'fuck it', no deal is 'fuck em' They both have resonance.
Whats pretty clear is that whatever happens next week, there needs to be some changes for the Tories. May is not a good communicator, and it staggers me that she didn't have a proper plan for this election given she called it. The manifesto should have been tested to destruction and a mix of nice things with the bad. Corbyn may put off enough people to keep them in power, but it looks like they were only relying on that.
It's difficult to say how much this is down to just May and her inner circle, or the 'general Tories'. She need to open up the tent, bring in more people, bring back people like Gove who at least has a good policitical sense and get professional and efficient again.
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
I agree wholeheartedly with that. There is an overriding managerial style in the Tory effort, something that looks pretty unattractive when you keep making mistakes. Where is the vision?
Why did she not focus so much more on what she wants to do in education, for example? I am not a fan of grammar schools but a strong commitment to helping those from every background succeed could have been a rallying point.
There in stuff in there on that in the manifesto, but Theresa isn't a good communicator.
She badly needs a Willie. And I don't mean Nick Timothy.
Nick Timothy is more a dick than a Willie.
But I've written a thread for Sunday on who should be Mrs May's Willie.
I said it here ages before, pledge an additional £350m by the end of the five years, let inflation eat into some and then it's not much higher than the £8bn already pledged.
Me too. What this site needs is a bit of server side cleverness which auto-corrects "PB Tories" to "straw men" every time the expression is typed.
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
It was a Brexit election. There is nothing to talk about in Brexit - it is going to happen. Obvious from the first hour of the first strategy meeting for how to fight this election. And Labour were always going to pull numbers out their arse and offer sweeties to all. Obvious from the first hour of the first strategy meeting for how to fight this election.
The Tories can still win a massive majority. Fight Labour on both fronts - give the people the £350m a week extra for the NHS they clearly want. By the end of this term, after she has negotiated Brexit, there will be a solid benefit that people can point to about leaving the EU. OK, she may end up having to raise tax to achieve it by 2022. So they may have to end up stealing the LibDems only policy, the 1p on tax for the NHS. So what. They have already suffered the pain of refusing to raise Income Tax. Make some bloody mileage out of it.
There is still time for it being about the only thing people remember from this campaign. "Theresa stands by delivering Brexit, so that the NHS can get the money it needs...bless her, she's got my vote...."
Yes, I honestly think that the Tories made a mistake in not pledging an additional £350m per week by the end of 2022. It would literally have won the election. Fuck the economics of doing so, I'd rather we be in charge of an unfunded economy than Labour be in charge of it.
I pointed this out too.
If only the PB Tories hadn't been deriding it for a year whenever I or others mentioned it.
They did promise an extra £8 billion a year for the next 2 years for the NHS
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
It was a Brexit election. There is nothing to talk about in Brexit - it is going to happen. Obvious from the first hour of the first strategy meeting for how to fight this election. And Labour were always going to pull numbers out their arse and offer sweeties to all. Obvious from the first hour of the first strategy meeting for how to fight this election.
The Tories can still win a massive majority. Fight Labour on both fronts - give the people the £350m a week extra for the NHS they clearly want. By the end of this term, after she has negotiated Brexit, there will be a solid benefit that people can point to about leaving the EU. OK, she may end up having to raise tax to achieve it by 2022. So they may have to end up stealing the LibDems only policy, the 1p on tax for the NHS. So what. They have already suffered the pain of refusing to raise Income Tax. Make some bloody mileage out of it.
There is still time for it being about the only thing people remember from this campaign. "Theresa stands by delivering Brexit, so that the NHS can get the money it needs...bless her, she's got my vote...."
Yes, I honestly think that the Tories made a mistake in not pledging an additional £350m per week by the end of 2022. It would literally have won the election. Fuck the economics of doing so, I'd rather we be in charge of an unfunded economy than Labour be in charge of it.
I pointed this out too.
If only the PB Tories hadn't been deriding it for a year whenever I or others mentioned it.
They did promise an extra £8 billion a year for the next 2 years for the NHS
The people want a Socialist Brexit, a Melenchon/Corbyn Brexit, not a Hannanite one.
It takes a heart of stone not to laugh at their panic, while May scrabbles around.
Whoever wins the election is going to have to meet those demands, or the pitchforks and torches will be on their way to Westminster. That is how populist movements end.
Given that people don't want a socialist government they certainly don't want a socialist Brexit.
And your lack of understanding of the British mindset is stunning. As a whole we don't do pitchforks and violence. We leave that to the idiotic right wing, the idiotic left wing and the Europeans - who most of the time are also very much like the idiotic right and left wing. The great social and political movements in Britain from the Chartists to the Miners Strike have been generally peaceful and, win or lose, all the better for that.
The YouGov website page says updated 09:50 yesterday and the google docs says updated 07:52 today.
So the spreadsheet has more up to date data?
Looks like today's update. Probably or 4 lead again, maybe 5 and the adjustment to save face continues upwards. Central forecast of effective majority minus Sinn Fein.
I said it here ages before, pledge an additional £350m by the end of the five years, let inflation eat into some and then it's not much higher than the £8bn already pledged.
Me too. What this site needs is a bit of server side cleverness which auto-corrects "PB Tories" to "straw men" every time the expression is typed.
Indeed, I remember when I floated the idea there was a lot of agreement that we should do it because Labour would. Imagine revealing the manifesto with that pledge in it "an additional £350m per week for the NHS by the end of 2022" it would have massively resonated and disarmed all those idiots asking for £350m per week.
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
It was a Brexit election. There is nothing to talk about in Brexit - it is going to happen. Obvious from the first
There is still time for it being about the only thing people remember from this campaign. "Theresa stands by delivering Brexit, so that the NHS can get the money it needs...bless her, she's got my vote...."
Yes, I honestly think that the Tories made a mistake in not pledging an additional £350m per week by the end of 2022. It would literally have won the election. Fuck the economics of doing so, I'd rather we be in charge of an unfunded economy than Labour be in charge of it.
I pointed this out too.
If only the PB Tories hadn't been deriding it for a year whenever I or others mentioned it.
I said it here ages before, pledge an additional £350m by the end of the five years, let inflation eat into some and then it's not much higher than the £8bn already pledged.
The people want a Socialist Brexit, a Melenchon/Corbyn Brexit, not a Hannanite one.
It takes a heart of stone not to laugh at the Tory panic, while May scrabbles around.
Whoever wins the election is going to have to meet those demands, or the pitchforks and torches will be on their way to Westminster. That is how populist movements end.
They want a Melenchon/Corbyn Brexit on economics but a Le Pen/Farage Brexit on immigration and sovereignty
Absolutely the reality of 'Can't pay ( dad's care bills) we'll take the property away' is frightening especially for those who had their children later in life or for those needing care earlier in their 70s. This potentially affects all house owners and affects many families full on.
Its also a lottery based on whether we ( baby boomers) or for younger readers parents get dementia compared to cancer, strokes, heart disease, disabilities which currently may demand no house sale. It goes to the heart of what type of society we are- most UK voters would prefer the Lib Dem approach pay a few more pennies on income tax for European style health and social care - pool the risk or at least get a balance - not indifferent right wing American public policy misery.
There are a huge amount of people in the country who struggle to make their pay last to the end of the month. People with no prospect of owning a house or inheriting a house, people for whom a few more pence on income tax would make their lives even harder. Sure they would happily spend 40 years of working life struggling harder so the haves could pass on the house to Tristan and Jemima
Quite. The dementia tax threatens to be the most effective wealth tax we have ever had. So, of course, Labour is against it. Inherited wealth must be protected apparently.
I still think Labour running to the defence of millionaires keeping their WFA is the most bizarre thing that has happened in this election. How the hell do they defend that on the doorsteps of council estates/social housing?
They don't have to because the Tories bungled it by saying it would stay in Scotland.
This is Hillary 16 levels of shit. Worst campaign I've ever seen by the Tory party.
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
It was a Brexit election. There is nothing to talk about in Brexit - it is going to happenoffer sweeties to all. Obvious from the first hour of the first strategy meeting for how to fight this election.
The Tories can still win a massive majority. Fight Labour on both fronts - give the people the £350m a week extra for the NHS they clearly want. By the end of this term, after she has negotiated Brexit, there will be a solid benefit that people can point to about leaving the EU. OK, she may end up having to raise tax to achieve it by 2022. So they may have to end up stealing the LibDems only policy, the 1p on tax for the NHS. So what. They have already suffered the pain of refusing to raise Income Tax. Make some bloody mileage out of it.
There is still time for it being about the only thing people remember from this campaign. "Theresa stands by delivering Brexit, so that the NHS can get the money it needs...bless her, she's got my vote...."
Yes, I honestly think that the Tories made a mistake in not pledging an additional £350m per week by the end of 2022. It would literally have won the election. Fuck the economics of doing so, I'd rather we be in charge of an unfunded economy than Labour be in charge of it.
I pointed this out too.
If only the PB Tories hadn't been deriding it for a year whenever I or others mentioned it.
They did promise an extra £8 billion a year for the next 2 years for the NHS
And completely failed to communicate it!
May is a total dud.
It was in the manifesto and mentioned in most media coverage
I see you're in trolling mode this morning! I am 53 today and feeling old, so will not partake. Off to Aldeburgh for the weekend later. Looking forward to hearing and seeing the sea, and eating and drinking my fill. My wife has said it's my birthday present; but as I'm paying for it and driving us there I am not sure how that works!
53 is old ............... Tsk .............
Happy Birthday Young Un .....
It's all relative. If you've never been 53 before, it's old. I was 27 last week, I'm sure ;-)
I turn 30 this summer, that feels old.
Happy birthday! Have a good one.
30 was a tough one. I was quite unhappy about it. Felt far too grown up. Thankfully, I have got a lot more relaxed about birthdays over the last 25 years.
You grow more philosophical when some of your cohort are no longer around to celebrate birthdays....
O/T - Serious question to those (like SO) who are so vehement in criticism of the "No deal is better than a bad deal" line of the Government. Taking at face value their claims that they accept that Brexit will happen, what do they actually think the Government should publicise as their minimum red lines.
Hypothetical it may be, but how would they actually react if the EU, say, stated that they will refuse to negotiate any trade deal unless the UK promised £50billion annual payment in return. And that's without even seeing how worthwhile the trade deal would be?
If you don't accept "no deal" as an option, then what is the point of negotiating? And what is the alternative to any fait d'accompli presented by the EU?
Hypothetically there must be a point where walking away is better than the best available alternative. In practice the alternative is extremely unlikely to be bad enough to be worth it. Going into a negotiation in that basis will lead to a bad result. The actual negotiating space is better than nothing but less than what we have already. You should negotiate for a lot better than nothing and the smallest downgrade. On that basis I think an acceptable deal is possible, even if we do end up worse off than we are now.
From what I have seen, Labour have a better approach to the Brexit negotiations than the Conservatives.
What you see as a downgrade many other people don't see as a downgrade. It is your opinion that what we currently have is the best solution. Until you understand that it is your opinion and not fact your posts are not worth reading, as usual.
The Conservatives have issued a Clear Plan for Brexit it's actually a wishlist, not a plan. 9 of the wishes are served by being a member of the EU; 2 by leaving. That implies a negotiation that aims to retain as many as possible of the 9 existing benefits while not compromising the two new benefits, which in principle have nothing to do with the EU. (That's why we are leaving the EU).
Absolutely the reality of 'Can't pay ( dad's care bills) we'll take the property away' is frightening especially for those who had their children later in life or for those needing care earlier in their 70s. This potentially affects all house owners and affects many families full on.
Its also a lottery based on whether we ( baby boomers) or for younger readers parents get dementia compared to cancer, strokes, heart disease, disabilities which currently may demand no house sale. It goes to the heart of what type of society we are- most UK voters would prefer the Lib Dem approach pay a few more pennies on income tax for European style health and social care - pool the risk or at least get a balance - not indifferent right wing American public policy misery.
There are a huge amount of people in the country who struggle to make their pay last to the end of the month. People with no prospect of owning a house or inheriting a house, people for whom a few more pence on income tax would make their lives even harder. Sure they would happily spend 40 years of working life struggling harder so the haves could pass on the house to Tristan and Jemima
Quite. The dementia tax threatens to be the most effective wealth tax we have ever had. So, of course, Labour is against it. Inherited wealth must be protected apparently.
I still think Labour running to the defence of millionaires keeping their WFA is the most bizarre thing that has happened in this election. How the hell do they defend that on the doorsteps of council estates/social housing?
They don't have to because the Tories bungled it by saying it would stay in Scotland.
This is Hillary 16 levels of shit. Worst campaign I've ever seen by the Tory party.
Why are young people apparently turning to Corbyn? They have grown up in a multicultural world and don't hate immigrants, the are too young to remember what more power to the unions and creeping nationalisation could mean. He is taking his time to actually court them and most of all given the complete failure to look into the future past brexit by all parties they are choosing what is to them the least worse option.
They have grown up and been educated in the intensely lefty patisan world of our public education system. They have not been exposed to history, alternative worldviews or reality yet.
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
It was a Brexit election. There is nothing to talk about in Brexit - it is going to happenoffer sweeties to all. Obvious from the first hour of the first strategy meeting for how to fight this election.
The Tories can still win a massive majority. Fight Labour on both fronts - give the people the £350m a week extra for the NHS they clearly want. By the end of this term, after she has negotiated Brexit, there will be a solid benefit that people can point to about leaving the EU. OK, she may end up having to raise tax to achieve it by 2022. So they may have to end up stealing the LibDems only policy, the 1p on tax for the NHS. So what. They have already suffered the pain of refusing to raise Income Tax. Make some bloody mileage out of it.
There is still time for it being about the only thing people remember from this campaign. "Theresa stands by delivering Brexit, so that the NHS can get the money it needs...bless her, she's got my vote...."
Yes, I honestly think that the Tories made a mistake in not pledging an additional £350m per week by the end of 2022. It would literally have won the election. Fuck the economics of doing so, I'd rather we be in charge of an unfunded economy than Labour be in charge of it.
I pointed this out too.
If only the PB Tories hadn't been deriding it for a year whenever I or others mentioned it.
They did promise an extra £8 billion a year for the next 2 years for the NHS
And completely failed to communicate it!
May is a total dud.
It was in the manifesto and mentioned in most media coverage
Upping it to 9.1 would have made 350 million a week
Absolutely the reality of 'Can't pay ( dad's care bills) we'll take the property away' is frightening especially for those who had their children later in life or for those needing care earlier in their 70s. This potentially affects all house owners and affects many families full on.
Its also a lottery based on whether we ( baby boomers) or for younger readers parents get dementia compared to cancer, strokes, heart disease, disabilities which currently may demand no house sale. It goes to the heart of what type of society we are- most UK voters would prefer the Lib Dem approach pay a few more pennies on income tax for European style health and social care - pool the risk or at least get a balance - not indifferent right wing American public policy misery.
I see you're in trolling mode this morning! I am 53 today and feeling old, so will not partake. Off to Aldeburgh for the weekend later. Looking forward to hearing and seeing the sea, and eating and drinking my fill. My wife has said it's my birthday present; but as I'm paying for it and driving us there I am not sure how that works!
53 is old ............... Tsk .............
Happy Birthday Young Un .....
It's all relative. If you've never been 53 before, it's old. I was 27 last week, I'm sure ;-)
I turn 30 this summer, that feels old.
Happy birthday! Have a good one.
30 was a tough one. I was quite unhappy about it. Felt far too grown up. Thankfully, I have got a lot more relaxed about birthdays over the last 25 years.
I'm over double thatand I can say the passing of the years certainly seems to accelarate as you get older.
I tell youngsters what I was told at their age and didn't believe - knowing that they won't believe me either - "Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think".....
Let's face it, the whole thing was made up by Labour as they went along. No coherence whatsoever. The REAL level of failure of the Tory campaign was never to get that nailed. Now, I can accept there might be an argument that you are giving it an undeserved credibility by even talking about it. But it is a huge failure.
Where is Hammond - he should be nailing every line of their manifesto as a fiasco that will result in vast tax hikes for Joe and Joanna Average. Anyone would think he is off sulking because he expects to lose his job...
No the real failure was not having any positive message, and still not having one. Whatever one thinks of the Labour campaign, it is relentlessly positive (just unrealistic). Our campaign is "Theresa isn't Jeremy, and here's a bunch of policies that our base will hate plus a bunch that make us look like house confiscators". It's just awful.
It was a Brexit election. There is nothing to talk about in Brexit - it is going to happen. Obvious from the first
There is still time for it being about the only thing people remember from this campaign. "Theresa stands by delivering Brexit, so that the NHS can get the money it needs...bless her, she's got my vote...."
Yes, I honestly think that the Tories made a mistake in not pledging an additional £350m per week by the end of 2022. It would literally have won the election. Fuck the economics of doing so, I'd rather we be in charge of an unfunded economy than Labour be in charge of it.
I pointed this out too.
If only the PB Tories hadn't been deriding it for a year whenever I or others mentioned it.
I said it here ages before, pledge an additional £350m by the end of the five years, let inflation eat into some and then it's not much higher than the £8bn already pledged.
The people want a Socialist Brexit, a Melenchon/Corbyn Brexit, not a Hannanite one.
It takes a heart of stone not to laugh at the Tory panic, while May scrabbles around.
Whoever wins the election is going to have to meet those demands, or the pitchforks and torches will be on their way to Westminster. That is how populist movements end.
They want a Melenchon/Corbyn Brexit on economics but a Le Pen/Farage Brexit on immigration and sovereignty
I have been saying for months that Corbyn should be flogging the peoples Brexit vs the Bosses Brexit, but I think that message has got through unspoken.
I am expecting a Tory majority, but it is going to be a pyrric victory. They are settingthemselves up for a 97 style Labour landslide in 22.
Why are young people apparently turning to Corbyn? They have grown up in a multicultural world and don't hate immigrants, the are too young to remember what more power to the unions and creeping nationalisation could mean. He is taking his time to actually court them and most of all given the complete failure to look into the future past brexit by all parties they are choosing what is to them the least worse option.
They have grown up and been educated in the intensely lefty patisan world of our public education system. They have not been exposed to history, alternative worldviews or reality yet.
A lefty partisan education system run by the Tories, you mean?
Happy birthday, Mr. Observer. You're a similar age to Caesar whilst still contending the civil war. I hope you have a better life expectancy, though.
On-topic: a clear decline in support, but the advantage remains massive. If May gets a 40 point lead over Labour in the demographic that votes the most, hard to see her losing, isn't it?
Yes. The question us is there a big enough decline and big enough labour surge to cost her a majority, or keep it around the sane level. I doubt it.
I must say, I feel much more sanguine about bad polling since I made the choice to back the evil empire.
O/T - Serious question to those (like SO) who are so vehement in criticism of the "No deal is better than a bad deal" line of the Government. Taking at face value their claims that they accept that Brexit will happen, what do they actually think the Government should publicise as their minimum red lines.
Hypothetical it may be, but how would they actually react if the EU, say, stated that they will refuse to negotiate any trade deal unless the UK promised £50billion annual payment in return. And that's without even seeing how worthwhile the trade deal would be?
If you don't accept "no deal" as an option, then what is the point of negotiating? And what is the alternative to any fait d'accompli presented by the EU?
It is carpet-haggling 1.01. The guy in the carpet bazaar has to believe you will walk away. Or you get to the point Cameron ended up - where he walked in and said "My man, I am DESPERATE to buy a carpet and I have this much to spend...." - and is then surprised when the guy goes out back and returns with a flea-ridden rug. Which he still ends up proudly displaying on his floor as this great "steal of a deal" he did down the souk....
Carpet-haggling 1.01. They have to believe you will walk out without a carpet. Corbyn has already said he will buy a carpet, regardless. The man is a fool.
If this is the view our negotiators we are stuffed. Negotiating with someone you are never going to see again and one of the parties gets stuffed by the negotiation is fine e.g. you and the carpet seller. But if you plan an ongoing relationship this is not good. I posted about this yesterday. This is crap negotiating. Deals are successful if you look for the win win scenarios (or minimum loses). I used to represent a number of large organisations who were customers of a particular supplier on an ongoing basis. Both sides understood what the other wanted and gave it away as cheaply as they could get away with, with something they valued greater in return. But they genuinely looked at what the other wanted to achieve. There was no attempt to screw the other side. That doesn't mean the negotiations weren't tough.
Both sides come away happy (maybe not as happy as they would have liked) but better off than when they went in and both sides are happy to come back for more without resentment or likelihood of reneging on the deal
Comments
(ignoring the argument that taking short term pain but being out of the EU is a better basis for a long deal that benefits both parties).
Firstly the likelihood is that they identify as Tory in the first place. The proposals are not a vote winner, and probably during the campaign people would respond as don't know or less likely to vote. But come next Thursday and given the choice of May or Corbyn I cannot see how someone worried about financial impact of the Tory proposals will switch from away from them and risk a Corbyn government.
Secondly for those that are impacted the greatest burden will fall in safe Tory seats and motivation and likelihood to vote will be disproportionately in those. If you are in Berkshire or Surrey then withholding your vote will not let your opponents in so is more likely to happen. Most people will know they live in a marginal.
I think the biggest error in the Tory manifesto was having no policies to sell on the doorstep. Negotiating Brexit is just terrible. It's like saying come and shop at Tesco because we have fantastic departmental meetings.
Diane Abbott" Though I was born here in London I couldn't identify as British"
http://archbishopcranmer.com/diane-abbott-home-secretary-hand-victory-islamists-terrorists/
And that to them the EU is more than an economic entity?
I suspect that the vast majority of people could save much of the £75 lost by shopping around for their energy supplier.
http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/news/a829743/andrew-neils-vs-tim-farron-awkward-interview-reactions/
From what I have seen, Labour have a better approach to the Brexit negotiations than the Conservatives.
https://twitter.com/LincsCons/status/870422023104856064
Puffs on cigar contentedly ....
Wss in a pub last night after a canvass session with a load of other Tory canvassers. A load of youngsters come up and started talking to us. They then burst into sing with Tory scum tory scum tory scum.... They again said they were going to vote for Corbyn but 7 out of 8 of them werent registered and got very upset when we pointed out they had missed the deadline to do so.
Why did she not focus so much more on what she wants to do in education, for example? I am not a fan of grammar schools but a strong commitment to helping those from every background succeed could have been a rallying point.
Conservative majority tightened slightly to 1.22, bizarrely NOM is shorter (5.7) than any other Conservative majority size bracket where 50-74 is shortest at 7.2.
150-174 can be backed at 15.0 which is great value.
I appreciate that in certain parts the tories are loathed but this election is so straightforward to predict, they win with a huge majority.
Isn't therefore the issue here where the definition of "bad deal" lies. Clearly if the Government is saying that they will walk away unless they get all the benefits/rights of EU membership and none of the responsibilities (financial or otherwise) then that is nonsensical. But is that what they are saying?
The Tories can still win a massive majority. Fight Labour on both fronts - give the people the £350m a week extra for the NHS they clearly want. By the end of this term, after she has negotiated Brexit, there will be a solid benefit that people can point to about leaving the EU. OK, she may end up having to raise tax to achieve it by 2022. So they may have to end up stealing the LibDems only policy, the 1p on tax for the NHS. So what. They have already suffered the pain of refusing to raise Income Tax. Make some bloody mileage out of it.
There is still time for it being about the only thing people remember from this campaign. "Theresa stands by delivering Brexit, so that the NHS can get the money it needs...bless her, she's got my vote...."
Mr. Roger, saw a tiny clip of that on Twitter. Farron came across as an absolute dick (constantly trying to talk over Neil when being asked a question on a second referendum). It really wasn't a good look.
She badly needs a Willie. And I don't mean Nick Timothy.
Do you win the Tory canvasser bingo of GE2017, then?
A cry of "Tory scum" by a mob should be worth a good 50 points.
To dream, the impossible dream....
Sorry, this just doesn't pass my basic credulity test
Remember, JC is crap. JC will never be PM. Now, FFS man up - you evil lot are going to win!
Tory majority of between 50 and 100 in my opinion.
The easiest way to predict how people react to a situation is to see how they reacted in the past. Young people don't vote, end of.
It's been obvious for some time that actions of PMs since Major had left us in political zugzwang - the status quo was unsustainable but any change we made would make things worse, so all we could do was try to minimise the damage.
I assume they all thought that if it was presented as a fait accompli, we'd have acquiesced to being in a federalising EU.
Oops.
The manifesto became a document full of already announced policies plus the shit they didn't want to tell people. I think our PB Tory team could have read the manifesto the night before and spotted the WFA row and the dementia tax row before it happened. I remember saying it on the night along with a few others that this had the power to derail the whole campaign.
They were only singing it because they thought it was a "laugh"
True story.. was their with the tory candidate for the constituency.
A bad deal that is worse than no deal would be any deal where the UK did not get very close to the level of access to EU services markets than we get now. That is all that is of value really - we have a large deficit in goods. Any deal that imposes ECJ jurisdiction is a bad deal. Any deal that requires an exit bill of any significant amount (but say GBP 20 billion being very generous to the EU) is a bad deal, because there is no legal basis to pay it, and we would not be getting valuable consideration.
In summary, a bad deal is one where the monetary value of what we get is more than what we pay. And, economically, access to the SM is not worth that much although it is certainly a benefit.
If only the PB Tories hadn't been deriding it for a year whenever I or others mentioned it.
But I've written a thread for Sunday on who should be Mrs May's Willie.
Currently green for 350-399.
What a choice - More willies available than on a Friday night in Brighton .... apparently ....
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/02/i-dont-think-he-needs-my-advice-bernie-sanders-applauds-jeremy-corbyn
https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/870416793856299008
It takes a heart of stone not to laugh at the Tory panic, while May scrabbles around.
Whoever wins the election is going to have to meet those demands, or the pitchforks and torches will be on their way to Westminster. That is how populist movements end.
The blitz spirit, the plucky vicars daughter standing up to the faceless eurocrats and saying no no no. It plays to patriotism. It will be working, hard, under the radar. As much as the Corbgasm is 'fuck it', no deal is 'fuck em'
They both have resonance.
It's difficult to say how much this is down to just May and her inner circle, or the 'general Tories'. She need to open up the tent, bring in more people, bring back people like Gove who at least has a good policitical sense and get professional and efficient again.
https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2017/
CON 317 LAB 253 LD 9 SNP 47
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FTQlKRb8xuu7eWOKWPd-rr3FpMnvmFRpuISGae6_POs/edit#gid=0
CON 322 LAB 248 LD 7 SNP 50
The YouGov website page says updated 09:50 yesterday and the google docs says updated 07:52 today.
So the spreadsheet has more up to date data?
May is a total dud.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
And your lack of understanding of the British mindset is stunning. As a whole we don't do pitchforks and violence. We leave that to the idiotic right wing, the idiotic left wing and the Europeans - who most of the time are also very much like the idiotic right and left wing. The great social and political movements in Britain from the Chartists to the Miners Strike have been generally peaceful and, win or lose, all the better for that.
So that's at least 1.5-2 years of a special arrangement for Scotland. Thanks English voters!
I am expecting a Tory majority, but it is going to be a pyrric victory. They are settingthemselves up for a 97 style Labour landslide in 22.
I must say, I feel much more sanguine about bad polling since I made the choice to back the evil empire.
Both sides come away happy (maybe not as happy as they would have liked) but better off than when they went in and both sides are happy to come back for more without resentment or likelihood of reneging on the deal