Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
Careful, we don't know whether the current MP for Thanet South is actually guilty of anything yet...
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
If soft Brexit is now back on the agenda, why not get the Lib Dems back on board at some point? After all, their leader and the DUP have a lot in common on some issues...
I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
Yep - I have seen that. It's a very big opportunity for a clever Tory party. A soft Brexit would win them back a lot of support, I'd guess. Not sure the Tories are all that clever though. Too many anti-EU zealots in too many important places - and a PM who dare not cross the right wing press.
If the choice is presented as soft Brexit versus Corbyn that should help the cause.
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.
It really isn't.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Absolutely tremendous post.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
LOL!
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
Here's the problem: he's massively unpopular.
What was it? Only 2% of the electorate liked him?
He's a clever guy, talented, and very capable. But, he's also got a reputation as someone who revels in deception and manipulation that he hasn't done much to shake.
Sounds like Gove.
I don't think so. At least in the cabinet Gove seemed to be genuinely guided by making policy based on what was right (or what he thought was right) rather than what would be electorally popular. Osborne's entire time at the Treasury was based on trying to make electorally popular moves under the cover of "long term economic plan". Of course he instigated unpopular cuts as well, but of course the blame for those fell on the departments.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
Hold that thought...
@OwenJones84: We now know that Labour didn't lose in 2015 for being too left-wing. Labour lost for not being radical enough.
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
I reckon a by election in Scotland, and George will win.
George would make a fine MP for Glasgow or Dundee.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
Hold that thought...
@OwenJones84: We now know that Labour didn't lose in 2015 for being too left-wing. Labour lost for not being radical enough.
Mr Meeks has won post of the day at least 3 times in the last half an hour.
Amazed to see Mr Shillingajob still with the same username as last week. Same old boring astroturfing, mind...
I'm not sure whether this is pointed at me or not, but I'm sure that any PB mod would be glad to vouch that I'm not Bobajob. Perhaps the reason why multiple young people on this site fight the same cause on here... is because that's what the young are like in real life as well.
No - not aimed at you at all Mr Chameleon.
Okay, sorry about that then! I'm just painfully aware that Bobajob and myself overlap on a number of areas.
Like ScottP's hilarious response to the Monty Hall problem, IOS' 'ground game', Mr Eagles' red shoes, I'm guessing now my slathering over the prospects of Mrs May in this election, and many other humourous events, Bobajob is known for having had several dozen* accounts in the past year or so.
*I am of course exaggerating, but not much.
It clearly keeps you happy! I didn't get the astroturfing bit, by the way.
The day it came out I came on here to say the manifesto went down like a bucket of sick on radio phone-in,not one caller had anything good to say about it.
The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.
If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?
Or your cancer treatment?
It must be non sequitur Sunday.
Too
Not too subtle, too stupid.
Care and support services have never been free under the NHS.
I never said they had, nor was your point reliant on that irrelevant fact.
My point is that you can replace Aston Martin in your example with cancer treatment, or indeed anything. It sounds ludicrous if the thing is a luxury good, and not so ludicrous if it resembles a public service. The fundamental question we have to answer is whether we should consider university education and dementia care things which should be collectivised as public services, or not. You facetious remark contained an implicit assumption that we should not, and yet I assume you agree that we should consider cancer treatment as such.
I didn't make any implicit assumption. I explicitly stated: "both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place".
Your "fundamental question" was precisely the one I was getting at. People always love free stuff. I see no compelling reason why those who are likely to have the best earning ability should be completely subsidised by those who are likely to have lesser earning ability and I see no compelling reason why those with substantial assets should be completely subsidised for a cost that relates to them personally, in the absence of any real evidence that the public want the risks collectivised for the asset rich.
Raising cancer treatment is a complete non sequitur, given that the public will on this is long-settled.
The public will is also settled on Aston Martins.
Only because I haven't got angry enough.
The idea that it's every codger's God-given right to pass on their house as an inheritance is very adventurous, but that seems to be current Labour party policy.
Labour correctly calculated there were votes to be profitably gained from middle-class households here.
whereas Telegraph are reporting that this signals a shoring up of Hard Brexit.
TheTelegraph has had its worldview comprehensively trashed and is still at the denial stage of the change curve. None of today's comment articles came anywhere close to appreciating what has happened or why.
I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.
It really isn't.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Absolutely tremendous post.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
LOL!
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.
It's really sad isn't it. France has much wrong with it, but their respect for politicians seemsan awful lot better than ours. I'm wishing Macron very well.
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
Careful, we don't know whether the current MP for Thanet South is actually guilty of anything yet...
Rather, we do know he's not guilty of anything (yet or otherwise).
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.
It really isn't.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Absolutely tremendous post.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
LOL!
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.
And here is why there is such a dearth of talent in the cabinet in a nutshell.
whereas Telegraph are reporting that this signals a shoring up of Hard Brexit.
If there's one thing (with the exception of that LVT....silly mistake I made there) that I've learned over the last seven years, it's to not pay attention to the Telegraph. They've totally lost the plot ever since the Conservatives decided to go into coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.
It really isn't.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Absolutely tremendous post.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
LOL!
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.
I've realised that the Conservative Party did me a huge favour by rejecting my application to get on the candidates' list. I would have hated being a candidate or MP.
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
I reckon a by election in Scotland, and George will win.
George would make a fine MP for Glasgow or Dundee.
Sir Winston Churchill was an MP for Dundee too.
We should be so lucky. When Churchill was MP here he fell out with DC Thomson who then refused to mention him in the Courier and he subsequently lost his seat. After he died biographers found that DC Thomson had one of the best archives of Churchill in the country.
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.
It really isn't.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Absolutely tremendous post.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
LOL!
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.
It's really sad isn't it. France has much wrong with it, but their respect for politicians seemsan awful lot better than ours.
Doubt that's true. What were Hollande's approval ratings at the end?
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.
It really isn't.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Absolutely tremendous post.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
LOL!
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.
Seconded. And there are tens of thousands like you.
And people wonder why the pool of talent in politics is so low.
I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
calmer heads not much in evidence at the moment
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.
The day it came out I came on here to say the manifesto went down like a bucket of sick on radio phone-in,not one caller had anything good to say about it.
The idea that it's every codger's God-given right to pass on their house as an inheritance is very adventurous, but that seems to be current Labour party policy.
It's madness. Very generous tax breaks, very high spending plans, huge borrowing, some very anti-business policies, and the barmy idea that all of this can be sorted out by taxing the top 5% and most mobile part of the population. Does anybody here think this could actually work?
It's pure Trumponomics (except the top 5% taxes). My only hope is that unlike with Brexit and Trump, the voters will get a second chance to confirm that that's really the path they want to go down before it happens...
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.
It really isn't.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Absolutely tremendous post.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
LOL!
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.
I've realised that the Conservative Party did me a huge favour by rejecting my application to get on the candidates' list. I would have hated being a candidate or MP.
Out of interest, did they give a reason? Was it because you had principles?
In my limited experience, big budget infrastructure projects rarely cost out as projected within the planning horizon, but they deliver benefits far beyond those horizons. We are still benefiting from the investment decisions of those that built the first London Underground lines more than one hundred years ago.
Unless we decide never to take on ambitious capital projects, we only go ahead on projects that have unrealistic projections. How do you sensibly decide which projects to take on? In practice it's those that make it through the hoops, at each one of which the project could be canned. It doesn't seem the best way of setting priorities but I guess it works after a fashion.
The longer Tmay can carry on (until summer recess perhaps and Tory leadership change before conference?) and make corbyns claims to be ready to form a Govt seem ever more preposterous that might help slow labours momentum. I think many corbynistas do think theyve won and Yes they massively beat expectations but they still lost heavily and for the 3rd time in a GE.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
Hold that thought...
@OwenJones84: We now know that Labour didn't lose in 2015 for being too left-wing. Labour lost for not being radical enough.
Ha, ha.
Reports are that Labour is heading towards having one million members (800,000 and counting, 150,000 new members since the GE). I think that at some stage the numbers get too big for the far left to dominate in the way they do now. If you were a dyed in the wool Corbynista you would already be a Labour member, after all.
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
Careful, we don't know whether the current MP for Thanet South is actually guilty of anything yet...
Rather, we do know he's not guilty of anything (yet or otherwise).
Well the law says he is innocent at this time and will remain so until such time he is proved guilty.
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
The biggest problem...
It really isn't.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Absolutely tremendous post.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
LOL!
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.
Seconded. And there are tens of thousands like you.
And people wonder why the pool of talent in politics is so low.
Tens of thousands like Robert?
Firstly, can we make sure they're the 'tens of thousands' that come to live here post Brexit?
Secondly, Minister, implying that the web guru of your favourite politics site is far from unique is a 'brave choice'...
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.
It really isn't.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Absolutely tremendous post.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
LOL!
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.
I've realised that the Conservative Party did me a huge favour by rejecting my application to get on the candidates' list. I would have hated being a candidate or MP.
Out of interest, did they give a reason? Was it because you had principles?
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
Hold that thought...
@OwenJones84: We now know that Labour didn't lose in 2015 for being too left-wing. Labour lost for not being radical enough.
Why did they lose in 2017?
they weren't radical enough! Please try to keep up.
me and many others genuinely believe that the kind of Brexit strategy being discussed by the Tories in the lead up to the 8th June - one which saw the EU27 as our enemies and the negotiations a confrontation, and which we were seriously saying we might walk away from - would be deeply damaging to the UK's interests and the living standards of many millions of its citizens. To see the chances of that kind of Brexit recede so significantly was a massive relief and a deep joy.
Ummm, both Corbyn and McDonnel this morning on live TV said they want to walk away from the single market
They lost the election. Neither Corbyn nor McDonnell will ever support a no deal Brexit or a Tory hard Brexit. It would kill them off inside Labour.
I don't think anything can kill them off inside Labour, not for a while at least. As I said previously, Labour'smanifesto necessitates a much harder Brexit than whatever the Tories were going to deliver before the election.
Doubt that's true. What were Hollande's approval ratings at the end?
Indeed. I think the French are more tolerant of politicians malfeasance and private lives, but I don't see much sign that they respect them any more than we do.
Reports are that Labour is heading towards having one million members (800,000 and counting, 150,000 new members since the GE). I think that at some stage the numbers get too big for the far left to dominate in the way they do now. If you were a dyed in the wool Corbynista you would already be a Labour member, after all.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
Hold that thought...
@OwenJones84: We now know that Labour didn't lose in 2015 for being too left-wing. Labour lost for not being radical enough.
Why did they lose in 2017?
they weren't radical enough! Please try to keep up.
I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
calmer heads not much in evidence at the moment
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
That reading was floated by Matthew Parris on Newsnight, and I think that analysis doesn't work for several reasons:
- Corbyn actually became MORE popular over the course of the campaign, with the ratings rising (are continuing to rise) as May's crashed. If voters were voting for Labour despite Corbyn, this wouldn't have happened. - It was made clear by certain polls/models publicised by the press that the Tories were unlikely to win a landslide (due to narrowing lead), and I think polling over the course of the campaign showed the public were becoming less confident in the Tories winning a large majority. - In the recent Survation poll - post-election - Labour have taken a 6% lead. If voters, having seen the result voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wasn't going to become PM, they wouldn't still be sticking with Labour.
The day it came out I came on here to say the manifesto went down like a bucket of sick on radio phone-in,not one caller had anything good to say about it.
On that basis the Gover is too stupid to recognise a parody of a parody. You'd have thought the MI5 & UF on the side of the van might have been a hint.
Of course he was the sharp mind that assured us that Scotland would vote for Brexit.
Can I just say that the post election analysis on here is second to none. So much better than the pre election tensions. Thanks to all involved, and especially OGH, OGH Jnr and TSE.
LD candidates lost 375 deposits, Farron must be wary of a push for another General Election.
They also increased their number of seats by 50%, and came within about four hundred votes of doubling their representation. Another election might well see them capture St Ives, Richmond Park, Fife NE and Cheltenham.
While things obviously didn't play out as well for them as they'd hoped at the beginning of the campaign, I suspect senior LibDems feel they've done OK.
Although Southport showed that when an LibDem retires they struggle to hold the seat.
Which means they'll now have problems getting back Ceredigion, Leeds NW and Hallam and also suggests that we need to keep a track of how old the LibDem MPs are.
Sure.
But the seats they gained this time were all ex-LD seats - Edinburgh West, OxWAb, Bath, CS&ER, Twickenham, Kingston, Eastbourne. And of those, the first four were all with new candidates.
Frankly, the LDs need a new leader and a bit of luck. If they get that, they can be back at 20-odd seats next time around.
Jo Swinson is a name that's being bandied about.
Complete anecdote, but the members of my local party who I know seem to really like her. I don't actually know much about her, but they talk about her like she walks on water. So if the other members in my area and other areas are the same then she'll walk the next leadership election.
Which is rather what the odds suggest too, with Cable also favoured.
I try not to bet on leadership elections though, barring good polling (rare) it's too hard to get a representative sense of the electorate.
Whats the voting system ?
Is AV used ?
Of course, no doubt we will get a thread on it's merits before we reach the next leadership contest (Swinson will almost certainly be one the candidates and probably the favourite in my opinion assuming that she would want the job)
The idea that it's every codger's God-given right to pass on their house as an inheritance is very adventurous, but that seems to be current Labour party policy.
It's madness. Very generous tax breaks, very high spending plans, huge borrowing, some very anti-business policies, and the barmy idea that all of this can be sorted out by taxing the top 5% and most mobile part of the population. Does anybody here think this could actually work?
It's pure Trumponomics (except the top 5% taxes). My only hope is that unlike with Brexit and Trump, the voters will get a second chance to confirm that that's really the path they want to go down before it happens...
Yeah Corbyn and Trump are both channelling legitimate public grievances, and both of them propose nonsensical solutions.
I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
calmer heads not much in evidence at the moment
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
Probably right. Probably also right that a lot of people voted leave because remain were going to win anyway, so it was a safe protest against gay marriage/Osborne being a prat.
I think we should follow the Swiss in having so many bloody referendums that people get bored of twatting about and actually answer the question the referendum/election is asking them.
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
Careful, we don't know whether the current MP for Thanet South is actually guilty of anything yet...
Rather, we do know he's not guilty of anything (yet or otherwise).
Well the law says he is innocent at this time and will remain so until such time he is proved guilty.
Yes, we agree. I say he's not guilty, and I add "yet or otherwise" because if I said "yet", or explicitly didn't, it might be seen to be taking a punt at the outcome of the trial.
And I wouldn't take a punt at the outcome of a trial; not after this week. There's no NOM market to recover my 10.01 losses...
On that basis the Gover is too stupid to recognise a parody of a parody. You'd have thought the MI5 & UF on the side of the van might have been a hint.
Of course he was the sharp mind that assured us that Scotland would vote for Brexit.
He was campaigning for Brexit, what was he supposed to say? "Oh, we've got no chance up here." It is as ridiculous as Nicola claiming she couldn't win a second referendum.
The day it came out I came on here to say the manifesto went down like a bucket of sick on radio phone-in,not one caller had anything good to say about it.
I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
calmer heads not much in evidence at the moment
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
That may or may not be the case and if it was then that may or may not be the future. The passage of time may or may not tell us more. There, that's decisive for you.
After seeing what hubris did to May you'd hoe he'd be more circumspect. Having said that I thought May would limp on. Bringing back Gove tells me beyond doubt she's now finished. A beached whale
@Ben_Wray1989: Curtice: "90% of yes voters in the 2014 referendum voted SNP in the 2015 General Election - only 75% of yes voters backed SNP in #GE2017."
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
I reckon a by election in Scotland, and George will win.
George would make a fine MP for Glasgow or Dundee.
Sir Winston Churchill was an MP for Dundee too.
We should be so lucky. When Churchill was MP here he fell out with DC Thomson who then refused to mention him in the Courier and he subsequently lost his seat. After he died biographers found that DC Thomson had one of the best archives of Churchill in the country.
Don't mention DCThomson again. The family is nice. Their choice of spouses is not.
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.
It really isn't.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Absolutely tremendous post.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
LOL!
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.
It's really sad isn't it. France has much wrong with it, but their respect for politicians seemsan awful lot better than ours. I'm wishing Macron very well.
The robots, weirdos and clowns in the cabinet have failed to earn any respect
I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
calmer heads not much in evidence at the moment
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
That reading was floated by Matthew Parris on Newsnight, and I think that analysis doesn't work for several reasons:
- Corbyn actually became MORE popular over the course of the campaign, with the ratings rising (are continuing to rise) as May's crashed. If voters were voting for Labour despite Corbyn, this wouldn't have happened. - It was made clear by certain polls/models publicised by the press that the Tories were unlikely to win a landslide (due to narrowing lead), and I think polling over the course of the campaign showed the public were becoming less confident in the Tories winning a large majority. - In the recent Survation poll - post-election - Labour have taken a 6% lead. If voters, having seen the result voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wasn't going to become PM, they wouldn't still be sticking with Labour.
I'm not sure most of the public will have noticed these details.
50% of his tweet is true, the other 50%....not so much. He's right that Labour did not lose in 2015 because they were 'too left-wing'. Toby Young tried to argue that literally hours after the GE. Ed M's loss was more rooted in failed triangulation than anything else.
You jest, but I suspect that Corbyn and McDonnell would like to nationalise a lot more than they let on. Their reasoning would apply to certainly all utilities and any industry where monopolies or oligopolies can arise. In other-words a very large chunk of UK business.
Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.
But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.
The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.
It really isn't.
Like many things, there are no simple solutions.
Firstly, remember that all taxes are paid ultimately by individuals. Because individuals - no matter how it is obfuscated - are the ultimate owners of things. So, when you say multinational corporations are avoiding tax, what you really mean is that the owners of said companies are evading tax.
Secondly, the management of firms used to be incentivised to make profits. The great fortunes amassed in the 70s, 80s and 90s, whether Bill Gates, or the corporate raiders, were based on large profitable firms that spewed off cash. Now, the mega fortunes are made by firms that eschewed profits in favour of growth. While Amazon is now (eventually) profitable, it got to being one of the 10 largest companies in the world by not making money. (Compare and contrast Walmart.) Our systems tax profits. Amazon genuinely chose to grow bigger at the expense of cash in the bank. It was not that it hid profits, it was that it chose not to make them.
Absolutely tremendous post.
Sure you can be tempted to a peerage and leadership of the Tory party?
LOL!
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.
It's really sad isn't it. France has much wrong with it, but their respect for politicians seemsan awful lot better than ours. I'm wishing Macron very well.
The robots, weirdos and clowns in the cabinet have failed to earn any respect
Sympathy for a politician is usually fatal for them.
Perhaps it is all part of Osborne's master strategy, make sure the Tories keep May in place for a couple of years, so another early election/by election comes along in the next two years, and George is in Parliament.....
I expect by-elections to resume their normal behaviour of violent swings against the government rather than the odd Copeland situation we had just a few short months back.
Thanet South first up, Labour GAIN. That will take May down to 317, even with the DUP the government will inevitably get ever more precarious.
I reckon a by election in Scotland, and George will win.
George would make a fine MP for Glasgow or Dundee.
Sir Winston Churchill was an MP for Dundee too.
We should be so lucky. When Churchill was MP here he fell out with DC Thomson who then refused to mention him in the Courier and he subsequently lost his seat. After he died biographers found that DC Thomson had one of the best archives of Churchill in the country.
Don't mention DCThomson again. The family is nice. Their choice of spouses is not.
LD candidates lost 375 deposits, Farron must be wary of a push for another General Election.
They also increased their number of seats by 50%, and came within about four hundred votes of doubling their representation. Another election might well see them capture St Ives, Richmond Park, Fife NE and Cheltenham.
While things obviously didn't play out as well for them as they'd hoped at the beginning of the campaign, I suspect senior LibDems feel they've done OK.
Although Southport showed that when an LibDem retires they struggle to hold the seat.
Which means they'll now have problems getting back Ceredigion, Leeds NW and Hallam and also suggests that we need to keep a track of how old the LibDem MPs are.
Sure.
But the seats they gained this time were all ex-LD seats - Edinburgh West, OxWAb, Bath, CS&ER, Twickenham, Kingston, Eastbourne. And of those, the first four were all with new candidates.
Frankly, the LDs need a new leader and a bit of luck. If they get that, they can be back at 20-odd seats next time around.
The Tories lost too many of those seats due to the dementia tax policy. OxWAb, Bath, Twickenham and Eastbourne all have high value property anda fairly large number of older voters.
I hadn't spotted that as a particular feature. Are all the LD seats in areas with older than average populations? It would make sense of where they won, and where they lost to Labour.
Eastbourne's reputation for old people is a bit out of date. I think the result there was much more about a very hard working local candidate.
Can I just say that the post election analysis on here is second to none. So much better than the pre election tensions. Thanks to all involved, and especially OGH, OGH Jnr and TSE.
Oh, and the jokes are funnier too.
SeanT and the other bed wetters were right though.
Are the Tories still be going to be able to push through the boundary changes in 2018 they were planning for the next election -boundary changes which would benefit them? Will the DUP support the Tories on this, given that it might reduce their numbers?
You jest, but I suspect that Corbyn and McDonnell would like to nationalise a lot more than they let on. Their reasoning would apply to certainly all utilities and any industry where monopolies or oligopolies can arise. In other-words a very large chunk of UK business.
Did the Labour manifesto actually say anything about the Bank of England? Because it seems inconceivable that they wouldn't want to reverse the Independence of said institution from the Government. Given all their plans to borrow from it, and all?
They also increased their number of seats by 50%, and came within about four hundred votes of doubling their representation. Another election might well see them capture St Ives, Richmond Park, Fife NE and Cheltenham.
While things obviously didn't play out as well for them as they'd hoped at the beginning of the campaign, I suspect senior LibDems feel they've done OK.
Although Southport showed that when an LibDem retires they struggle to hold the seat.
Which means they'll now have problems getting back Ceredigion, Leeds NW and Hallam and also suggests that we need to keep a track of how old the LibDem MPs are.
Sure.
But the seats they gained this time were all ex-LD seats - Edinburgh West, OxWAb, Bath, CS&ER, Twickenham, Kingston, Eastbourne. And of those, the first four were all with new candidates.
Frankly, the LDs need a new leader and a bit of luck. If they get that, they can be back at 20-odd seats next time around.
Jo Swinson is a name that's being bandied about.
Complete anecdote, but the members of my local party who I know seem to really like her. I don't actually know much about her, but they talk about her like she walks on water. So if the other members in my area and other areas are the same then she'll walk the next leadership election.
Which is rather what the odds suggest too, with Cable also favoured.
I try not to bet on leadership elections though, barring good polling (rare) it's too hard to get a representative sense of the electorate.
Whats the voting system ?
Is AV used ?
Of course, no doubt we will get a thread on it's merits before we reach the next leadership contest (Swinson will almost certainly be one the candidates and probably the favourite in my opinion assuming that she would want the job)
What the LibDems need to do is complete their detoxification with the youth vote - Clegg going was hugely popular with the students, a shame for such a good politician, but to the party's benefit. Jo Swinson as leaders would be a very positive step forward.
Tim Farron was a good stop-gap (from a poor choice) after GE2015, but unfortunately he just isn't a leader to be taken seriously. He deserves credit for steadying the ship - but frankly his personal beliefs on homosexuality, which should in theory should be his own private views and no-one else's business, are - in practice - so out of touch with the zeitgeist and the youth vote that he really has to step aside.
All in all a great victory for Jeremy Corbyn on a par with Attlee in performance.The nation is in static paralysis and impatiently waits for Mr Corbyn to take over.
Out of curiosity, how many seats Attlee won, compared to Corbyn?
Attlee lost the 1951 election because the electorate had had enough of austerity.
I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
calmer heads not much in evidence at the moment
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
That reading was floated by Matthew Parris on Newsnight, and I think that analysis doesn't work for several reasons:
- Corbyn actually became MORE popular over the course of the campaign, with the ratings rising (are continuing to rise) as May's crashed. If voters were voting for Labour despite Corbyn, this wouldn't have happened. - It was made clear by certain polls/models publicised by the press that the Tories were unlikely to win a landslide (due to narrowing lead), and I think polling over the course of the campaign showed the public were becoming less confident in the Tories winning a large majority. - In the recent Survation poll - post-election - Labour have taken a 6% lead. If voters, having seen the result voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wasn't going to become PM, they wouldn't still be sticking with Labour.
Excellent post.
The final point is perhaps the strongest one. It will be interesting to see where the polls go now Corbyn is openly floating the idea of his becoming PM in short order. I dunno where they will go. But the Tories just look broken, and utterly exhausted.
I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
calmer heads not much in evidence at the moment
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
That reading was floated by Matthew Parris on Newsnight, and I think that analysis doesn't work for several reasons:
- Corbyn actually became MORE popular over the course of the campaign, with the ratings rising (are continuing to rise) as May's crashed. If voters were voting for Labour despite Corbyn, this wouldn't have happened. - It was made clear by certain polls/models publicised by the press that the Tories were unlikely to win a landslide (due to narrowing lead), and I think polling over the course of the campaign showed the public were becoming less confident in the Tories winning a large majority. - In the recent Survation poll - post-election - Labour have taken a 6% lead. If voters, having seen the result voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wasn't going to become PM, they wouldn't still be sticking with Labour.
I'm not sure most of the public will have noticed these details.
That point could only really apply to the publicised poll leads. The idea the public hasn't noticed the GE result....well, it's quite unlikely. As I said previously, now they know that Corbyn *could* win the next GE because 262 MPs isn't a long way from 326. That Labour has gone to take a 6% lead says that the voters have not walked away from Labour when faced with the possibility Corbyn could be in Downing Street.
I also doubt that voters won't know whether their opinion of Corbyn has improved or not!
On that basis the Gover is too stupid to recognise a parody of a parody. You'd have thought the MI5 & UF on the side of the van might have been a hint.
Of course he was the sharp mind that assured us that Scotland would vote for Brexit.
He was campaigning for Brexit, what was he supposed to say? "Oh, we've got no chance up here." It is as ridiculous as Nicola claiming she couldn't win a second referendum.
On this evidence Gullible Govey said it because he believed it.
I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
calmer heads not much in evidence at the moment
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
That reading was floated by Matthew Parris on Newsnight, and I think that analysis doesn't work for several reasons:
- Corbyn actually became MORE popular over the course of the campaign, with the ratings rising (are continuing to rise) as May's crashed. If voters were voting for Labour despite Corbyn, this wouldn't have happened. - It was made clear by certain polls/models publicised by the press that the Tories were unlikely to win a landslide (due to narrowing lead), and I think polling over the course of the campaign showed the public were becoming less confident in the Tories winning a large majority. - In the recent Survation poll - post-election - Labour have taken a 6% lead. If voters, having seen the result voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wasn't going to become PM, they wouldn't still be sticking with Labour.
Excellent post.
The final point is perhaps the strongest one. It will be interesting to see where the polls go now Corbyn is openly floating the idea of his becoming PM in short order. I dunno where they will go. But the Tories just look broken, and utterly exhausted.
Can I just say that the post election analysis on here is second to none. So much better than the pre election tensions. Thanks to all involved, and especially OGH, OGH Jnr and TSE.
Oh, and the jokes are funnier too.
SeanT and the other bed wetters were right though.
Yup, true, though Sean can often point to being right because he changes his mind 19* times during each campaign...
I think Labour is sowing the seeds for its own possible downfall whenever the next election comes through its own hubris which it has been demonstrating since Thursday. Its been talking as if it won the general election (recall the groan on Question Time this week), and turning Corbyn into a saint, and hero when probably many people voted Labour despite not because of Corbyn.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
calmer heads not much in evidence at the moment
I think large numbers voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wouldn't become PM, because the rest of the country was planning to vote Tory in a landslide.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
That reading was floated by Matthew Parris on Newsnight, and I think that analysis doesn't work for several reasons:
- Corbyn actually became MORE popular over the course of the campaign, with the ratings rising (are continuing to rise) as May's crashed. If voters were voting for Labour despite Corbyn, this wouldn't have happened. - It was made clear by certain polls/models publicised by the press that the Tories were unlikely to win a landslide (due to narrowing lead), and I think polling over the course of the campaign showed the public were becoming less confident in the Tories winning a large majority. - In the recent Survation poll - post-election - Labour have taken a 6% lead. If voters, having seen the result voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wasn't going to become PM, they wouldn't still be sticking with Labour.
I'm not sure most of the public will have noticed these details.
I think there is a huge difference between Labour taking the lead in the polls after an election, and at a time when the Tories have had a lot of bad press and Corbyn good press, and Labour and Corbyn being able to win a general election in the next year.
Yep, I am detecting a fair bit of hubris. Hopefully, once the initial euphoria of defying expectations has settled down and everyone has had some sleep, calmer heads will prevail. We'll see.
Hold that thought...
@OwenJones84: We now know that Labour didn't lose in 2015 for being too left-wing. Labour lost for not being radical enough.
Why did they lose in 2017?
they weren't radical enough! Please try to keep up.
Nationalize the banks.
Although it's been tried before it's worth another go and would buck up the City's prospects no end
Comments
I have enough on my plate right now. And, heck, who wants to be in politics? Who wants to have every comment taken out of context? (Do you want to go through my past posts and find my gags and claim they're genuine belief?)
Public service sucks. Being an MP sucks. Being a minister sucks. While I wouldn't claim to have the talent to being a great minister, I can tell you that if I had the talent, I'd apply it somewhere else.
@OwenJones84: We now know that Labour didn't lose in 2015 for being too left-wing. Labour lost for not being radical enough.
George would make a fine MP for Glasgow or Dundee.
Sir Winston Churchill was an MP for Dundee too.
I can relax and put my feet up can't I?
https://twitter.com/JamieRoss7/status/873907530589765633
And people wonder why the pool of talent in politics is so low.
This was a dangerous mistake.
Will they make it again?
Did you see Nigel Evans rant about it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlWBrBK9bsA
Unless we decide never to take on ambitious capital projects, we only go ahead on projects that have unrealistic projections. How do you sensibly decide which projects to take on? In practice it's those that make it through the hoops, at each one of which the project could be canned. It doesn't seem the best way of setting priorities but I guess it works after a fashion.
Hopefully she'll take the rest of my advice.
Reports are that Labour is heading towards having one million members (800,000 and counting, 150,000 new members since the GE). I think that at some stage the numbers get too big for the far left to dominate in the way they do now. If you were a dyed in the wool Corbynista you would already be a Labour member, after all.
Firstly, can we make sure they're the 'tens of thousands' that come to live here post Brexit?
Secondly, Minister, implying that the web guru of your favourite politics site is far from unique is a 'brave choice'...
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/873649515374534656
LOL,Have we here another labour and numbers problem ;-)
https://twitter.com/RichardBurgon/status/873650441124548608
https://twitter.com/pickardje/status/874015290643943425
- Corbyn actually became MORE popular over the course of the campaign, with the ratings rising (are continuing to rise) as May's crashed. If voters were voting for Labour despite Corbyn, this wouldn't have happened.
- It was made clear by certain polls/models publicised by the press that the Tories were unlikely to win a landslide (due to narrowing lead), and I think polling over the course of the campaign showed the public were becoming less confident in the Tories winning a large majority.
- In the recent Survation poll - post-election - Labour have taken a 6% lead. If voters, having seen the result voted Labour because they were convinced that Corbyn wasn't going to become PM, they wouldn't still be sticking with Labour.
Of course he was the sharp mind that assured us that Scotland would vote for Brexit.
Oh, and the jokes are funnier too.
I think we should follow the Swiss in having so many bloody referendums that people get bored of twatting about and actually answer the question the referendum/election is asking them.
I have a friend in the BSDM "community", and the going rate is normally more like 2% of income.
And I wouldn't take a punt at the outcome of a trial; not after this week. There's no NOM market to recover my 10.01 losses...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WP0wbeSce8
But the current version is still going strong
@Ben_Wray1989: Curtice: "90% of yes voters in the 2014 referendum voted SNP in the 2015 General Election - only 75% of yes voters backed SNP in #GE2017."
He is ahead, and would win
50% of his tweet is true, the other 50%....not so much. He's right that Labour did not lose in 2015 because they were 'too left-wing'. Toby Young tried to argue that literally hours after the GE. Ed M's loss was more rooted in failed triangulation than anything else.
Tim Farron was a good stop-gap (from a poor choice) after GE2015, but unfortunately he just isn't a leader to be taken seriously. He deserves credit for steadying the ship - but frankly his personal beliefs on homosexuality, which should in theory should be his own private views and no-one else's business, are - in practice - so out of touch with the zeitgeist and the youth vote that he really has to step aside.
People get fed up of it after a while.
The final point is perhaps the strongest one. It will be interesting to see where the polls go now Corbyn is openly floating the idea of his becoming PM in short order. I dunno where they will go. But the Tories just look broken, and utterly exhausted.
I also doubt that voters won't know whether their opinion of Corbyn has improved or not!
*This is an exaggeration, but not much of one!