And the results of "talks across the chamber on Brexit" will just enrage the Conservative 'bastards', making May's life even more difficult.
May doesn't need to keep the bastards onside if she can get Labour to outvote them
This not about votes in the Commons; it's about internal Conservative machinations. Remember all the chaos of the 1992-1997 Conservative government? Yes, it was tired. Yes, Labour had a great spin operation going. But another major factor in the chaos was the internal problems within the party, and the 'bastards'.
They were the ones who forced Major to have a leadership contest, and even losing that did not shut them up.
Except May went to the country on the bastards' prospectus (control of immigration the determining policy) and failed. For years they have been convinced that this platform would guarantee electoral success - and May' explicitly sought the approval of the electorate to pursue this Brexit route, and failed to get it.
There will be a compromise. May will (quite rightly) take the blame for it, and there will be a subsequent leadership election.
Of course it's possible that the party will opt for electoral suicide, but I think it far more likely that they will tack to the centre.
I find this depressing, but not because one age group or another is changing tack. Its because from now on the party that dangles most carrots and promises to spend most money will win, its irresponsible and the road to ruin. People used to get respect for talking about tough decisions and priorities, now both parties are spunking money like sailors on a run ashore.
This will end very badly and the irrelevance of Brexit will be a convenient if dishonest excuse.
Agreed.
Yes. The EU issue used just to poison internal Conservative politics, but now out of its cage the poison of Brexit is damaging the whole political environment.
When did its advocates ever explain that if it were to be agreed, we would need to junk our entire approach to the economy this past six years?
This election is not an opportunity to re-open the referendum debate.
Both Labour and Conservative MPs were elected on a platform that accepted and respected the referendum outcome. They are both committed to making it happen.
If Labour had stood on an explicitly anti-Brexit platform, you might have a point, but they didn't and if they had done so the Tories would in all likelihood have retained a clear majority.
The realityis that all the indications are that the only Brexit that has any chance of success now is a soft Brexit.
TM sacked David Jones last night. I have known David for over 40 years, campaigned with him and exchange regular text messages, and he was a dedicated Brexit Minister who led the Brexit campaign in Wales.
For David to be replaced by a remainer tells you all you need to know about the direction of travel
But to what extent is a soft Brexit even on the table? The members of EFTA, for example, are still required to implement the four freedoms. It's all very well us talking about a soft Brexit, but it's hard to imagine the EU and the other EFTA countries agreeing to anything other than either Brexit in name only, or complete.
We can put it on the table. The EU look set on the process. Exit fees, citizens and Ireland first, final destination agreed in principle second, transition extensions third, then exit in March 2019.EEA could be the final destination, which would make the transition easier.
The fee could be reduced by 'opting in' to many schemes which make sense for us to co-operate in. Science, Air traffic control etc etc.
Ms. Forethought, a very astute point. If something isn't provided it seems to be because the politicians aren't squeezing their eyes shut and wishing hard enough.
What would have happened if we had exactly the same election result except Corbyn wasn't labour leader, miliband or someone mainstream was? Would the DUP in that situation have had even more leverage, openly playing both sides off against each other? Would they have put Labour in power? I do think in that situation we wouldn't be hearing the same criticisms of the DUP.
My view, the tories have the right to try this, I don't think it's unconstitutional to try and negotiate with the DUP. but it is not going to end well for them. fair or unfair, the DUP association is going to become toxic for them, but more importantly they will be perceived as a weak and tired minority government at the end of their life expectancy. The earlier the election the better for them.
Best thing for the Conservatives in the medium and long term would be another election: the longer May delays, the worse things are going to be.
Get all the wise heads together and develop a *good* manifesto, along with the relevant marketing. Develop strong attack lines against Labour's policies. Prepare (and don' just call a GE with little communication with her team like May did).
If Labour win, it'll probably be a minority government or a small majority. Rebuild and attack, attack, attack.
If Conservatives win, all is good.
The major downside to this is that there's a chance we'll get the same result ...
Another election now would see Labour doing better.
Corbyn would be a left-wing Trump and his administration would have a half-life of about 12 months. None of the fundamental issues he has (and were revealed to Labour MPs and the media on multiple occasions over the preceding 21 months) with basic administrative competence, staff management, parliamentary whipping, fiscal probity or any sense of flexibility over his ideological dogma have gone away.
The Tories will move heaven and earth to avoid another election.
It. Is. Not. Happening.
I think we've learned recently that you shouldn't pay too much attention to polls outside of election periods! Corbyn would obviously be bad news but he won't run against May again so its rather academic. Tories need to get on with running the country. May is blessed that the man she faces at PMQs is not the man who can draw a crowd in Gateshead.
Hmm, MPs you mean. What about voters? The thread is about a drop in the Tory old vote. What will be the effect there of a Brexit betrayal on the Tories' watch. May has previously promised no FOM therefore no SM, no ECJ and gained plenty of votes (losing seats of course).
It would be a Parliamentary vote for soft Brexit or fudged Brexit because of the hung Parliament, hard Brexiteers will still all vote against but there are more soft Brexiteers in Parliament and May cannot overrule Parliament
Maybe we should have a referéndum on the deal to crear the waters. Might as well put reman on the ballot
AIHSB, we are heading for a period of sustained inflation above interest rates. The effect on the debt pile is beneficial (which is why politicians won't hurry to tackle it), but the squeeze on living standards meantime is going to be painful, and especially painful for government also.
The pair of you - one a visitor to Aberdeen and one a resident - are already showing the hubris which shall be the Tory's downfall probably in weeks not years.
Tyndall who "pops up in Aberdeen" claimed that the SNP were "hated" in the oil industry. Perhaps by people like him but hardly by the workers like my relatives who vote for them in great numbers.
Fitalass likes to suggest the the North East in now a Tory fiefdom But this is hardly justified by the facts. The SNP is the most popular party still in the City as the local and General Election results show and across the five seats of city and shire last week the SNP average vote was 36 per cent compared to the Tories 41 per cent.
As Salmond suggested on election night - you should both pause in the midst of your glee.The Tory time will be very short lived.
The question is the wrong way round. Rather than asking why the Conservative Party lost its firewall of older voters, surely the question is why these voters stuck with the Tories?
The Ashcroft poll shows that -- for all the alleged poison of the dementia tax -- most older voters stuck their cross next to the blue candidate.
Why? Why not vote Labour?
Because they've seen an actual Labour government or two, is the usual explanation.
I would be genuinely interested to know how many voters under say 25 know that Gordon Brown was a Labour PM. I bet it's not 100%.
OT. The EU have moved a step closer to implementing a Link Tax after a vote in the EU Parliament Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.
This would force websites to pay a fee whenever they link to a news article. Yet another bloody stupid idea from the EU.
Hmm, MPs you mean. What about voters? The thread is about a drop in the Tory old vote. What will be the effect there of a Brexit betrayal on the Tories' watch. May has previously promised no FOM therefore no SM, no ECJ and gained plenty of votes (losing seats of course).
It would be a Parliamentary vote for soft Brexit or fudged Brexit because of the hung Parliament, hard Brexiteers will still all vote against but there are more soft Brexiteers in Parliament and May cannot overrule Parliament
Maybe we should have a referéndum on the deal to crear the waters. Might as well put reman on the ballot
The last thing the conservatives need now is another election. They are not ready in any shape or form. They just need some breathing space and get through the next couple of weeks. Labour will be starting their reshuffle towards the end of the week and that should get some of the media off their backs.
Even if a fresh election could be engineered, the voters would probably look unkindly at the Conservatives for calling it.
Yep. They were asked a question (three years earlier than necessary) and they've answered it. It's up to the politicians to sort it out now, and if they don't like the answer the voters have given them, they'll really not like the answer if they ask again......
Expect more cash for deprived areas in the budget:
Northern Ireland has higher levels of multiple deprivation than the rest of the UK with over a third of the population living on or below the breadline. 29% of households are ‘sometimes skimping’ or going without food so that others in their household will have enough to eat. 7% of households can’t afford regular fresh fruit and vegetables.
The question is the wrong way round. Rather than asking why the Conservative Party lost its firewall of older voters, surely the question is why these voters stuck with the Tories?
The Ashcroft poll shows that -- for all the alleged poison of the dementia tax -- most older voters stuck their cross next to the blue candidate.
Why? Why not vote Labour?
Because they've seen an actual Labour government or two, is the usual explanation.
I would be genuinely interested to know how many voters under say 25 know that Gordon Brown was a Labour PM. I bet it's not 100%.
I imagine it's nowhere near 100% for any age group. Most people, of all ages, really aren't into politics.
I find this depressing, but not because one age group or another is changing tack. Its because from now on the party that dangles most carrots and promises to spend most money will win, its irresponsible and the road to ruin. People used to get respect for talking about tough decisions and priorities, now both parties are spunking money like sailors on a run ashore.
This will end very badly and the irrelevance of Brexit will be a convenient if dishonest excuse.
Agreed.
Yes. The EU issue used just to poison internal Conservative politics, but now out of its cage the poison of Brexit is damaging the whole political environment.
When did its advocates ever explain that if it were to be agreed, we would need to junk our entire approach to the economy this past six years?
This election is not an opportunity to re-open the referendum debate.
Both Labour and Conservative MPs were elected on a platform that accepted and respected the referendum outcome. They are both committed to making it happen.
If Labour had stood on an explicitly anti-Brexit platform, you might have a point, but they didn't and if they had done so the Tories would in all likelihood have retained a clear majority.
The realityis that all the indications are that the only Brexit that has any chance of success now is a soft Brexit.
TM sacked David Jones last night. I have known David for over 40 years, campaigned with him and exchange regular text messages, and he was a dedicated Brexit Minister who led the Brexit campaign in Wales.
For David to be replaced by a remainer tells you all you need to know about the direction of travel
But to what extent is a soft Brexit even on the table? The members of EFTA, for example, are still required to implement the four freedoms. It's all very well us talking about a soft Brexit, but it's hard to imagine the EU and the other EFTA countries agreeing to anything other than either Brexit in name only, or complete.
We can put it on the table. The EU look set on the process. Exit fees, citizens and Ireland first, final destination agreed in principle second, transition extensions third, then exit in March 2019.EEA could be the final destination, which would make the transition easier.
The fee could be reduced by 'opting in' to many schemes which make sense for us to co-operate in. Science, Air traffic control etc etc.
I suspect it won't reduce the exit fee, but if it can be spread out over many years it will seem less shocking.
OT. The EU have moved a step closer to implementing a Link Tax after a vote in the EU Parliament Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection.
This would force websites to pay a fee whenever they link to a news article. Yet another bloody stupid idea from the EU.
The pair of you - one a visitor to Aberdeen and one a resident - are already showing the hubris which shall be the Tory's downfall probably in weeks not years.
Tyndall who "pops up in Aberdeen" claimed that the SNP were "hated" in the oil industry. Perhaps by people like him but hardly by the workers like my relatives who vote for them in great numbers.
Fitalass likes to suggest the the North East in now a Tory fiefdom But this is hardly justified by the facts. The SNP is the most popular party still in the City as the local and General Election results show and across the five seats of city and shire last week the SNP average vote was 36 per cent compared to the Tories 41 per cent.
As Salmond suggested on election night - you should both pause in the midst of your glee.The Tory time will be very short lived.
LOL. For a start I am not a Tory. Secondly I am pro Independence and campaigned for it on the streets of Aberdeen last time around.
But the SNP have completely abandoned those 120,000 workers who lost their jobs. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening but the SNP have seriously damaged their own brand and unfortunately in the process also seriously damaged any prospect of winning a future Independence vote.
The question you have to ask yourself is, why, after 7 years of tory led government, are we in such a dreadful economic mess?
That explains the political mess. Thankfully, the tories have reacted calmly, rather than forming the circular firing squad to date. That needs to carry on.
They then need to completely reform economic policy, rather than continue to be run by the Treasury . civil service orthodoxy that brought both the multiple omnishambles budgets of Osborne, and that manifesto.
We need to relaunch basic economic principles. One is called "Capitalism". It states that in order to sell your product / service you need customers who want to buy and have the means to do so. For a decade we covered their inability to buy with a homeowner loan from Ocean Finance, but thats long gone. We've had a decade of grinding austerity where we cut everything as unaffordable, then wonder why we're in such a mess that we've run up another £700bn in debt at the same time.
Capitalism 101. Invest in capacity, infrastructure, people. Generate a return on that investment. The Tories burned £700bn for day to day bills and got no return, having persuaded people that investment = subsidy = communism. We need to return to investment. And yes, that will mean more borrowing. But if the ROI is 4:1 or 6:1 then so what? Right now interest rates for governments are close to zero AND there are sovereign wealth funds crying out for big projects to safely stick their cash in.
This government wants to get out of this pit its dug? Show people it "gives a toss about stuff" as the fabulous Julie Hesmondhalgh said at the Labour manifesto launch. Invest in skills and public transport and fibre broadband and clean power generation and new roads and rails and Heathrow. Give people a job. They have cash to spend on things, which gives other people a job. Their business then expands and invests, creating more jobs. And more disposable income to spend. Capitalism. Proper capitalism, not the sell it for a profit this quarter and fuck the future bankism that replaced it.
To invest in infrastructure you have to cut day to day spending, otherwise you get into a downward spiral of debt and will find no one will lend to you any more.
@EdConwaySky: Turns out 2017 was yet another illustration of the old rule that elections rarely work out well for incumbents when real wages are falling
The pair of you - one a visitor to Aberdeen and one a resident - are already showing the hubris which shall be the Tory's downfall probably in weeks not years.
Tyndall who "pops up in Aberdeen" claimed that the SNP were "hated" in the oil industry. Perhaps by people like him but hardly by the workers like my relatives who vote for them in great numbers.
Fitalass likes to suggest the the North East in now a Tory fiefdom But this is hardly justified by the facts. The SNP is the most popular party still in the City as the local and General Election results show and across the five seats of city and shire last week the SNP average vote was 36 per cent compared to the Tories 41 per cent.
As Salmond suggested on election night - you should both pause in the midst of your glee.The Tory time will be very short lived.
LOL. For a start I am not a Tory. Secondly I am pro Independence and campaigned for it on the streets of Aberdeen last time around.
But the SNP have completely abandoned those 120,000 workers who lost their jobs. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening but the SNP have seriously damaged their own brand and unfortunately in the process also seriously damaged any prospect of winning a future Independence vote.
What exactly could the SNP do to protect those workers and those jobs. The global price of oil has halved and doesn't seem likely to recover in the next 10+ years....
Inflation 2.9%. So student loan repayments just went up.
Student loan interest rates are based on the March RPI figure. In any case, the repayments are not determined by the interest rate as they are deducted from salary as an additional "tax"
The cost of Brexit is however a different thing altogether. Did nobody on the Government side ever say that desirable or not, we simply cannot afford it?
This is an interesting point. The idea that something may be genuinely unaffordable seems to be a heresy. We can't afford space navies but there is an assumption that the state can pay for anything else we want by milking "the rich".
The current definition of "the rich", if we use McDonnell's, is the 900,000 people - 3% - on more than £80k a year. The average they are on is £122k a year. The £42k above £80k that they earn grosses up to about £38 billion, of which they already pay £20 billion in tax. Any of them on £100 to £120k with a student loan pays a marginal rate of 71%.
It seems clear that if you try to tax this group more it rapidly becomes counterproductive. If you took 100% or nearly so of what someone earns over £80k they will clearly stop earning over £80k, so you'll lose whatever you were collecting. But even at some point short of that you are just taking off them in tax what they'd have handed over anyway in VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty, etc.
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Gordon Brown started the process with his mantra of "we are the fourth richest economy in the world" every time it was suggested that something might not be affordable.
Variations of the mantra are still current.
The fundamental problem is that the economic consequences of political policies can take a decade or more to become fully apparent, and are often suffered by administrations following the one which implemented those policies.
It's only when you have a decade long government which screws up (or succession of governments as in the 70s) that it actually suffers the consequences of its own economic decisions.
Hmm, MPs you mean. What about voters? The thread is about a drop in the Tory old vote. What will be the effect there of a Brexit betrayal on the Tories' watch. May has previously promised no FOM therefore no SM, no ECJ and gained plenty of votes (losing seats of course).
It would be a Parliamentary vote for soft Brexit or fudged Brexit because of the hung Parliament, hard Brexiteers will still all vote against but there are more soft Brexiteers in Parliament and May cannot overrule Parliament
Maybe we should have a referéndum on the deal to crear the waters. Might as well put reman on the ballot
But what if it is still leave -
If leave no deal then get on with it at least the un certainly would end and plans can be made.
@EdConwaySky: Turns out 2017 was yet another illustration of the old rule that elections rarely work out well for incumbents when real wages are falling
However, I suspect one of the reasons May went for it is the view that the economy is getting worse.
And the results of "talks across the chamber on Brexit" will just enrage the Conservative 'bastards', making May's life even more difficult.
May doesn't need to keep the bastards onside if she can get Labour to outvote them
This not about votes in the Commons; it's about internal Conservative machinations. Remember all the chaos of the 1992-1997 Conservative government? Yes, it was tired. Yes, Labour had a great spin operation going. But another major factor in the chaos was the internal problems within the party, and the 'bastards'.
They were the ones who forced Major to have a leadership contest, and even losing that did not shut them up.
I would hope the Conservatives have had a big enough fright not to repeat their behaviour during those years.
Why? They've just repeated it with Brexit. They got rid of a good, electable leader and replaced him with an over-promoted chancer who also swept out many good people.
And they'll do it again, and again, and again, until they get what they want. Which is fair enough, as they place what they want over everything else.
Do you mean Cameron? If so, he wasn't really got rid of, he quit & was going to do so before the next GE even if Remain had won
When May became PM one of her more sensible appointments was putting staunch Leaver David Jones in the Brexit department. The move allayed concerns among Leavers that May would sell out on Brexit. She has now decided to sack Jones, a knowledgable and competent minister, after just 11 months in the job. He has been replaced by Baroness Anelay, a Remainer…
George Bridges, Brexit minister in the Lords, was widely respected by all sides and quickly gained a reputation as one of the most impressive ministers in the government. He has also now left DexEU.
This is all going down really badly among Tory Leavers:
“One suspects the table banging would have gone on for a lot less than 25 seconds had she had the guts to complete her reshuffle before going to the 1922.”
Another notes:
“An almost whole new Brexit team. What was that about needing stability because negotiations started 11 days after the election?”
A pertinent point. Why is May taking the axe to her Brexit team just days before the negotiations start?
The pair of you - one a visitor to Aberdeen and one a resident - are already showing the hubris which shall be the Tory's downfall probably in weeks not years.
Tyndall who "pops up in Aberdeen" claimed that the SNP were "hated" in the oil industry. Perhaps by people like him but hardly by the workers like my relatives who vote for them in great numbers.
Fitalass likes to suggest the the North East in now a Tory fiefdom But this is hardly justified by the facts. The SNP is the most popular party still in the City as the local and General Election results show and across the five seats of city and shire last week the SNP average vote was 36 per cent compared to the Tories 41 per cent.
As Salmond suggested on election night - you should both pause in the midst of your glee.The Tory time will be very short lived.
LOL. For a start I am not a Tory. Secondly I am pro Independence and campaigned for it on the streets of Aberdeen last time around.
But the SNP have completely abandoned those 120,000 workers who lost their jobs. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening but the SNP have seriously damaged their own brand and unfortunately in the process also seriously damaged any prospect of winning a future Independence vote.
What do you think the SNP should do for those 120k workers?
The pair of you - one a visitor to Aberdeen and one a resident - are already showing the hubris which shall be the Tory's downfall probably in weeks not years.
LOL
A Zoomer in the North East talking about hubris...
The pair of you - one a visitor to Aberdeen and one a resident - are already showing the hubris which shall be the Tory's downfall probably in weeks not years.
Tyndall who "pops up in Aberdeen" claimed that the SNP were "hated" in the oil industry. Perhaps by people like him but hardly by the workers like my relatives who vote for them in great numbers.
Fitalass likes to suggest the the North East in now a Tory fiefdom But this is hardly justified by the facts. The SNP is the most popular party still in the City as the local and General Election results show and across the five seats of city and shire last week the SNP average vote was 36 per cent compared to the Tories 41 per cent.
As Salmond suggested on election night - you should both pause in the midst of your glee.The Tory time will be very short lived.
So will the SNP if Corbyn continues to eat further into their seats in the central belt
I find this depressing, but not because one age group or another is changing tack. Its because from now on the party that dangles most carrots and promises to spend most money will win, its irresponsible and the road to ruin. People used to get respect for talking about tough decisions and priorities, now both parties are spunking money like sailors on a run ashore.
This will end very badly and the irrelevance of Brexit will be a convenient if dishonest excuse.
Nothing was more irresponsible than Brexit, in terms of the effect it will have on the economy and finances. Far from being irrelevant it is the prime example of the dishonesty you refer to.
The pair of you - one a visitor to Aberdeen and one a resident - are already showing the hubris which shall be the Tory's downfall probably in weeks not years.
Tyndall who "pops up in Aberdeen" claimed that the SNP were "hated" in the oil industry. Perhaps by people like him but hardly by the workers like my relatives who vote for them in great numbers.
Fitalass likes to suggest the the North East in now a Tory fiefdom But this is hardly justified by the facts. The SNP is the most popular party still in the City as the local and General Election results show and across the five seats of city and shire last week the SNP average vote was 36 per cent compared to the Tories 41 per cent.
As Salmond suggested on election night - you should both pause in the midst of your glee.The Tory time will be very short lived.
LOL. For a start I am not a Tory. Secondly I am pro Independence and campaigned for it on the streets of Aberdeen last time around.
But the SNP have completely abandoned those 120,000 workers who lost their jobs. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening but the SNP have seriously damaged their own brand and unfortunately in the process also seriously damaged any prospect of winning a future Independence vote.
What exactly could the SNP do to protect those workers and those jobs. The global price of oil has halved and doesn't seem likely to recover in the next 10+ years....
Its nothing to do with protection. But compare the SNP reaction to the loss of 120,000 jobs in the North East with their reaction to a few hundred steel jobs. Sturgeon's quote of 'we will leave no stone unturned' and the establishment of the Scottish Steel taskforce in response to the Tata problems. At the same time as she was saying that there were thousands of jobs going in the North East and the SNP completely ignored it.
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
The cost of Brexit is however a different thing altogether. Did nobody on the Government side ever say that desirable or not, we simply cannot afford it?
This is an interesting point. The idea that something may be genuinely unaffordable seems to be a heresy. We can't afford space navies but there is an assumption that the state can pay for anything else we want by milking "the rich".
The current definition of "the rich", if we use McDonnell's, is the 900,000 people - 3% - on more than £80k a year. The average they are on is £122k a year. The £42k above £80k that they earn grosses up to about £38 billion, of which they already pay £20 billion in tax. Any of them on £100 to £120k with a student loan pays a marginal rate of 71%.
It seems clear that if you try to tax this group more it rapidly becomes counterproductive. If you took 100% or nearly so of what someone earns over £80k they will clearly stop earning over £80k, so you'll lose whatever you were collecting. But even at some point short of that you are just taking off them in tax what they'd have handed over anyway in VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty, etc.
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
The country's wealth is tied up in unearned and untaxed windfall gains on property equity. All the politicians know this, and they are coming for it, directly (Labour) or indirectly (Tories).
The pair of you - one a visitor to Aberdeen and one a resident - are already showing the hubris which shall be the Tory's downfall probably in weeks not years.
Tyndall who "pops up in Aberdeen" claimed that the SNP were "hated" in the oil industry. Perhaps by people like him but hardly by the workers like my relatives who vote for them in great numbers.
Fitalass likes to suggest the the North East in now a Tory fiefdom But this is hardly justified by the facts. The SNP is the most popular party still in the City as the local and General Election results show and across the five seats of city and shire last week the SNP average vote was 36 per cent compared to the Tories 41 per cent.
As Salmond suggested on election night - you should both pause in the midst of your glee.The Tory time will be very short lived.
LOL. For a start I am not a Tory. Secondly I am pro Independence and campaigned for it on the streets of Aberdeen last time around.
But the SNP have completely abandoned those 120,000 workers who lost their jobs. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening but the SNP have seriously damaged their own brand and unfortunately in the process also seriously damaged any prospect of winning a future Independence vote.
What exactly could the SNP do to protect those workers and those jobs. The global price of oil has halved and doesn't seem likely to recover in the next 10+ years....
Its nothing to do with protection. But compare the SNP reaction to the loss of 120,000 jobs in the North East with their reaction to a few hundred steel jobs. Sturgeon's quote of 'we will leave no stone unturned' and the establishment of the Scottish Steel taskforce in response to the Tata problems. At the same time as she was saying that there were thousands of jobs going in the North East and the SNP completely ignored it.
So basically you want, plaudits and meaningless words and gestures....
The pair of you - one a visitor to Aberdeen and one a resident - are already showing the hubris which shall be the Tory's downfall probably in weeks not years.
LOL
A Zoomer in the North East talking about hubris...
Noone was talking about the Salmond decapitation plan in Gordon prior to the vote. A quite stunning achievement by Ruth Davidson, and vital to the numbers game for the whole of the UK. Ruth quite rightly wields alot of power over May.
The cost of Brexit is however a different thing altogether. Did nobody on the Government side ever say that desirable or not, we simply cannot afford it?
This is an interesting point. The idea that something may be genuinely unaffordable seems to be a heresy. We can't afford space navies but there is an assumption that the state can pay for anything else we want by milking "the rich".
The current definition of "the rich", if we use McDonnell's, is the 900,000 people - 3% - on more than £80k a year. The average they are on is £122k a year. The £42k above £80k that they earn grosses up to about £38 billion, of which they already pay £20 billion in tax. Any of them on £100 to £120k with a student loan pays a marginal rate of 71%.
It seems clear that if you try to tax this group more it rapidly becomes counterproductive. If you took 100% or nearly so of what someone earns over £80k they will clearly stop earning over £80k, so you'll lose whatever you were collecting. But even at some point short of that you are just taking off them in tax what they'd have handed over anyway in VAT, fuel duty, alcohol duty, etc.
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
The country's wealth is tied up in unearned and untaxed windfall gains on property equity. All the politicians know this, and they are coming for it, directly (Labour) or indirectly (Tories).
The scary thing is that if our wealth is tied up in property equity its directly correlated with how generous banks are in lending money.... And if you follow that to its logical conclusion it isn't a very good position to be in...
When May became PM one of her more sensible appointments was putting staunch Leaver David Jones in the Brexit department. The move allayed concerns among Leavers that May would sell out on Brexit. She has now decided to sack Jones, a knowledgable and competent minister, after just 11 months in the job. He has been replaced by Baroness Anelay, a Remainer…
George Bridges, Brexit minister in the Lords, was widely respected by all sides and quickly gained a reputation as one of the most impressive ministers in the government. He has also now left DexEU.
This is all going down really badly among Tory Leavers:
“One suspects the table banging would have gone on for a lot less than 25 seconds had she had the guts to complete her reshuffle before going to the 1922.”
Another notes:
“An almost whole new Brexit team. What was that about needing stability because negotiations started 11 days after the election?”
A pertinent point. Why is May taking the axe to her Brexit team just days before the negotiations start?
The problem that Mrs May has is that neither the DUP nor some of her own MPs will support Hard Brexit.
In theory, she should be able to reach out across the aisle to sensible Labour-ites to make up the difference. But Jeremy Corbyn would much rather see the government take a tumble than help out in any other way. He - probably rightly - thinks that if the government cannot get Brexit legislation through the Commons, then it will probably fall. And if it falls, he might become Prime Minister.
Who can Mrs May rely on? Ironically, the LDs and SNP and the soft Brexit Labour-ites would be much more likely to cross the aisle and help her. So she's likely forced to make concessions to them.
Which is why I think the only solution that works is time limited EFTA/EEA, followed by another referendum in five years. It'd satisfy nobody, but it would avoid a cliff edge Brexit, where we drop to WTO terms not just with the EU, but with the 30-odd countries the EU has FTAs with. (Not to mention the other 60 odd other trade agreements the EU has.)
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
No the obvious truth is that we need to spend less. Tax is not a bottomless well of riches. Ad a country we need to live within our means
“An almost whole new Brexit team. What was that about needing stability because negotiations started 11 days after the election?”
A pertinent point. Why is May taking the axe to her Brexit team just days before the negotiations start?
Because:
1. They promised something that our diplomats said wasn't just impossible but insane - a fully negotiated exit delivered by March 19
2. Despite the "no deal is better than a bad deal" bluster they know the opposite is true - but some in the DXEU department didn't understand that to be the case
3. Zombie realises she won't get an insane Brexit through the Commons and needs a complete u-turn on her stated position
We will leave the EU. Not the EEA. And the Tories are going to bear the wrath of both the remainers who ask what the point of leaving the EU and still being tied to EFTA and the foaming dog fever end of the Leaver community who think any betrayal of up yours Delors to be anti-British.
PB Tories sure you want to cling to life as the DUP's bitch...?
The country's wealth is tied up in unearned and untaxed windfall gains on property equity. All the politicians know this, and they are coming for it, directly (Labour) or indirectly (Tories).
Correct, and it needn't even be that dramatic. We could make a good start by actually collecting the wealth tax we already have. The gift and trust loopholes for IHT are a national scandal. They serve no social purpose other than to allow those with sufficient wealth and wherewithal to avoid paying tax. The uncollected tax on the Duke of Westminster's estate could have paid half our social care bill for a year, or put an extra teacher in every school for a year. Why is our collective blood not boiling?
Another slap in the face of the working middle class voter are recent reductions in the CGT rate. How can it be right that you get get taxed at upto 60% for getting off your arse and doing something productive, and at 20% for sitting on your (generally fat white) arse collecting rents?
We have a bizarre reverence for wealth and its proceeds in this country. A consequence of 38 years of Tory and Tory-lite rule. Whoever runs the country over the next few years, this needs to change.
The pair of you - one a visitor to Aberdeen and one a resident - are already showing the hubris which shall be the Tory's downfall probably in weeks not years.
LOL
A Zoomer in the North East talking about hubris...
Which is why I think the only solution that works is time limited EFTA/EEA, followed by another referendum in five years. It'd satisfy nobody, but it would avoid a cliff edge Brexit, where we drop to WTO terms not just with the EU, but with the 30-odd countries the EU has FTAs with. (Not to mention the other 60 odd other trade agreements the EU has.)
I'm not sure if this is a pedantic point and I've misunderstood you, but the soft, staged option is already what the EU is negotiating towards and it will not be as a member of EFTA but as a vassal of the EU.
Interest rates are permanently at zero. The monetary system gave up years ago. Production is no longer coupled to human population, so the only way it can be consumed is on the never-never.
The pair of you - one a visitor to Aberdeen and one a resident - are already showing the hubris which shall be the Tory's downfall probably in weeks not years.
Tyndall who "pops up in Aberdeen" claimed that the SNP were "hated" in the oil industry. Perhaps by people like him but hardly by the workers like my relatives who vote for them in great numbers.
Fitalass likes to suggest the the North East in now a Tory fiefdom But this is hardly justified by the facts. The SNP is the most popular party still in the City as the local and General Election results show and across the five seats of city and shire last week the SNP average vote was 36 per cent compared to the Tories 41 per cent.
As Salmond suggested on election night - you should both pause in the midst of your glee.The Tory time will be very short lived.
LOL. For a start I am not a Tory. Secondly I am pro Independence and campaigned for it on the streets of Aberdeen last time around.
But the SNP have completely abandoned those 120,000 workers who lost their jobs. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening but the SNP have seriously damaged their own brand and unfortunately in the process also seriously damaged any prospect of winning a future Independence vote.
What exactly could the SNP do to protect those workers and those jobs. The global price of oil has halved and doesn't seem likely to recover in the next 10+ years....
Its nothing to do with protection. But compare the SNP reaction to the loss of 120,000 jobs in the North East with their reaction to a few hundred steel jobs. Sturgeon's quote of 'we will leave no stone unturned' and the establishment of the Scottish Steel taskforce in response to the Tata problems. At the same time as she was saying that there were thousands of jobs going in the North East and the SNP completely ignored it.
So basically you want, plaudits and meaningless words and gestures....
I don't want anything. I am against state intervention. I am simply pointing our an effect which Scotslass denies exists. People are not rational when they lose their jobs and the SNP were dumb enough to make a big deal of trying to save a couple oh hundred steel jobs whilst ignoring tens of thousands of other job losses.
I want Independence for Scotland and that depends upon the SNP doing well. By giving the appearance of having no interest in what is happening in the North East they have put that at risk.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
No the obvious truth is that we need to spend less. Tax is not a bottomless well of riches. Ad a country we need to live within our means
Neither are truths. We need to decide collectively what public services we want, and then raise sufficient tax to find them sustainably (i.e. without net borrowing over the cycle). These are choices and ideologues pushing "truths" tend not to make useful contributions to the debate.
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
No the obvious truth is that we need to spend less. Tax is not a bottomless well of riches. Ad a country we need to live within our means
Agreed. And our means have been considerably reduced by Brexit.
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
No the obvious truth is that we need to spend less. Tax is not a bottomless well of riches. Ad a country we need to live within our means
Agreed. And our means have been considerably reduced by Brexit.
In your opinion. That is certainly not my view but neither of us is in a position to be certain until Brexit is completed.
And the results of "talks across the chamber on Brexit" will just enrage the Conservative 'bastards', making May's life even more difficult.
May doesn't need to keep the bastards onside if she can get Labour to outvote them
This not about votes in the Commons; it's about internal Conservative machinations. Remember all the chaos of the 1992-1997 Conservative government? Yes, it was tired. Yes, Labour had a great spin operation going. But another major factor in the chaos was the internal problems within the party, and the 'bastards'.
They were the ones who forced Major to have a leadership contest, and even losing that did not shut them up.
Yes. If Theresa regarded the Remainers as saboteurs to be crushed, just wait till the 'bastards' start flexing their muscles. She ain't seen nothing yet. To compound matters, Labour can now get up to all sorts of mischief. The 'bastards' will rebel and Labour will come up with any flimsy excuse to vote against the government, humiliating Theresa at every turn. This could get messy.
Which is why I think the only solution that works is time limited EFTA/EEA, followed by another referendum in five years. It'd satisfy nobody, but it would avoid a cliff edge Brexit, where we drop to WTO terms not just with the EU, but with the 30-odd countries the EU has FTAs with. (Not to mention the other 60 odd other trade agreements the EU has.)
I'm not sure if this is a pedantic point and I've misunderstood you, but the soft, staged option is already what the EU is negotiating towards and it will not be as a member of EFTA but as a vassal of the EU.
You have a surprisingly poor view of the EU for someone who is so keen for us to remain a member. Wecate already a vassal of the EU. What we are doing is removing ourselves from thst situation.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
No the obvious truth is that we need to spend less. Tax is not a bottomless well of riches. Ad a country we need to live within our means
Neither are truths. We need to decide collectively what public services we want, and then raise sufficient tax to find them sustainably (i.e. without net borrowing over the cycle). These are choices and ideologues pushing "truths" tend not to make useful contributions to the debate.
The conundrum is to raise taxes without damaging the economy
I read you as precisely the sort of voter the Conservatives should never have lost.
I have thought about this overnight and tried to distil it down somewhat or else it tends to bulk up like an airport novel. I will Vanilla Message you a link to last night's compendious tome
In the current climate, I am not sure that I can be won back. I have decided that really I want a party that reflects my own values and there are none. Much to my own amazement I am more of an internationalist than I ever suspected - Brexit taught me that lesson and it was a hard one to learn.
Setting Brexit aside (for there seems to be no choices on that one), let me move on to other things.
Where the Conservatives went wrong this time was that they looked like a bunch of amateurs. The litany of mistakes is numerous and well documented. How can a party run a country if it cannot run a campaign? The only messages that made it through the mess of the election was the Dementia Tax and a woman who listens to no one saying "Vote for me". It is not a campaign, it is an appeal.
To be fair, Labour did not do a good job of campaigning either, but they got more messages through and they were almost all about unsustainable spending. However, given where I grew up, McDonnell and Corbyn's past support for the IRA was an anti-Labour factor too.
So I voted Lib Dem this time and it is the first time I have done that for a long while. I voted for them simply because I feel I must vote and they were the least odious choice on my ballot paper. I was so close to spoiling my ballot or simply not bothering at all.
None of the parties were honest. None seemed to talk about the mess we are in, the very strong likelihood that it will get worse before it gets better and what solutions (if any) exist.
Labour needs to lose Corbyn & McDonnell. The Tories need to lose Mrs May, Boris and the anti-Europe handbangers that have terrorised the party for so many years.
And the results of "talks across the chamber on Brexit" will just enrage the Conservative 'bastards', making May's life even more difficult.
May doesn't need to keep the bastards onside if she can get Labour to outvote them
This not about votes in the Commons; it's about internal Conservative machinations. Remember all the chaos of the 1992-1997 Conservative government? Yes, it was tired. Yes, Labour had a great spin operation going. But another major factor in the chaos was the internal problems within the party, and the 'bastards'.
They were the ones who forced Major to have a leadership contest, and even losing that did not shut them up.
I would hope the Conservatives have had a big enough fright not to repeat their behaviour during those years.
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
Taxation tends to become economically stifling once it exceeds 37-38% of GDP.
F1: more gossip that the engine in McLaren next year will be a Mercedes. Unsurprising. Three years of slow and unreliable engines from Honda is unacceptable.
If that happens, Alonso may well stay. And be a title contender.
The country's wealth is tied up in unearned and untaxed windfall gains on property equity. All the politicians know this, and they are coming for it, directly (Labour) or indirectly (Tories).
The trouble is that it is nominal value which would evaporate if any government came for it to any great extent, as would very rapidly be demonstrated if McDonnell were ever (God forbid) allowed near the Treasury.
The country's wealth is tied up in unearned and untaxed windfall gains on property equity. All the politicians know this, and they are coming for it, directly (Labour) or indirectly (Tories).
The trouble is that it is nominal value which would evaporate if any government came for it to any great extent, as would very rapidly be demonstrated if McDonnell were ever (God forbid) allowed near the Treasury.
A pertinent point. Why is May taking the axe to her Brexit team just days before the negotiations start?
Isn't it obvious? She now realises that only the softest Brexit is remotely possible. And even that is a flying fuck at a rolling fleshlight that may not be achievable.
So you campaigned for Yes in the streets of Aberdeen. Strange to tell I was an organiser of 'Yes Aberdeen' and 'Quinies for Indy' and I have never ever heard of you.
You wrote that the SNP were 'hated' in the oil industry. It was an absurd statement made all the more absurd by the fact that the SNP won more votes in the city than anyone else last week and took 36 per cent of the vote over city and shire.
As for the attacks on Salmond. Gordon was a long time Tory/Liberal marginal before he intervened there in 2007. In fact over 30 years he has won nine parliamentary elections in four different North East seats unseating Tory and Liberals in the process. Over that time he took the SNP from nothing to supremacy across the country. He had the unique ability to win personally in the North East and as a party across the country.
His run had to end sometime but there is not one of his detractors on this who hold a candle to his political achievements. You attack him because you have feared him and still do.
The country's wealth is tied up in unearned and untaxed windfall gains on property equity. All the politicians know this, and they are coming for it, directly (Labour) or indirectly (Tories).
The trouble is that it is nominal value which would evaporate if any government came for it to any great extent, as would very rapidly be demonstrated if McDonnell were ever (God forbid) allowed near the Treasury.
The country's wealth is tied up in unearned and untaxed windfall gains on property equity. All the politicians know this, and they are coming for it, directly (Labour) or indirectly (Tories).
The trouble is that it is nominal value which would evaporate if any government came for it to any great extent, as would very rapidly be demonstrated if McDonnell were ever (God forbid) allowed near the Treasury.
It evaporating would be good news for the young.
No it wouldn't. The market would seize up, existing homeowners with no debt would stay in situ, and mortgages would be very hard to get. The very worst affected would be the famous hard-working familiies with existing mortgages, who would be trapped in the vice of negative equity and rising interest rates. And of course housebuilding numbers would collapse - it would be a rum market indeed if collapsing prices increased supply.
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
Taxation tends to become economically stifling once it exceeds 37-38% of GDP.
Running out of money tends to become economically stifling too. We are already cutting deep, but we can cut deeper. We are not planning to invade anywhere so disband the Army. Reduce the Royal Navy to sufficient forces for protecting the UK and the same for the RAF. That will shave a few billion off the public bill. Increase IHT to 49% across the board, no exceptions. The dead have no need of property and the living still get more than half of it.
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
Taxation tends to become economically stifling once it exceeds 37-38% of GDP.
Source?
And that's a percentage of GDP, right? So, even if true, we can still reallocate wealth at some rate.
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
Taxation tends to become economically stifling once it exceeds 37-38% of GDP.
Running out of money tends to become economically stifling too. We are already cutting deep, but we can cut deeper. We are not planning to invade anywhere so disband the Army. Reduce the Royal Navy to sufficient forces for protecting the UK and the same for the RAF. That will shave a few billion off the public bill. Increase IHT to 49% across the board, no exceptions. The dead have no need of property and the living still get more than half of it.
Now we are drifting apart, I'm afraid.
An internationalist like yourself should recognise the need for a strong UK to be engaged in the world and shaping world affairs with both soft and hard power.
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
No the obvious truth is that we need to spend less. Tax is not a bottomless well of riches. Ad a country we need to live within our means
Agreed. And our means have been considerably reduced by Brexit.
In the election we have just had, Brexit only just held off the surge of anti austerity, investment and change. I'd suggest the type of Brexit is no longer relevant, just that it occur in some fashion. The key now is being able to demonstrate that it provides benefit financially whether that be via higher investment in hospitals and schools or infrastructure growth. The hangover of we are all in this together is hitting home. The wealthy do not suffer in a collegiate sackcloth, it's the poor, JAMs and lower middle classes that do. 1% of loads is less punishing than 1% of bugger all. I think there will be growing support for wealth tax and punitive taxation on the very wealthy and so there should be, alongside a move towards a much stronger welfare state and state infrastructure, sold under the umbrella of the electorate having control via democracy over services. It's not just going to be here either. Technology is outpacing the establishments ability to control and it is beginning to liberate the underclasses of the world. Ultimately it will win the day or the global elite will bomb us back to the stone age and buy themselves 100 years. Conspiracy meets reality. Winter is coming.
It makes debate about the triple lock somewhat academic for now.
It is exactly when the debate is academic that the triple lock should be abandoned.
But it won't be now. The young 'uns have cemented it in place for the foreseeable future.
May's awful campaign is what has cemented it in place.
True, but we should at least give her credit for trying to do the right thing with the triple lock adult social care, and the winter fuel allowance. Unfortunately, yes, the net effect is the opposite, for which she deserves blame - but equally you can't exonerate cynical opposition politicans who exploited these issues (dishonestly in the case of the 'dementia tax').
"The name of the game is a withdrawal treaty with a deal because ultimately no deal is bad for us and it is catastrophic for the UK. No one is laughing," the EU source told Sky News.
Hopefully sanity is beginning to kick in on both sides. Is it not impossible that some of the more sensible people on both sides, I'm thinking Tusk for them and maybe Hammond/Rudd for us, can reach a compromise?
They don't want to lose 10 billion euros each year, no matter what is mooted they do not want to lose free trade with us either, and of course security is a huge matter lurking in the background.
If they could offer us a reasonable deal, such as we gain control over our borders and are no longer under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, then perhaps we can continue with the payments and stay in the single market. I'm guessing some form of the EEA would be the best way.
I haven't thought this through as I'm sure you can tell, just the ramblings of someone thinking aloud whilst having a cup of tea. But it does seem that their side are beginning to realise that we are leaving and no deal is not good for anyone.
I know both sides have their hardliners, those who want to punish reagrdless of the consequences for their own side, and those over here for whom nothing other than total withdrawal will suffice, but surely there are enough sensible people in the middle who can thrash out a deal that works for both sides?
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
Taxation tends to become economically stifling once it exceeds 37-38% of GDP.
Running out of money tends to become economically stifling too. We are already cutting deep, but we can cut deeper. We are not planning to invade anywhere so disband the Army. Reduce the Royal Navy to sufficient forces for protecting the UK and the same for the RAF. That will shave a few billion off the public bill. Increase IHT to 49% across the board, no exceptions. The dead have no need of property and the living still get more than half of it.
You were one of the people screeching loudest about the dementia tax -- and now you think increasing IHT to 49 per cent will be electorally possible.
Truly, I almost feel sorry for politicians. The voting public want twenty mutually contradictory things before breakfast.
It makes debate about the triple lock somewhat academic for now.
It is exactly when the debate is academic that the triple lock should be abandoned.
But it won't be now. The young 'uns have cemented it in place for the foreseeable future.
May's awful campaign is what has cemented it in place.
True, but we should at least give her credit for trying to do the right thing with the triple lock adult social care, and the winter fuel allowance. Unfortunately, yes, the net effect is the opposite, for which she deserves blame - but equally you can't exonerate cynical opposition politicans who exploited these issues (dishonestly in the case of the 'dementia tax').
Those "policies" came out of nowhere. They needed to introduced in a more gradual way - a softening up exercise perhaps? But just to dump them in a big pile halfway through a campaign was, I feel, incomptent.
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
No the obvious truth is that we need to spend less. Tax is not a bottomless well of riches. Ad a country we need to live within our means
Agreed. And our means have been considerably reduced by Brexit.
In your opinion. That is certainly not my view but neither of us is in a position to be certain until Brexit is completed.
We have already had a couple of percentage points reduction in less than a year (3% inflation minus nominal wage increases of much less than that). Investment in car manufacturing already running at 40% of pre-refeerendum levels at a time of world expansion. Brexit is nailed on to see a reduction in activity in the City of London, which is one of the UK's main tax bases. There is absolutely no doubt Brexit will see and is seeing a reduction in our means.
But I agree with your main point. We need to live within our means. The fact we have unnecessarily diminished those means just makes that point more acute.
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
Taxation tends to become economically stifling once it exceeds 37-38% of GDP.
Running out of money tends to become economically stifling too. We are already cutting deep, but we can cut deeper. We are not planning to invade anywhere so disband the Army. Reduce the Royal Navy to sufficient forces for protecting the UK and the same for the RAF. That will shave a few billion off the public bill. Increase IHT to 49% across the board, no exceptions. The dead have no need of property and the living still get more than half of it.
Now we are drifting apart, I'm afraid.
An internationalist like yourself should recognise the need for a strong UK to be engaged in the world and shaping world affairs with both soft and hard power.
I do realise that, but we either need to cut or to fund. You seem to think that funding is at its peak.
If not these cuts then make others. There must be a choice. What we are doing now is unsustainable.
It makes debate about the triple lock somewhat academic for now.
It is exactly when the debate is academic that the triple lock should be abandoned.
But it won't be now. The young 'uns have cemented it in place for the foreseeable future.
May's awful campaign is what has cemented it in place.
True, but we should at least give her credit for trying to do the right thing with the triple lock adult social care, and the winter fuel allowance. Unfortunately, yes, the net effect is the opposite, for which she deserves blame - but equally you can't exonerate cynical opposition politicans who exploited these issues (dishonestly in the case of the 'dementia tax').
I think she could have introduced 2 of the 3 and still won a comfortable majority.
In fact my own views on TL and WFA are more akin to the Tories than Lab.
SC was wot lost it. Rightly so punishing those who has already won the shit life lottery is a terrible idea.
The idea that there is a favoured reservoir of rich people with bottomless pockets to be milked doesn't stand up to study. We have a rather frightening situation where the tax base is unsustainably narrow. You can't have 10% of taxpayers providing 60% of the income tax. It seems inevitable to me that a government that wants to spend more and finds it can't borrow it will have to start expropriating individuals. There isn't enough income so confiscation of cash and possessions will have to start.
Indeed. We are running the economy on a 40(ish)% spend whilst running taxation at a 37(ish)% level. For a while it was worse and the figures were more like 42% and 35%.
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
No the obvious truth is that we need to spend less. Tax is not a bottomless well of riches. Ad a country we need to live within our means
Agreed. And our means have been considerably reduced by Brexit.
We have three choices:
1. Tax more 2. Spend less 3. All of the above
Choose.
I choose a fiscal stimulus to grow the economy and put is on track for a prosperous future.
We can't keep cutting - thats how you slow an economy down. We need to speed it up.
Again, borrowing to invest on capex with ROI isn't the road to ruin as many of you keep screaming, its how capitalism works. Right now in this country we are beset by problems which need investment to fix:
HOUSING - runaway rent reduced disposable income and sends business under. We're not building enough homes and the ones we build are posh BTL not ones people can afford.
INFRASTRUCTURE - a rail network full of pinch points at full capacity now, never mind with room to cope with the expansion in travel. A road network crumbling beneath our feet and also full of capacity pinch points. A hub airport we can't afford to relocate thats full.
UTILITIES - we need to generate power in a timescale the private sector is unwilling to invest in. Lack of power = broken economy
SKILLS / PRODUCTIVITY. A populace increasingly unproductive due to lack of training and skills thanks to slashed funding in education and industry unwillingness to invest in its workforce. Antiquated broadband not fit for now never mind the future
The magic money tree argument is we can't afford these things. At which point the UK is out-competed by our neighbours. Isn't the truth that we can't NOT afford these things? That unless we invest now we have no competitive future within the EU or without?
Invest. Return. Capitalism. WTF is wrong with some of you? Have you forgotten how an economy works?
May should have cut some slack over Brexit to get a C&S deal with the LibDems. We are probably heading for a LibDem friendly Brexit anyway.
May should have realised that when it comes to getting enough votes to pass a Queen's Speech, Orangemen are not the only fruit.
They ruled it out post election. Never going to happen. She should be going back to the electorate and saying you need to vote a majority government in and letting fate take its course
Comments
For years they have been convinced that this platform would guarantee electoral success - and May' explicitly sought the approval of the electorate to pursue this Brexit route, and failed to get it.
There will be a compromise. May will (quite rightly) take the blame for it, and there will be a subsequent leadership election.
Of course it's possible that the party will opt for electoral suicide, but I think it far more likely that they will tack to the centre.
Did I miss the debate about what kind of Brexit people wanted?
The pair of you - one a visitor to Aberdeen and one a resident - are already showing the hubris which shall be the Tory's downfall probably in weeks not years.
Tyndall who "pops up in Aberdeen" claimed that the SNP were "hated" in the oil industry. Perhaps by people like him but hardly by the workers like my relatives who vote for them in great numbers.
Fitalass likes to suggest the the North East in now a Tory fiefdom But this is hardly justified by the facts. The SNP is the most popular party still in the City as the local and General Election results show and across the five seats of city and shire last week the SNP average vote was 36 per cent compared to the Tories 41 per cent.
As Salmond suggested on election night - you should both pause in the midst of your glee.The Tory time will be very short lived.
I would be genuinely interested to know how many voters under say 25 know that Gordon Brown was a Labour PM. I bet it's not 100%.
This would force websites to pay a fee whenever they link to a news article. Yet another bloody stupid idea from the EU.
Northern Ireland has higher levels of multiple deprivation than the rest of the UK with over a third of the population living on or below the breadline. 29% of households are ‘sometimes skimping’ or going without food so that others in their household will have enough to eat. 7% of households can’t afford regular fresh fruit and vegetables.
http://www.poverty.ac.uk/community/northern-ireland
But the SNP have completely abandoned those 120,000 workers who lost their jobs. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it isn't happening but the SNP have seriously damaged their own brand and unfortunately in the process also seriously damaged any prospect of winning a future Independence vote.
Variations of the mantra are still current.
The fundamental problem is that the economic consequences of political policies can take a decade or more to become fully apparent, and are often suffered by administrations following the one which implemented those policies.
It's only when you have a decade long government which screws up (or succession of governments as in the 70s) that it actually suffers the consequences of its own economic decisions.
When May became PM one of her more sensible appointments was putting staunch Leaver David Jones in the Brexit department. The move allayed concerns among Leavers that May would sell out on Brexit. She has now decided to sack Jones, a knowledgable and competent minister, after just 11 months in the job. He has been replaced by Baroness Anelay, a Remainer…
George Bridges, Brexit minister in the Lords, was widely respected by all sides and quickly gained a reputation as one of the most impressive ministers in the government. He has also now left DexEU.
This is all going down really badly among Tory Leavers:
“One suspects the table banging would have gone on for a lot less than 25 seconds had she had the guts to complete her reshuffle before going to the 1922.”
Another notes:
“An almost whole new Brexit team. What was that about needing stability because negotiations started 11 days after the election?”
A pertinent point. Why is May taking the axe to her Brexit team just days before the negotiations start?
A Zoomer in the North East talking about hubris...
https://twitter.com/ridgeonsunday/status/863693771795382272
The obvious truth is that we all need to pay more tax, not just the rich.
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/874545879016853504
IndyRef2, ref harder, is full steam ahead!
The funniest bit the £400,000 they raised for indyRef2, that is now magically "election expenses"
Wonder how many of the folk that donated are chuffed by that?
Ruth quite rightly wields alot of power over May.
In theory, she should be able to reach out across the aisle to sensible Labour-ites to make up the difference. But Jeremy Corbyn would much rather see the government take a tumble than help out in any other way. He - probably rightly - thinks that if the government cannot get Brexit legislation through the Commons, then it will probably fall. And if it falls, he might become Prime Minister.
Who can Mrs May rely on? Ironically, the LDs and SNP and the soft Brexit Labour-ites would be much more likely to cross the aisle and help her. So she's likely forced to make concessions to them.
Which is why I think the only solution that works is time limited EFTA/EEA, followed by another referendum in five years. It'd satisfy nobody, but it would avoid a cliff edge Brexit, where we drop to WTO terms not just with the EU, but with the 30-odd countries the EU has FTAs with. (Not to mention the other 60 odd other trade agreements the EU has.)
1. They promised something that our diplomats said wasn't just impossible but insane - a fully negotiated exit delivered by March 19
2. Despite the "no deal is better than a bad deal" bluster they know the opposite is true - but some in the DXEU department didn't understand that to be the case
3. Zombie realises she won't get an insane Brexit through the Commons and needs a complete u-turn on her stated position
We will leave the EU. Not the EEA. And the Tories are going to bear the wrath of both the remainers who ask what the point of leaving the EU and still being tied to EFTA and the foaming dog fever end of the Leaver community who think any betrayal of up yours Delors to be anti-British.
PB Tories sure you want to cling to life as the DUP's bitch...?
Another slap in the face of the working middle class voter are recent reductions in the CGT rate. How can it be right that you get get taxed at upto 60% for getting off your arse and doing something productive, and at 20% for sitting on your (generally fat white) arse collecting rents?
We have a bizarre reverence for wealth and its proceeds in this country. A consequence of 38 years of Tory and Tory-lite rule. Whoever runs the country over the next few years, this needs to change.
I want Independence for Scotland and that depends upon the SNP doing well. By giving the appearance of having no interest in what is happening in the North East they have put that at risk.
https://twitter.com/AgentP22/status/874517705545711616
But it won't be now. The young 'uns have cemented it in place for the foreseeable future.
In the current climate, I am not sure that I can be won back. I have decided that really I want a party that reflects my own values and there are none. Much to my own amazement I am more of an internationalist than I ever suspected - Brexit taught me that lesson and it was a hard one to learn.
Setting Brexit aside (for there seems to be no choices on that one), let me move on to other things.
Where the Conservatives went wrong this time was that they looked like a bunch of amateurs. The litany of mistakes is numerous and well documented. How can a party run a country if it cannot run a campaign? The only messages that made it through the mess of the election was the Dementia Tax and a woman who listens to no one saying "Vote for me". It is not a campaign, it is an appeal.
To be fair, Labour did not do a good job of campaigning either, but they got more messages through and they were almost all about unsustainable spending. However, given where I grew up, McDonnell and Corbyn's past support for the IRA was an anti-Labour factor too.
So I voted Lib Dem this time and it is the first time I have done that for a long while. I voted for them simply because I feel I must vote and they were the least odious choice on my ballot paper. I was so close to spoiling my ballot or simply not bothering at all.
None of the parties were honest. None seemed to talk about the mess we are in, the very strong likelihood that it will get worse before it gets better and what solutions (if any) exist.
Labour needs to lose Corbyn & McDonnell. The Tories need to lose Mrs May, Boris and the anti-Europe handbangers that have terrorised the party for so many years.
Enough! This could go on and on...
If that happens, Alonso may well stay. And be a title contender.
So you campaigned for Yes in the streets of Aberdeen. Strange to tell I was an organiser of 'Yes Aberdeen' and 'Quinies for Indy' and I have never ever heard of you.
You wrote that the SNP were 'hated' in the oil industry. It was an absurd statement made all the more absurd by the fact that the SNP won more votes in the city than anyone else last week and took 36 per cent of the vote over city and shire.
As for the attacks on Salmond. Gordon was a long time Tory/Liberal marginal before he intervened there in 2007. In fact over 30 years he has won nine parliamentary elections in four different North East seats unseating Tory and Liberals in the process. Over that time he took the SNP from nothing to supremacy across the country. He had the unique ability to win personally in the North East and as a party across the country.
His run had to end sometime but there is not one of his detractors on this who hold a candle to his political achievements. You attack him because you have feared him and still do.
It's a terrifying thought.
And that's a percentage of GDP, right? So, even if true, we can still reallocate wealth at some rate.
An internationalist like yourself should recognise the need for a strong UK to be engaged in the world and shaping world affairs with both soft and hard power.
1. Tax more
2. Spend less
3. All of the above
Choose.
I think there will be growing support for wealth tax and punitive taxation on the very wealthy and so there should be, alongside a move towards a much stronger welfare state and state infrastructure, sold under the umbrella of the electorate having control via democracy over services.
It's not just going to be here either. Technology is outpacing the establishments ability to control and it is beginning to liberate the underclasses of the world. Ultimately it will win the day or the global elite will bomb us back to the stone age and buy themselves 100 years.
Conspiracy meets reality. Winter is coming.
"The name of the game is a withdrawal treaty with a deal because ultimately no deal is bad for us and it is catastrophic for the UK. No one is laughing," the EU source told Sky News.
Hopefully sanity is beginning to kick in on both sides. Is it not impossible that some of the more sensible people on both sides, I'm thinking Tusk for them and maybe Hammond/Rudd for us, can reach a compromise?
They don't want to lose 10 billion euros each year, no matter what is mooted they do not want to lose free trade with us either, and of course security is a huge matter lurking in the background.
If they could offer us a reasonable deal, such as we gain control over our borders and are no longer under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, then perhaps we can continue with the payments and stay in the single market. I'm guessing some form of the EEA would be the best way.
I haven't thought this through as I'm sure you can tell, just the ramblings of someone thinking aloud whilst having a cup of tea. But it does seem that their side are beginning to realise that we are leaving and no deal is not good for anyone.
I know both sides have their hardliners, those who want to punish reagrdless of the consequences for their own side, and those over here for whom nothing other than total withdrawal will suffice, but surely there are enough sensible people in the middle who can thrash out a deal that works for both sides?
Truly, I almost feel sorry for politicians. The voting public want twenty mutually contradictory things before breakfast.
May should have realised that when it comes to getting enough votes to pass a Queen's Speech, Orangemen are not the only fruit.
But I agree with your main point. We need to live within our means. The fact we have unnecessarily diminished those means just makes that point more acute.
If not these cuts then make others. There must be a choice. What we are doing now is unsustainable.
As I said yesterday if I could have voted for the Con/LD coalition in 2015 and 2017 I would have done.
In fact my own views on TL and WFA are more akin to the Tories than Lab.
SC was wot lost it. Rightly so punishing those who has already won the shit life lottery is a terrible idea.
Again, borrowing to invest on capex with ROI isn't the road to ruin as many of you keep screaming, its how capitalism works. Right now in this country we are beset by problems which need investment to fix:
HOUSING - runaway rent reduced disposable income and sends business under. We're not building enough homes and the ones we build are posh BTL not ones people can afford.
INFRASTRUCTURE - a rail network full of pinch points at full capacity now, never mind with room to cope with the expansion in travel. A road network crumbling beneath our feet and also full of capacity pinch points. A hub airport we can't afford to relocate thats full.
UTILITIES - we need to generate power in a timescale the private sector is unwilling to invest in. Lack of power = broken economy
SKILLS / PRODUCTIVITY. A populace increasingly unproductive due to lack of training and skills thanks to slashed funding in education and industry unwillingness to invest in its workforce. Antiquated broadband not fit for now never mind the future
The magic money tree argument is we can't afford these things. At which point the UK is out-competed by our neighbours. Isn't the truth that we can't NOT afford these things? That unless we invest now we have no competitive future within the EU or without?
Invest. Return. Capitalism. WTF is wrong with some of you? Have you forgotten how an economy works?