"Somehow we have reached a point where older people with assets expect younger, poorer people to pay for their care."
But this is the very point of the conservative party. It's at the core of contemporary conservative ideology.
F*ck the young and the poor as hard as possible.
Tories keep missing the point here. Older people did not reject paying something towards their care. That wasn't on the table. They objected to paying random catastrophic costs which they are unable to insure through markets or collectivise through government. Dilnot identified this problem explicitly and was ignored.
Timothy's analysis is astonishingly shallow and linear. How did he get the job?
He was appointed by someone with a taste for shallow and linear analysis.
"Somehow we have reached a point where older people with assets expect younger, poorer people to pay for their care."
But this is the very point of the conservative party. It's at the core of contemporary conservative ideology.
F*ck the young and the poor as hard as possible.
Tories keep missing the point here. Older people did not reject paying something towards their care. That wasn't on the table. They objected to paying random catastrophic costs which they are unable to insure through markets or collectivise through government. Dilnot identified this problem explicitly and was ignored.
Timothy's analysis is astonishingly shallow and linear. How did he get the job?
The public has shown no interest in an insurance solution. Why should one be imposed on them?
How do you know? There's never been a social care insurance market to speak of iirc. Because there is no cap, so no one wants to be involved.
Insurers have tried to set one up in the past and found no interest, even from the wealthy.
Possible black swan.. I see Rebecca L-B is now reverse ferreting on free movement.
Possibly meme for the Tories to play that they stayed true to the referendum result, and it was Labour who reneged on their word and prevented it.
That could help them with ex-UKIP voters who voted Labour thinking it was "safe" to do so, because they'd promised to end free movement in the manifesto.
If the Tories went draconian on immigration they'd piss up. The public ALWAYS want less immigration. Even the people you think might not want less, do
"According to the survey, 39% of Asian Britons, 34% of white Britons and 21% of black Britons wanted all immigration into the UK to be stopped permanently, or at least until the economy improved. And 43% of Asian Britons, 63% of white Britons and 17% of black Britons agreed with the statement that "immigration into Britain has been a bad thing for the country". Just over half of respondents – 52% – agreed with the proposition that "Muslims create problems in the UK"."
I bang on about Enoch, but the Tories won the 1970 election because of his speech. Contemporary opinion polls showed massive majority for his view
What a depressing post!
Are you suggesting that the Tories are back in the driving seat if they go 'full-Nazi' over immigration?
Much as I detest Corbyn, I believe he is the lesser evil than the baggage that would come with what I am (maybe incorrectly) assuming you are proposing.
If by 'Full-Nazi' you mean rounding up and gassing minorities, then no I don't mean that. But the public have always wanted less immigration, and they have always been given more. It isn't my fault they feel that way, but for some reason the politicians keep giving them more
We need an epic shift with the ball on an indifferent track.
Once again too much hubris from certain England commentators talking about this new team being only second to India in one day cricket. If you watch English cricket for as long as I have nothing is that straightforward. Having said that Pakistan are capable of imploding even chasing a small total. Must be favourites now though.
The timing of the next general election is almost entirely dependent of the electoral heath and well being of the DUP.
As soon as the DUP feel that they are tainted by their pact with the Conservatives they will dump on the Tories quicker than party games at a Mark Oaten appreciation meeting. At which point the sh*t will truly hit the fan.
The DUP will back the Tories as long as the Sinn Fein loving Corbyn stays Labour leader
Lady Hermon has said exactly the same thing so that adds another MP to pro-government forces.
Yes it is block Corbyn at all costs
329 votes, for now.
For now. Including Lady Hermon.
Yet the DUP Pact is open to legal challenge.
Even if DUP could not vote for Tories then neither could SF for Labour and Tories would still have more votes than Labour +SNP+LD+Plaid+Green combined
not a proportional basis.Labour led Progressive Alliance has 52.5% Tories and DUP 43.4%
People have gone from underestimating the DUP to overestimating them. I did wonder if they might screw this up. But Arlene Foster is someone who never underestimates her own position. Wonder if the penny has finally dropped with the Tories that the DUP are as tied to this Parliament working as they are.
The Conservatives have wasted almost a year now. If one wanted an example of drift and dither one could hardly have had a better example than the government reaction to the BREXIT vote.
I said at the time that May should have announced Article 50 would be invoked on 31 Dec 2016 with the UK leaving on 31st Dec 2018, if necessary after a resolution of both houses of parliament soon after the vote. Absolute certainty was required. Instead the EU are faced with a weak and fatally wounded PM with no mandate and with a febrile HoC desirous of multiple solutions.
The worst negotiating position possible.
All that is true (except I don't think Article 50 being invoked in May rather than December made much difference).
However, we are where we are. The question now is how to minimise the damage from Theresa May's catastrophic general election disaster. There are certainly no good options.
Indeed. There are "no good options". However in my view dithering further with a weak leader and the DUP holding the axe on the scaffold is the very worst position.
People have gone from underestimating the DUP to overestimating them. I did wonder if they might screw this up. But Arlene Foster is someone who never underestimates her own position. Wonder if the penny has finally dropped with the Tories that the DUP are as tied to this Parliament working as they are.
The DUP need money. Lots of it - because of some renewable heating scheme iirc.
"Somehow we have reached a point where older people with assets expect younger, poorer people to pay for their care."
But this is the very point of the conservative party. It's at the core of contemporary conservative ideology.
F*ck the young and the poor as hard as possible.
Tories keep missing the point here. Older people did not reject paying something towards their care. That wasn't on the table. They objected to paying random catastrophic costs which they are unable to insure through markets or collectivise through government. Dilnot identified this problem explicitly and was ignored.
Timothy's analysis is astonishingly shallow and linear. How did he get the job?
The public has shown no interest in an insurance solution. Why should one be imposed on them?
It has never seriously been offered. The public has very recently shown a serious aversion to the current uncollectivised arrangement.
In direct answer to your question: because the taxpayer is already involved as carer of last resort. It's not dissimilar to healthcare.
We also force people to take out car insurance, for similar protective reasons.
Thanks Alastair. Yes, I agree with all that but would add a further consideration, which kind of cuts both ways.
The Conservatives are between a rock and a very hard place. The rock is the near certainty of a heavy election defeat if they go to the country soon. The very hard place is the even heavier defeat they are likely to suffer the longer the Government hangs on. You could argue that they'd be better off taking the former option as the lesser of two evils, especially as they would probably return with a hefty majority after five years of Labour misrule. Paradoxically Labour might well actually prefer their opponents to stay put and take the considerable flak coming to whoever has to manage Brexit and the deteriorating economic situation (whilst of course maintaining publicly that they want to take over.) In fact the Government's problem in this situation would be to find a sufficiently plausible explanation for calling an election and handing the sackful of hot potatoes over to Labour, but I guess they could come up with something.
So what is going to happen? Dunno. It's totally unpredictable. I'm pretty sure May will stay on, if only as Fall Girl, for the foreseeable future. The Government will soldier on, hoping that 'something will turn up'. If it all falls apart and they have to go to the Country, well, at least they are then rid of the mess and can begin the repair work the Party so badly needs. If it doesn't, they get five years in office and the prospect of handing over to Labour's tender care a Nation which is in deep shit.
I just can't see May going the distance, and if she gets replaced, there'll be a clamour against an "unelected" PM. For me, it looks like PM Jezza and payrise all around for us! Huzzah!
With inflation at 2.9% and rising many in the public sector will be requiring a wage rise. Do not see them getting one though.However surely interest rates will rise causing a never ending squeeze on incomes for many.
Perhaps, but in the past there was so much less debt in the economy that we needed rates to go to 15% to contain inflation. Today you could probably achieve the same by putting them up to 2.5%.
We need an epic shift with the ball on an indifferent track.
Once again too much hubris from certain England commentators talking about this new team being only second to India in one day cricket. If you watch English cricket for as long as I have nothing is that straightforward. Having said that Pakistan are capable of imploding even chasing a small total. Must be favourites now though.
If we had to choose an any (elite) opponent to chase that total, we'd probably choose them because, as you imply, they can be underwhelming with the bat. But you'd expect them to chase it down unless we take some quick early wickets.
In any case, I can't see either side beating the elegant Indians in the final.
The timing of the next general election is almost entirely dependent of the electoral heath and well being of the DUP.
As soon as the DUP feel that they are tainted by their pact with the Conservatives they will dump on the Tories quicker than party games at a Mark Oaten appreciation meeting. At which point the sh*t will truly hit the fan.
The DUP will back the Tories as long as the Sinn Fein loving Corbyn stays Labour leader
Lady Hermon has said exactly the same thing so that adds another MP to pro-government forces.
Yes it is block Corbyn at all costs
329 votes, for now.
For now. Including Lady Hermon.
Yet the DUP Pact is open to legal challenge.
Even if DUP could not vote for Tories then neither could SF for Labour and Tories would still have more votes than Labour +SNP+LD+Plaid+Green combined
not a proportional basis.Labour led Progressive Alliance has 52.5% Tories and DUP 43.4%
As Plaid Cymru will tell you, it is the seats that count in parliament. Not the votes
"Somehow we have reached a point where older people with assets expect younger, poorer people to pay for their care."
But this is the very point of the conservative party. It's at the core of contemporary conservative ideology.
F*ck the young and the poor as hard as possible.
Tories keep missing the point here. Older people did not reject paying something towards their care. That wasn't on the table. They objected to paying random catastrophic costs which they are unable to insure through markets or collectivise through government. Dilnot identified this problem explicitly and was ignored.
Timothy's analysis is astonishingly shallow and linear. How did he get the job?
The public has shown no interest in an insurance solution. Why should one be imposed on them?
It has never seriously been offered. The public has very recently shown a serious aversion to the current uncollectivised arrangement.
In direct answer to your question: because the taxpayer is already involved as carer of last resort. It's not dissimilar to healthcare.
We also force people to take out car insurance, for similar protective reasons.
We don't force people to take out fully comprehensive car insurance, which is exactly what you are advocating.
I think that's rubbish. They would lose more support if they help put Corbyn in than I can foresee in any other circumstance.
IRA support might not be that big a deal in GB. But among NI Unionist voters... er. It is.
If there is a sense of inevitability about a Labour win, as there was in 1995-7, the DUP would have to make a judgement about their prospects. Clinging to the Tories like grim death might be electoral death too. The DUP might indicate in terms - "We did our best. Look at the pork we got. But now the Tories are damaging Ulster."
We should keep in mind too that the DUP have been holding hands in the Assembly with SF and now have 10 MP. Who'd have thought the "Chuckle Brothers" would have seen that. Do Unionist voters hate Jezza more than Gerry Adams ?
No. But there's nothing they can directly do about Sinn Fein support. They will simply find it impossible to believe that Dodds and Foster will put Corbyn in. It's really not going to happen. I'm not close friends with Arlene Foster but she isn't going to hand the UUP an immediate shot of electoral adrenaline. She has us down and nearly out.
Thanks Alastair. Yes, I agree with all that but would add a further consideration, which kind of cuts both ways.
The Conservatives are between a rock and a very hard place. The rock is the near certainty of a heavy election defeat if they go to the country soon. The very hard place is the even heavier defeat they are likely to suffer the longer the Government hangs on. You could argue that they'd be better off taking the former option as the lesser of two evils, especially as they would probably return with a hefty majority after five years of Labour misrule. Paradoxically Labour might well actually prefer their opponents to stay put and take the considerable flak coming to whoever has to manage Brexit and the deteriorating economic situation (whilst of course maintaining publicly that they want to take over.) In fact the Government's problem in this situation would be to find a sufficiently plausible explanation for calling an election and handing the sackful of hot potatoes over to Labour, but I guess they could come up with something.
So what is going to happen? Dunno. It's totally unpredictable. I'm pretty sure May will stay on, if only as Fall Girl, for the foreseeable future. The Government will soldier on, hoping that 'something will turn up'. If it all falls apart and they have to go to the Country, well, at least they are then rid of the mess and can begin the repair work the Party so badly needs. If it doesn't, they get five years in office and the prospect of handing over to Labour's tender care a Nation which is in deep shit.
Enjoy the fine weather everybody.
I agree with all of that. With all the talk of goats this week, it seems pretty clear that Theresa May is going to be the Conservatives' scapegoat in this Parliament.
Your comments point to my other betting tip for this Parliament, but I'll save that one for another thread.
Seeing as SInn Fein don't take their seats, and so no salary how do they make a living.
Is it funded along the same lines as the Church of England ?
There was speculation yesterday that SF might take their seats if JC was to offer them a referendum on a united Ireland. I'm not sure if even JC would be that daft.
Surely there must be serious enquiries now as to whether Article 50 is revocable. The government is paralysed, time is running out and Liam's numerous trade deals aren't quite ready. Combined with Brexit, this parliamentary chaos could induce serious national harm of the type no one, not even most Remainers, seriously envisaged. Can't we ask for some kind of extension, like my English teacher once gave me for a Jane Austen essay?
"Somehow we have reached a point where older people with assets expect younger, poorer people to pay for their care."
But this is the very point of the conservative party. It's at the core of contemporary conservative ideology.
F*ck the young and the poor as hard as possible.
Tories keep missing the point here. Older people did not reject paying something towards their care. That wasn't on the table. They objected to paying random catastrophic costs which they are unable to insure through markets or collectivise through government. Dilnot identified this problem explicitly and was ignored.
Timothy's analysis is astonishingly shallow and linear. How did he get the job?
The public has shown no interest in an insurance solution. Why should one be imposed on them?
It has never seriously been offered. The public has very recently shown a serious aversion to the current uncollectivised arrangement.
In direct answer to your question: because the taxpayer is already involved as carer of last resort. It's not dissimilar to healthcare.
We also force people to take out car insurance, for similar protective reasons.
We don't force people to take out fully comprehensive car insurance, which is exactly what you are advocating.
No. The taxpayer does not step in to repair your own car if you damage it and can't afford to repair it yourself.
Thanks Alastair. Yes, I agree with all that but would add a further consideration, which kind of cuts both ways.
The Conservatives are between a rock and a very hard place. The rock is the near certainty of a heavy election defeat if they go to the country soon. The very hard place is the even heavier defeat they are likely to suffer the longer the Government hangs on. You could argue that they'd be better off taking the former option as the lesser of two evils, especially as they would probably return with a hefty majority after five years of Labour misrule. Paradoxically Labour might well actually prefer their opponents to stay put and take the considerable flak coming to whoever has to manage Brexit and the deteriorating economic situation (whilst of course maintaining publicly that they want to take over.) In fact the Government's problem in this situation would be to find a sufficiently plausible explanation for calling an election and handing the sackful of hot potatoes over to Labour, but I guess they could come up with something.
So what is going to happen? Dunno. It's totally unpredictable. I'm pretty sure May will stay on, if only as Fall Girl, for the foreseeable future. The Government will soldier on, hoping that 'something will turn up'. If it all falls apart and they have to go to the Country, well, at least they are then rid of the mess and can begin the repair work the Party so badly needs. If it doesn't, they get five years in office and the prospect of handing over to Labour's tender care a Nation which is in deep shit.
Enjoy the fine weather everybody.
What do you think of the unsourced Tory MPs who were cited in the Spectator less than 5 weeks ago that they expected to be in Government "until the 2040s" ?
Surely there must be serious enquiries now as to whether Article 50 is revocable. The government is paralysed, time is running out and Liam's numerous trade deals aren't quite ready. Combined with Brexit, this parliamentary chaos could induce serious national harm of the type no one, not even most Remainers, seriously envisaged. Can't we ask for some kind of extension, like my English teacher once gave me for a Jane Austen essay?
Pride And Prejudice would make an excellent title for a book about Brexit.
"According to the survey, 39% of Asian Britons, 34% of white Britons and 21% of black Britons wanted all immigration into the UK to be stopped permanently, or at least until the economy improved.
The Conservatives have wasted almost a year now. If one wanted an example of drift and dither one could hardly have had a better example than the government reaction to the BREXIT vote.
I said at the time that May should have announced Article 50 would be invoked on 31 Dec 2016 with the UK leaving on 31st Dec 2018, if necessary after a resolution of both houses of parliament soon after the vote. Absolute certainty was required. Instead the EU are faced with a weak and fatally wounded PM with no mandate and with a febrile HoC desirous of multiple solutions.
The worst negotiating position possible.
All that is true (except I don't think Article 50 being invoked in May rather than December made much difference).
However, we are where we are. The question now is how to minimise the damage from Theresa May's catastrophic general election disaster. There are certainly no good options.
Indeed. There are "no good options". However in my view dithering further with a weak leader and the DUP holding the axe on the scaffold is the very worst position.
Your suggestion is a minority administration, or cutting & running?
I just can't see May going the distance, and if she gets replaced, there'll be a clamour against an "unelected" PM. For me, it looks like PM Jezza and payrise all around for us! Huzzah!
With inflation at 2.9% and rising many in the public sector will be requiring a wage rise. Do not see them getting one though.However surely interest rates will rise causing a never ending squeeze on incomes for many.
Perhaps, but in the past there was so much less debt in the economy that we needed rates to go to 15% to contain inflation. Today you could probably achieve the same by putting them up to 2.5%.
£100k mortgage 25 years. If the interest rate rises by 2.5% payments are an extra £116 per month. Do you still think a further £1400 pay cut won't squeeze people?
Surely there must be serious enquiries now as to whether Article 50 is revocable. The government is paralysed, time is running out and Liam's numerous trade deals aren't quite ready. Combined with Brexit, this parliamentary chaos could induce serious national harm of the type no one, not even most Remainers, seriously envisaged. Can't we ask for some kind of extension, like my English teacher once gave me for a Jane Austen essay?
Pride And Prejudice would make an excellent title for a book about Brexit.
It has never seriously been offered. The public has very recently shown a serious aversion to the current uncollectivised arrangement.
In direct answer to your question: because the taxpayer is already involved as carer of last resort. It's not dissimilar to healthcare.
We also force people to take out car insurance, for similar protective reasons.
We don't force people to take out fully comprehensive car insurance, which is exactly what you are advocating.
No. The taxpayer does not step in to repair your own car if you damage it and can't afford to repair it yourself.
You seem to think you have a point. So far you've made a string of unsubstantiated assertions and faulty analogies. Perhaps you could provide some evidence-based arguments as to why wealthier pensioners should be subsidised by everyone else.
Thanks Alastair. Yes, I agree with all that but would add a further consideration, which kind of cuts both ways.
The Conservatives are between a rock and a very hard place. The rock is the near certainty of a heavy election defeat if they go to the country soon. The very hard place is the even heavier defeat they are likely to suffer the longer the Government hangs on. You could argue that they'd be better off taking the former option as the lesser of two evils, especially as they would probably return with a hefty majority after five years of Labour misrule. Paradoxically Labour might well actually prefer their opponents to stay put and take the considerable flak coming to whoever has to manage Brexit and the deteriorating economic situation (whilst of course maintaining publicly that they want to take over.) In fact the Government's problem in this situation would be to find a sufficiently plausible explanation for calling an election and handing the sackful of hot potatoes over to Labour, but I guess they could come up with something.
So what is going to happen? Dunno. It's totally unpredictable. I'm pretty sure May will stay on, if only as Fall Girl, for the foreseeable future. The Government will soldier on, hoping that 'something will turn up'. If it all falls apart and they have to go to the Country, well, at least they are then rid of the mess and can begin the repair work the Party so badly needs. If it doesn't, they get five years in office and the prospect of handing over to Labour's tender care a Nation which is in deep shit.
Enjoy the fine weather everybody.
What do you think of the unsourced Tory MPs who were cited in the Spectator less than 5 weeks ago that they expected to be in Government "until the 2040s" ?
It isn't credible to the Conservatives or their supporters to cut and run, by the way.
The Conservatives won most seats, and most votes, and got rather a lot of them at that.
If the DUP doesn't work out, they should try the Queen's speech solo. If that doesn't get voted down (it won't, because the LDs at the very least will abstain) then they continue in office.
Surely there must be serious enquiries now as to whether Article 50 is revocable. The government is paralysed, time is running out and Liam's numerous trade deals aren't quite ready. Combined with Brexit, this parliamentary chaos could induce serious national harm of the type no one, not even most Remainers, seriously envisaged. Can't we ask for some kind of extension, like my English teacher once gave me for a Jane Austen essay?
Personally I thought Farron did (Just about) well enough to stay on, others might disagree I guess. Will have to see who the runners and riders are anyhow.
Surely there must be serious enquiries now as to whether Article 50 is revocable. The government is paralysed, time is running out and Liam's numerous trade deals aren't quite ready. Combined with Brexit, this parliamentary chaos could induce serious national harm of the type no one, not even most Remainers, seriously envisaged. Can't we ask for some kind of extension, like my English teacher once gave me for a Jane Austen essay?
Pride And Prejudice would make an excellent title for a book about Brexit.
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies may be more appropriate
It isn't credible to the Conservatives or their supporters to cut and run, by the way.
The Conservatives won most seats, and most votes, and got rather a lot of them at that.
If the DUP doesn't work out, they should try the Queen's speech solo. If that doesn't get voted down (it won't, because the LDs at the very least will abstain) then they continue in office.
Thanks Alastair. Yes, I agree with all that but would add a further consideration, which kind of cuts both ways.
The Conservatives are between a rock and a very hard place. The rock is the near certainty of a heavy election defeat if they go to the country soon. The very hard place is the even heavier defeat they are likely to suffer the longer the Government hangs on. You could argue that they'd be better off taking the former option as the lesser of two evils, especially as they would probably return with a hefty majority after five years of Labour misrule. Paradoxically Labour might well actually prefer their opponents to stay put and take the considerable flak coming to whoever has to manage Brexit and the deteriorating economic situation (whilst of course maintaining publicly that they want to take over.) In fact the Government's problem in this situation would be to find a sufficiently plausible explanation for calling an election and handing the sackful of hot potatoes over to Labour, but I guess they could come up with something.
So what is going to happen? Dunno. It's totally unpredictable. I'm pretty sure May will stay on, if only as Fall Girl, for the foreseeable future. The Government will soldier on, hoping that 'something will turn up'. If it all falls apart and they have to go to the Country, well, at least they are then rid of the mess and can begin the repair work the Party so badly needs. If it doesn't, they get five years in office and the prospect of handing over to Labour's tender care a Nation which is in deep shit.
Enjoy the fine weather everybody.
What do you think of the unsourced Tory MPs who were cited in the Spectator less than 5 weeks ago that they expected to be in Government "until the 2040s" ?
Surely there must be serious enquiries now as to whether Article 50 is revocable. The government is paralysed, time is running out and Liam's numerous trade deals aren't quite ready. Combined with Brexit, this parliamentary chaos could induce serious national harm of the type no one, not even most Remainers, seriously envisaged. Can't we ask for some kind of extension, like my English teacher once gave me for a Jane Austen essay?
There is an option to extend for 12 months but it requires the assent of all 27 other EU members. Not sure whether we'd get that, given the shambles our political masters have presided over thus far.
Surely there must be serious enquiries now as to whether Article 50 is revocable. The government is paralysed, time is running out and Liam's numerous trade deals aren't quite ready. Combined with Brexit, this parliamentary chaos could induce serious national harm of the type no one, not even most Remainers, seriously envisaged. Can't we ask for some kind of extension, like my English teacher once gave me for a Jane Austen essay?
Pride And Prejudice would make an excellent title for a book about Brexit.
"Somehow we have reached a point where older people with assets expect younger, poorer people to pay for their care."
But this is the very point of the conservative party. It's at the core of contemporary conservative ideology.
F*ck the young and the poor as hard as possible.
Tories keep missing the point here. Older people did not reject paying something towards their care. That wasn't on the table. They objected to paying random catastrophic costs which they are unable to insure through markets or collectivise through government. Dilnot identified this problem explicitly and was ignored.
Timothy's analysis is astonishingly shallow and linear. How did he get the job?
The public has shown no interest in an insurance solution. Why should one be imposed on them?
How do you know? There's never been a social care insurance market to speak of iirc. Because there is no cap, so no one wants to be involved.
Insurers have tried to set one up in the past and found no interest, even from the wealthy.
There's a strong argument for saying we're already promised care from the cradle to the grave but successive governments (particularly IIRC Maggie's) which reneged on the dea.
To be fair to Maggie T, the number of people seeking care, and the number expecting to do so, increased exponentially during and since her time.
As someone who has been involved in the sector, and who is approaching the big 8Oh I think something has to be done, and I suspect that if no-one wanted to play politics the present HoC could perhaps do the job.
You seem to think you have a point. So far you've made a string of unsubstantiated assertions and faulty analogies. Perhaps you could provide some evidence-based arguments as to why wealthier pensioners should be subsidised by everyone else.
Did I say they should be subsidised by everyone else? The recent electoral evidence is that the public don't like the current self-funding arrangement. It does not follow that the old want the young to pay for their care, as you and Nick Timothy suggest. That is a complete non-sequitur.
Dilnot's contention, and mine, is that people are frightened of the risk of catastrophic costs and unhappy at their inability to share that risk. Read Dilnot's report or, if that's too much, his recent comments in the press, if you want "evidence".
Where is your "evidence" that the old want the young to pay for their care?
It isn't credible to the Conservatives or their supporters to cut and run, by the way.
The Conservatives won most seats, and most votes, and got rather a lot of them at that.
If the DUP doesn't work out, they should try the Queen's speech solo. If that doesn't get voted down (it won't, because the LDs at the very least will abstain) then they continue in office.
Are you're the Liberals would abstain and prop up the Tories? With Jo Swinson in, they might gain seats in a subsequent GE.
not a proportional basis. Labour led Progressive Alliance has 52.5% Tories and DUP 43.4%
"Progressive Alliance" is a term which has been hijacked by some people in the Labour Party to mean people who give uncritical support to the Labour proposals (such as they are). Not sure who they are including in that. Perhaps Ms Lucas - but who else?
Personally I thought Farron did (Just about) well enough to stay on, others might disagree I guess. Will have to see who the runners and riders are anyhow.
The Lib Dem rule book is clear , there will be a new leadership election called not later than 12 months after June 8th although in theory this could be deferred for a further 12 months . Unless a new GE looks likely I would expect a leadership election June/July next year . Jo Swinson will win easily .
The Conservatives have wasted almost a year now. If one wanted an example of drift and dither one could hardly have had a better example than the government reaction to the BREXIT vote.
I said at the time that May should have announced Article 50 would be invoked on 31 Dec 2016 with the UK leaving on 31st Dec 2018, if necessary after a resolution of both houses of parliament soon after the vote. Absolute certainty was required. Instead the EU are faced with a weak and fatally wounded PM with no mandate and with a febrile HoC desirous of multiple solutions.
The worst negotiating position possible.
All that is true (except I don't think Article 50 being invoked in May rather than December made much difference).
However, we are where we are. The question now is how to minimise the damage from Theresa May's catastrophic general election disaster. There are certainly no good options.
Indeed. There are "no good options". However in my view dithering further with a weak leader and the DUP holding the axe on the scaffold is the very worst position.
Your suggestion is a minority administration, or cutting & running?
It isn't credible to the Conservatives or their supporters to cut and run, by the way.
The Conservatives won most seats, and most votes, and got rather a lot of them at that.
If the DUP doesn't work out, they should try the Queen's speech solo. If that doesn't get voted down (it won't, because the LDs at the very least will abstain) then they continue in office.
Are you're the Liberals would abstain and prop up the Tories? With Jo Swinson in, they might gain seats in a subsequent GE.
St Ives, NE Fife, North Devon, Cheltenham, Cheadle, Lewes, Richmond Park would be gains in a new GE I think. I severely doubt the Lib Dems will support this Tory party in any way, shape or form (Certainly this parliament).
The Conservatives have wasted almost a year now. If one wanted an example of drift and dither one could hardly have had a better example than the government reaction to the BREXIT vote.
I said at the time that May should have announced Article 50 would be invoked on 31 Dec 2016 with the UK leaving on 31st Dec 2018, if necessary after a resolution of both houses of parliament soon after the vote. Absolute certainty was required. Instead the EU are faced with a weak and fatally wounded PM with no mandate and with a febrile HoC desirous of multiple solutions.
The worst negotiating position possible.
All that is true (except I don't think Article 50 being invoked in May rather than December made much difference).
However, we are where we are. The question now is how to minimise the damage from Theresa May's catastrophic general election disaster. There are certainly no good options.
Indeed. There are "no good options". However in my view dithering further with a weak leader and the DUP holding the axe on the scaffold is the very worst position.
Your suggestion is a minority administration, or cutting & running?
Thanks Alastair. Yes, I agree with all that but would add a further consideration, which kind of cuts both ways.
The Conservatives are between a rock and a very hard place. The rock is the near certainty of a heavy election defeat if they go to the country soon. The very hard place is the even heavier defeat they are likely to suffer the longer the Government hangs on. You could argue that they'd be better off taking the former option as the lesser of two evils, especially as they would probably return with a hefty majority after five years of Labour misrule. Paradoxically Labour might well actually prefer their opponents to stay put and take the considerable flak coming to whoever has to manage Brexit and the deteriorating economic situation (whilst of course maintaining publicly that they want to take over.) In fact the Government's problem in this situation would be to find a sufficiently plausible explanation for calling an election and handing the sackful of hot potatoes over to Labour, but I guess they could come up with something.
So what is going to happen? Dunno. It's totally unpredictable. I'm pretty sure May will stay on, if only as Fall Girl, for the foreseeable future. The Government will soldier on, hoping that 'something will turn up'. If it all falls apart and they have to go to the Country, well, at least they are then rid of the mess and can begin the repair work the Party so badly needs. If it doesn't, they get five years in office and the prospect of handing over to Labour's tender care a Nation which is in deep shit.
Enjoy the fine weather everybody.
What do you think of the unsourced Tory MPs who were cited in the Spectator less than 5 weeks ago that they expected to be in Government "until the 2040s" ?
Reading the Speccie at the moment, it sounds like a magazine under siege!
Personally I thought Farron did (Just about) well enough to stay on, others might disagree I guess. Will have to see who the runners and riders are anyhow.
So well he lost a load of votes in his own seat, even as leader with a national profile, and almost lost.
It all depends how many by elections the Tories lose. There werent that many by elections 2010-15 but compare with John Major's 1992-7 parliament when there were so mamy that his majority of 20 had turned to zero by 1996. If the Tories are as unlucky as Major and they lose 6 within 2 years, they would lose a vote of confidence by 2019.
Thanks Alastair. Yes, I agree with all that but would add a further consideration, which kind of cuts both ways.
The Conservatives are between a rock and a very hard place. The rock is the near certainty of a heavy election defeat if they go to the country soon. The very hard place is the even heavier defeat they are likely to suffer the longer the Government hangs on. You could argue that they'd be better off taking the former option as the lesser of two evils, especially as they would probably return with a hefty majority after five years of Labour misrule. Paradoxically Labour might well actually prefer their opponents to stay put and take the considerable flak coming to whoever has to manage Brexit and the deteriorating economic situation (whilst of course maintaining publicly that they want to take over.) In fact the Government's problem in this situation would be to find a sufficiently plausible explanation for calling an election and handing the sackful of hot potatoes over to Labour, but I guess they could come up with something.
So what is going to happen? Dunno. It's totally unpredictable. I'm pretty sure May will stay on, if only as Fall Girl, for the foreseeable future. The Government will soldier on, hoping that 'something will turn up'. If it all falls apart and they have to go to the Country, well, at least they are then rid of the mess and can begin the repair work the Party so badly needs. If it doesn't, they get five years in office and the prospect of handing over to Labour's tender care a Nation which is in deep shit.
Enjoy the fine weather everybody.
What do you think of the unsourced Tory MPs who were cited in the Spectator less than 5 weeks ago that they expected to be in Government "until the 2040s" ?
Reading the Speccie at the moment, it sounds like a magazine under siege!
Are you suggesting there's a lot of Tory in-fighting at present?!
Personally I thought Farron did (Just about) well enough to stay on, others might disagree I guess. Will have to see who the runners and riders are anyhow.
So well he lost a load of votes in his own seat, even as leader with a national profile, and almost lost.
All of this assumes that the Tories stay in government, which is, admittedly, the plan at the moment. I don't think that it can wholly be relied upon though.
The 318 Tory MPs can't be unelected though, won't dissolve, and are very unlikely to die out or quit in significant numbers.
So, they stay - to bedblock out Labour, if nothing else - unless the DUP pull the plug *and* no confidence them, together with everyone else.
I think this Parliament lasts for as long as Corbyn or McDonnell lead the opposition.
Bedblocking Labour is short-term expediency which is likely to lead to a Labour majority government as the May attempts to cobble together deals on a vote-by-vote basis, to the tune of growing dissent from the backbenches, Scotland, Wales and everywhere else that perceives itself to be paying for largesse to N Ireland - before we even get into the difficulties of Brexit.
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
That is a very high risk strategy.
It was also Arthur Balfour's strategy in 1905 with putting the Liberals into a minority Government (who then called for and got the Liberal Landslide of 1906) and Asquith's strategy in 1923 in supporting Labour to take the helm (leading to the near-extinction of the Liberal Party). In fact, having immediately thought of two examples where it backfired horrendously, I can't think of even one where it worked.
It all depends how many by elections the Tories lose. There werent that many by elections 2010-15 but compare with John Major's 1992-7 parliament when there were so mamy that his majority of 20 had turned to zero by 1996. If the Tories are as unlucky as Major and they lose 6 within 2 years, they would lose a vote of confidence by 2019.
It wasn't just by-elections though - there were defections to Labour and the "bastards" who lost the Tory whip.
It isn't credible to the Conservatives or their supporters to cut and run, by the way.
The Conservatives won most seats, and most votes, and got rather a lot of them at that.
If the DUP doesn't work out, they should try the Queen's speech solo. If that doesn't get voted down (it won't, because the LDs at the very least will abstain) then they continue in office.
Are you're the Liberals would abstain and prop up the Tories? With Jo Swinson in, they might gain seats in a subsequent GE.
St Ives, NE Fife, North Devon, Cheltenham, Cheadle, Lewes, Richmond Park would be gains in a new GE I think. I severely doubt the Lib Dems will support this Tory party in any way, shape or form (Certainly this parliament).
But they should. It's either them or the DUP. If I were a LibDem I would be thinking my route back to power and 326 MPs will be tricky enough and although they will be tainted by association, they can spin that they are doing it for the good of the nation and that every single social and public good that comes from the coalition will be down to them.
The timing of the next general election is almost entirely dependent of the electoral heath and well being of the DUP.
As soon as the DUP feel that they are tainted by their pact with the Conservatives they will dump on the Tories quicker than party games at a Mark Oaten appreciation meeting. At which point the sh*t will truly hit the fan.
The DUP will back the Tories as long as the Sinn Fein loving Corbyn stays Labour leader
Lady Hermon has said exactly the same thing so that adds another MP to pro-government forces.
Yes it is block Corbyn at all costs
329 votes, for now.
For now. Including Lady Hermon.
Yet the DUP Pact is open to legal challenge.
Even if DUP could not vote for Tories then neither could SF for Labour and Tories would still have more votes than Labour +SNP+LD+Plaid+Green combined
not a proportional basis.Labour led Progressive Alliance has 52.5% Tories and DUP 43.4%
As Plaid Cymru will tell you, it is the seats that count in parliament. Not the votes
True but the votes give you a better picture of what people are actually thinking. Clinton beat Trump by about the same vote margin as the Tories beat Labour and she lost!
It really is about time we had an electoral system that is fit for purpose and better reflects votes cast. FPTP may have worked fairly well in an era of 2 party politics but now it's little more than a lottery.
The Conservatives have wasted almost a year now. If one wanted an example of drift and dither one could hardly have had a better example than the government reaction to the BREXIT vote.
I said at the time that May should have announced Article 50 would be invoked on 31 Dec 2016 with the UK leaving on 31st Dec 2018, if necessary after a resolution of both houses of parliament soon after the vote. Absolute certainty was required. Instead the EU are faced with a weak and fatally wounded PM with no mandate and with a febrile HoC desirous of multiple solutions.
The worst negotiating position possible.
All that is true (except I don't think Article 50 being invoked in May rather than December made much difference).
However, we are where we are. The question now is how to minimise the damage from Theresa May's catastrophic general election disaster. There are certainly no good options.
Indeed. There are "no good options". However in my view dithering further with a weak leader and the DUP holding the axe on the scaffold is the very worst position.
Your suggestion is a minority administration, or cutting & running?
Conservative minority government.
Also set up a cross party commission for BREXIT.
I agree, in principle. I think a cross-party commission would descend into recrimination and farce, though.
It isn't credible to the Conservatives or their supporters to cut and run, by the way.
The Conservatives won most seats, and most votes, and got rather a lot of them at that.
If the DUP doesn't work out, they should try the Queen's speech solo. If that doesn't get voted down (it won't, because the LDs at the very least will abstain) then they continue in office.
Are you're the Liberals would abstain and prop up the Tories? With Jo Swinson in, they might gain seats in a subsequent GE.
St Ives, NE Fife, North Devon, Cheltenham, Cheadle, Lewes, Richmond Park would be gains in a new GE I think. I severely doubt the Lib Dems will support this Tory party in any way, shape or form (Certainly this parliament).
Indeed. I am also far from convinced of a second SNP rout. I reckon Labourites might hold their nose as vote Nat where they are challenging the Tories.
All of this assumes that the Tories stay in government, which is, admittedly, the plan at the moment. I don't think that it can wholly be relied upon though.
The 318 Tory MPs can't be unelected though, won't dissolve, and are very unlikely to die out or quit in significant numbers.
So, they stay - to bedblock out Labour, if nothing else - unless the DUP pull the plug *and* no confidence them, together with everyone else.
I think this Parliament lasts for as long as Corbyn or McDonnell lead the opposition.
Bedblocking Labour is short-term expediency which is likely to lead to a Labour majority government as the May attempts to cobble together deals on a vote-by-vote basis, to the tune of growing dissent from the backbenches, Scotland, Wales and everywhere else that perceives itself to be paying for largesse to N Ireland - before we even get into the difficulties of Brexit.
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
That is a very high risk strategy.
It was also Arthur Balfour's strategy in 1905 with the Liberals (who then got the Liberal Landslide of 1906) and Asquith's strategy in 1923 (leading to the near-extinction of the Liberal Party). In fact, having immediately thought of two examples where it backfired horrendously, I can't think of even one where it worked.
Yes it all depends on how sure are you that a Corbyn government would be seen as disastrous for the country in a very short space of time. And how much damage would it do?
It isn't credible to the Conservatives or their supporters to cut and run, by the way.
The Conservatives won most seats, and most votes, and got rather a lot of them at that.
If the DUP doesn't work out, they should try the Queen's speech solo. If that doesn't get voted down (it won't, because the LDs at the very least will abstain) then they continue in office.
Are you're the Liberals would abstain and prop up the Tories? With Jo Swinson in, they might gain seats in a subsequent GE.
St Ives, NE Fife, North Devon, Cheltenham, Cheadle, Lewes, Richmond Park would be gains in a new GE I think. I severely doubt the Lib Dems will support this Tory party in any way, shape or form (Certainly this parliament).
Which seats do you think Labour would strip off the Tories in another snap GE this year?
All of this assumes that the Tories stay in government, which is, admittedly, the plan at the moment. I don't think that it can wholly be relied upon though.
The 318 Tory MPs can't be unelected though, won't dissolve, and are very unlikely to die out or quit in significant numbers.
So, they stay - to bedblock out Labour, if nothing else - unless the DUP pull the plug *and* no confidence them, together with everyone else.
I think this Parliament lasts for as long as Corbyn or McDonnell lead the opposition.
Bedblocking Labour is short-term expediency which is likely to lead to a Labour majority government as the May attempts to cobble together deals on a vote-by-vote basis, to the tune of growing dissent from the backbenches, Scotland, Wales and everywhere else that perceives itself to be paying for largesse to N Ireland - before we even get into the difficulties of Brexit.
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
That is a very high risk strategy.
It was also Arthur Balfour's strategy in 1905 with putting the Liberals into a minority Government (who then called for and got the Liberal Landslide of 1906) and Asquith's strategy in 1923 in supporting Labour to take the helm (leading to the near-extinction of the Liberal Party). In fact, having immediately thought of two examples where it backfired horrendously, I can't think of even one where it worked.
Weren't there people who said that the 2010 general election was a good one to lose?
A party that is keen to go into Opposition will surely stay there for some time, and longer than they will wish.
It isn't credible to the Conservatives or their supporters to cut and run, by the way.
The Conservatives won most seats, and most votes, and got rather a lot of them at that.
If the DUP doesn't work out, they should try the Queen's speech solo. If that doesn't get voted down (it won't, because the LDs at the very least will abstain) then they continue in office.
Are you're the Liberals would abstain and prop up the Tories? With Jo Swinson in, they might gain seats in a subsequent GE.
St Ives, NE Fife, North Devon, Cheltenham, Cheadle, Lewes, Richmond Park would be gains in a new GE I think. I severely doubt the Lib Dems will support this Tory party in any way, shape or form (Certainly this parliament).
But they should. It's either them or the DUP. If I were a LibDem I would be thinking my route back to power and 326 MPs will be tricky enough and although they will be tainted by association, they can spin that they are doing it for the good of the nation and that every single social and public good that comes from the coalition will be down to them.
Which of course it likely would be.
They did it for the good of the nation last time, i dont see them doing it again in a long time. Taking part in a cross party unity gov would be a different thing
It all depends how many by elections the Tories lose. There werent that many by elections 2010-15 but compare with John Major's 1992-7 parliament when there were so mamy that his majority of 20 had turned to zero by 1996. If the Tories are as unlucky as Major and they lose 6 within 2 years, they would lose a vote of confidence by 2019.
It wasn't just by-elections though - there were defections to Labour and the "bastards" who lost the Tory whip.
True, but any backpedalling by May on hard brexit could see new "bastards". A majority of 6 might last for two or three years, but is unlikely to last for 5. Then there's illness and indisposal during confidence votes. Remember Jim Callaghan's government fell in 1979 because one of his MPs was held up in the traffic.
All of this assumes that the Tories stay in government, which is, admittedly, the plan at the moment. I don't think that it can wholly be relied upon though.
The 318 Tory MPs can't be unelected though, won't dissolve, and are very unlikely to die out or quit in significant numbers.
So, they stay - to bedblock out Labour, if nothing else - unless the DUP pull the plug *and* no confidence them, together with everyone else.
I think this Parliament lasts for as long as Corbyn or McDonnell lead the opposition.
Bedblocking Labour is short-term expediency which is likely to lead to a Labour majority government as the May attempts to cobble together deals on a vote-by-vote basis, to the tune of growing dissent from the backbenches, Scotland, Wales and everywhere else that perceives itself to be paying for largesse to N Ireland - before we even get into the difficulties of Brexit.
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
That is a very high risk strategy.
It was also Arthur Balfour's strategy in 1905 with putting the Liberals into a minority Government (who then called for and got the Liberal Landslide of 1906) and Asquith's strategy in 1923 in supporting Labour to take the helm (leading to the near-extinction of the Liberal Party). In fact, having immediately thought of two examples where it backfired horrendously, I can't think of even one where it worked.
Theresa May had served as Prime Minister from 2016 until 19 June 2017, when she chose to resign over growing unpopularity, having called a general election which saw her majority cut. May had hoped that under a Labour government splits would reemerge, which would therefore help the Conservative Party achieve victory at the next election. The incoming Labour government chose to capitalise on the Conservative government's unpopularity and called an immediate general election in the autumn of 2017, which resulted in a crushing defeat for the Conservatives.
Has any official body hinted at lack of emergency services resource to deal with this tragedy? Genuine question
Don't think so but it's hard to imagine any responsible body saying that even if true, and certainly not at this stage. The Guardian is quoting one firefighter as saying they've been on site for 12 hours when the maximum in those conditions should be 4 hours. Obviously if that's true then at a minimum the firefighters are exposed to greater risk due to fatigue etc. Not an official comment though.
All of this assumes that the Tories stay in government, which is, admittedly, the plan at the moment. I don't think that it can wholly be relied upon though.
The 318 Tory MPs can't be unelected though, won't dissolve, and are very unlikely to die out or quit in significant numbers.
So, they stay - to bedblock out Labour, if nothing else - unless the DUP pull the plug *and* no confidence them, together with everyone else.
I think this Parliament lasts for as long as Corbyn or McDonnell lead the opposition.
Bedblocking Labour is short-term expediency which is likely to lead to a Labour majority government as the May attempts to cobble together deals on a vote-by-vote basis, to the tune of growing dissent from the backbenches, Scotland, Wales and everywhere else that perceives itself to be paying for largesse to N Ireland - before we even get into the difficulties of Brexit.
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
That is a very high risk strategy.
It was also Arthur Balfour's strategy in 1905 with putting the Liberals into a minority Government (who then called for and got the Liberal Landslide of 1906) and Asquith's strategy in 1923 in supporting Labour to take the helm (leading to the near-extinction of the Liberal Party). In fact, having immediately thought of two examples where it backfired horrendously, I can't think of even one where it worked.
Theresa May had served as Prime Minister from 2016 until 19 June 2017, when she chose to resign over growing unpopularity, having called a general election which saw her majority cut. May had hoped that under a Labour government splits would reemerge, which would therefore help the Conservative Party achieve victory at the next election. The incoming Labour government chose to capitalise on the Conservative government's unpopularity and called an immediate general election in the autumn of 2017, which resulted in a crushing defeat for the Conservatives.
I'd rate an incoming Labour Government, now, at 50/50 to renege on Brexit.
The EU might help them out too, given so many see Brexit as a Tory party obsession alone.
All of this assumes that the Tories stay in government, which is, admittedly, the plan at the moment. I don't think that it can wholly be relied upon though.
The 318 Tory MPs can't be unelected though, won't dissolve, and are very unlikely to die out or quit in significant numbers.
So, they stay - to bedblock out Labour, if nothing else - unless the DUP pull the plug *and* no confidence them, together with everyone else.
I think this Parliament lasts for as long as Corbyn or McDonnell lead the opposition.
Bedblocking Labour is short-term expediency which is likely to lead to a Labour majority government as the May attempts to cobble together deals on a vote-by-vote basis, to the tune of growing dissent from the backbenches, Scotland, Wales and everywhere else that perceives itself to be paying for largesse to N Ireland - before we even get into the difficulties of Brexit.
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
That is a very high risk strategy.
It was also Arthur Balfour's strategy in 1905 with the Liberals (who then got the Liberal Landslide of 1906) and Asquith's strategy in 1923 (leading to the near-extinction of the Liberal Party). In fact, having immediately thought of two examples where it backfired horrendously, I can't think of even one where it worked.
Yes it all depends on how sure are you that a Corbyn government would be seen as disastrous for the country in a very short space of time. And how much damage would it do?
You can equally argue never give a sucker an even break.
1. The DUP deal (assuming there is one) is open to legal challenge as it may well contravene the Good Friday Agreement. Do we expect Sinn Fein to merrily go along with it? Most likely they will be already getting their lawyers to sharpen their pencils, as indicated last night on Channel 4 news.
2. There could be defections, as others have mentioned (most likely to the Liberals). Less likely than likely, but very possible, particular if, as is likely, the Tories become deeply unpopular very soon.
3. The DUP may very soon be tainted by Tory shambling. As soon as they sniff that, they will dump the government.
I think point one is worthy of much greater discussion. It might be that it doesn't matter, and that the DUP keep propping up the government no matter what. Or it might not.
On point 1, the idea that one group in a parliament cannot do a deal with another group in a parliament is nuts, and is a good example of the delicate balance of hypocrisy, internal contradictions and blind-eye turning that bedevils Northern Irish politics. That's not to say that there wouldn't be consequences from doing so, nor that it would necessarily be wise to do so, but the option should be there.
And indeed it is there. One of the most fundamental principles of the UK constitution is that no parliament can bind a successor (in legal terms; practically, it does all sorts of things that can never be undone or redone). If the GFA prevents MPs in this parliament from voluntarily operating together then the GFA might well be ruled unconstitutional - but once you start unpicking there, the whole fabric of the settlement comes undone.
All of this assumes that the Tories stay in government, which is, admittedly, the plan at the moment. I don't think that it can wholly be relied upon though.
The 318 Tory MPs can't be unelected though, won't dissolve, and are very unlikely to die out or quit in significant numbers.
So, they stay - to bedblock out Labour, if nothing else - unless the DUP pull the plug *and* no confidence them, together with everyone else.
I think this Parliament lasts for as long as Corbyn or McDonnell lead the opposition.
Bedblocking Labour is short-term expediency which is likely to lead to a Labour majority government as the May attempts to cobble together deals on a vote-by-vote basis, to the tune of growing dissent from the backbenches, Scotland, Wales and everywhere else that perceives itself to be paying for largesse to N Ireland - before we even get into the difficulties of Brexit.
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
That is a very high risk strategy.
It was also Arthur Balfour's strategy in 1905 with putting the Liberals into a minority Government (who then called for and got the Liberal Landslide of 1906) and Asquith's strategy in 1923 in supporting Labour to take the helm (leading to the near-extinction of the Liberal Party). In fact, having immediately thought of two examples where it backfired horrendously, I can't think of even one where it worked.
Baldwin became Tory leader in 1923 after Bonar Law had won a Tory majority in 1922 and resigned. Baldwin called an unnecessary snap election and unexpectedly lost the Tory majority,. Rather than go on, he allowed Labour to come to power even though it was only the second largest party. Labour screwed up for 9 months and then Baldwin won the 1924 election for the Tories with one of its biggest landslides.
"Somehow we have reached a point where older people with assets expect younger, poorer people to pay for their care."
But this is the very point of the conservative party. It's at the core of contemporary conservative ideology.
F*ck the young and the poor as hard as possible.
Tories keep missing the point here. Older people did not reject paying something towards their care. That wasn't on the table. They objected to paying random catastrophic costs which they are unable to insure through markets or collectivise through government. Dilnot identified this problem explicitly and was ignored.
Timothy's analysis is astonishingly shallow and linear. How did he get the job?
The public has shown no interest in an insurance solution. Why should one be imposed on them?
Because someone has to pay, if there isn't to be rationing.
It isn't credible to the Conservatives or their supporters to cut and run, by the way.
The Conservatives won most seats, and most votes, and got rather a lot of them at that.
If the DUP doesn't work out, they should try the Queen's speech solo. If that doesn't get voted down (it won't, because the LDs at the very least will abstain) then they continue in office.
Are you're the Liberals would abstain and prop up the Tories? With Jo Swinson in, they might gain seats in a subsequent GE.
St Ives, NE Fife, North Devon, Cheltenham, Cheadle, Lewes, Richmond Park would be gains in a new GE I think. I severely doubt the Lib Dems will support this Tory party in any way, shape or form (Certainly this parliament).
Which seats do you think Labour would strip off the Tories in another snap GE this year?
What's the firewall?
From experience over the past couple of years or so - never where people expect it to be!
All of this assumes that the Tories stay in government, which is, admittedly, the plan at the moment. I don't think that it can wholly be relied upon though.
The 318 Tory MPs can't be unelected though, won't dissolve, and are very unlikely to die out or quit in significant numbers.
So, they stay - to bedblock out Labour, if nothing else - unless the DUP pull the plug *and* no confidence them, together with everyone else.
I think this Parliament lasts for as long as Corbyn or McDonnell lead the opposition.
Bedblocking Labour is short-term expediency which is likely to lead to a Labour majority government as the May attempts to cobble together deals on a vote-by-vote basis, to the tune of growing dissent from the backbenches, Scotland, Wales and everywhere else that perceives itself to be paying for largesse to N Ireland - before we even get into the difficulties of Brexit.
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
That is a very high risk strategy.
It was also Arthur Balfour's strategy in 1905 with putting the Liberals into a minority Government (who then called for and got the Liberal Landslide of 1906) and Asquith's strategy in 1923 in supporting Labour to take the helm (leading to the near-extinction of the Liberal Party). In fact, having immediately thought of two examples where it backfired horrendously, I can't think of even one where it worked.
Baldwin became Tory leader in 1923 after Bonar Law had won a Tory majority in 1922 and resigned. Baldwin called an unnecessary snap election and unexpectedly lost the Tory majority,. Rather than go on, he allowed Labour to come to power even though it was only the second largest party. Labour screwed up for 9 months and then Baldwin won the 1924 election for the Tories with one of its biggest landslides.
I don't think he deliberately allowed them to come to power. IIRC he put forwards a King's Speech and was defeated on it, and it included the addendum "And that this House has no confidence in His Majesty's Government"
It isn't credible to the Conservatives or their supporters to cut and run, by the way.
The Conservatives won most seats, and most votes, and got rather a lot of them at that.
If the DUP doesn't work out, they should try the Queen's speech solo. If that doesn't get voted down (it won't, because the LDs at the very least will abstain) then they continue in office.
Are you're the Liberals would abstain and prop up the Tories? With Jo Swinson in, they might gain seats in a subsequent GE.
St Ives, NE Fife, North Devon, Cheltenham, Cheadle, Lewes, Richmond Park would be gains in a new GE I think. I severely doubt the Lib Dems will support this Tory party in any way, shape or form (Certainly this parliament).
But they should. It's either them or the DUP. If I were a LibDem I would be thinking my route back to power and 326 MPs will be tricky enough and although they will be tainted by association, they can spin that they are doing it for the good of the nation and that every single social and public good that comes from the coalition will be down to them.
Which of course it likely would be.
They did it for the good of the nation last time, i dont see them doing it again in a long time. Taking part in a cross party unity gov would be a different thing
Lab would (rightly, IMO) refuse to join such a govt. AFAICS it is only upside or the LDs, or at least it is an asymmetric risk. Down to eight seats, or back up to 25.
All of this assumes that the Tories stay in government, which is, admittedly, the plan at the moment. I don't think that it can wholly be relied upon though.
The 318 Tory MPs can't be unelected though, won't dissolve, and are very unlikely to die out or quit in significant numbers.
So, they stay - to bedblock out Labour, if nothing else - unless the DUP pull the plug *and* no confidence them, together with everyone else.
I think this Parliament lasts for as long as Corbyn or McDonnell lead the opposition.
Bedblocking Labour is short-term expediency which is likely to lead to a Labour majority government as the May attempts to cobble together deals on a vote-by-vote basis, to the tune of growing dissent from the backbenches, Scotland, Wales and everywhere else that perceives itself to be paying for largesse to N Ireland - before we even get into the difficulties of Brexit.
Better to go into opposition now, let Corbyn be seen to fail in government (as must inevitably be the case for a party in such a weak position, never mind one led by someone with no experience of, or temperament for, government). Then bring Labour down at a time of the Tories' choosing.
"Better to go into opposition now" is first of all what got the Cons into trouble just now by thinking they could manage such a complex, dynamic system; it would be 1,000 times more unmanageable if they were actually in opposition.
And secondly, "better to go into opposition now" is the antithesis of what a political party is all about. No matter how bonkersly disfunctional the Conservative Party happens to be right now, which I appreciate is very.
It's not so much the Conservative Party which is dysfunctional (though to an extent, it is); it's that the nature of this parliament is such that it makes just about any government dysfunctional - something that must play against that government and in favour of the opposition. As such, if the choice is between a Labour government now and a Labour government later, then better to take the one that has its wings most clipped.
Has any official body hinted at lack of emergency services resource to deal with this tragedy? Genuine question
Don't think so but it's hard to imagine any responsible body saying that even if true, and certainly not at this stage. The Guardian is quoting one firefighter as saying they've been on site for 12 hours when the maximum in those conditions should be 4 hours. Obviously if that's true then at a minimum the firefighters are exposed to greater risk due to fatigue etc. Not an official comment though.
They've got some interesting comments from fire-safety experts on that blog - see 14:13 and 13:35
The Conservatives have wasted almost a year now. If one wanted an example of drift and dither one could hardly have had a better example than the government reaction to the BREXIT vote.
I said at the time that May should have announced Article 50 would be invoked on 31 Dec 2016 with the UK leaving on 31st Dec 2018, if necessary after a resolution of both houses of parliament soon after the vote. Absolute certainty was required. Instead the EU are faced with a weak and fatally wounded PM with no mandate and with a febrile HoC desirous of multiple solutions.
The worst negotiating position possible.
All that is true (except I don't think Article 50 being invoked in May rather than December made much difference).
However, we are where we are. The question now is how to minimise the damage from Theresa May's catastrophic general election disaster. There are certainly no good options.
Indeed. There are "no good options". However in my view dithering further with a weak leader and the DUP holding the axe on the scaffold is the very worst position.
Your suggestion is a minority administration, or cutting & running?
Conservative minority government.
Also set up a cross party commission for BREXIT.
I agree, in principle. I think a cross-party commission would descend into recrimination and farce, though.
And it would probably be extremely Remainey.
I don't know. There may already be back-channel discussions along the lines, "Were we to establish a cross party commission, which four people would you consider putting up? Okay, in theory we may blackball 2 and 4, but 1 and 3 are interesting".
You'd also need to think beyond the frontbenches and beyond Parliament to people less under immediate party pressure to reduce the risk of breakdown. Might a former cabinet member be Corbynite-acceptable? Prescott (critical in the past but his son is on the payroll)? Even Brown? For the Lib Dems, has anyone with recent coalition deal-making experience been unexpectedly liberated from his job recently? There are options here... it's not doomed to failure by any means.
I just can't see May going the distance, and if she gets replaced, there'll be a clamour against an "unelected" PM. For me, it looks like PM Jezza and payrise all around for us! Huzzah!
With inflation at 2.9% and rising many in the public sector will be requiring a wage rise. Do not see them getting one though.However surely interest rates will rise causing a never ending squeeze on incomes for many.
Perhaps, but in the past there was so much less debt in the economy that we needed rates to go to 15% to contain inflation. Today you could probably achieve the same by putting them up to 2.5%.
£100k mortgage 25 years. If the interest rate rises by 2.5% payments are an extra £116 per month. Do you still think a further £1400 pay cut won't squeeze people?
Not for a while, no.
In the 1980s 5 and 10 year mortgage fixes were unknown. Today they're commonplace.
Comments
In direct answer to your question: because the taxpayer is already involved as carer of last resort. It's not dissimilar to healthcare.
We also force people to take out car insurance, for similar protective reasons.
The Conservatives are between a rock and a very hard place. The rock is the near certainty of a heavy election defeat if they go to the country soon. The very hard place is the even heavier defeat they are likely to suffer the longer the Government hangs on. You could argue that they'd be better off taking the former option as the lesser of two evils, especially as they would probably return with a hefty majority after five years of Labour misrule. Paradoxically Labour might well actually prefer their opponents to stay put and take the considerable flak coming to whoever has to manage Brexit and the deteriorating economic situation (whilst of course maintaining publicly that they want to take over.) In fact the Government's problem in this situation would be to find a sufficiently plausible explanation for calling an election and handing the sackful of hot potatoes over to Labour, but I guess they could come up with something.
So what is going to happen? Dunno. It's totally unpredictable. I'm pretty sure May will stay on, if only as Fall Girl, for the foreseeable future. The Government will soldier on, hoping that 'something will turn up'. If it all falls apart and they have to go to the Country, well, at least they are then rid of the mess and can begin the repair work the Party so badly needs. If it doesn't, they get five years in office and the prospect of handing over to Labour's tender care a Nation which is in deep shit.
Enjoy the fine weather everybody.
In any case, I can't see either side beating the elegant Indians in the final.
Is it funded along the same lines as the Church of England ?
Your comments point to my other betting tip for this Parliament, but I'll save that one for another thread.
https://twitter.com/brianpaddick/status/874976886069374976
But
Cable.
This is why I say the country is ungovernable.
https://twitter.com/johnharris1969/status/874968144519016450
The Conservatives won most seats, and most votes, and got rather a lot of them at that.
If the DUP doesn't work out, they should try the Queen's speech solo. If that doesn't get voted down (it won't, because the LDs at the very least will abstain) then they continue in office.
bitchwoman as leader of a political partyTo be fair to Maggie T, the number of people seeking care, and the number expecting to do so, increased exponentially during and since her time.
As someone who has been involved in the sector, and who is approaching the big 8Oh I think something has to be done, and I suspect that if no-one wanted to play politics the present HoC could perhaps do the job.
Dilnot's contention, and mine, is that people are frightened of the risk of catastrophic costs and unhappy at their inability to share that risk. Read Dilnot's report or, if that's too much, his recent comments in the press, if you want "evidence".
Where is your "evidence" that the old want the young to pay for their care?
Are you're the Liberals would abstain and prop up the Tories? With Jo Swinson in, they might gain seats in a subsequent GE.
Also set up a cross party commission for BREXIT.
Sadly, I don't see the situation changing anytime soon, re Labour and women leaders.
I severely doubt the Lib Dems will support this Tory party in any way, shape or form (Certainly this parliament).
Genuine question
In fact, having immediately thought of two examples where it backfired horrendously, I can't think of even one where it worked.
Which of course it likely would be.
It really is about time we had an electoral system that is fit for purpose and better reflects votes cast. FPTP may have worked fairly well in an era of 2 party politics but now it's little more than a lottery.
And it would probably be extremely Remainey.
Who knew!!!!
https://twitter.com/SophyRidgeSky/status/874986036618817536
What's the firewall?
A party that is keen to go into Opposition will surely stay there for some time, and longer than they will wish.
The incoming Labour government chose to capitalise on the Conservative government's unpopularity and called an immediate general election in the autumn of 2017, which resulted in a crushing defeat for the Conservatives.
Roughly, up to a dozen LD losses and between 40-80 to Labour (I don't know how far...) including a few extra in Scotland from SNP, direct switches.
Tories on between 230-270 seats. Labour on 300-340 seats.
Terrrrrrrible night for the Tories.
Kote Hoey is sitting next to Skinner and Ronnie Campbell and the other old Labour dinosaurs usually sitting there.
The EU might help them out too, given so many see Brexit as a Tory party obsession alone.
Only if TMay was still leader.
And indeed it is there. One of the most fundamental principles of the UK constitution is that no parliament can bind a successor (in legal terms; practically, it does all sorts of things that can never be undone or redone). If the GFA prevents MPs in this parliament from voluntarily operating together then the GFA might well be ruled unconstitutional - but once you start unpicking there, the whole fabric of the settlement comes undone.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/jun/14/grenfell-tower-major-fire-london-apartment-block-white-city-latimer-road
You'd also need to think beyond the frontbenches and beyond Parliament to people less under immediate party pressure to reduce the risk of breakdown. Might a former cabinet member be Corbynite-acceptable? Prescott (critical in the past but his son is on the payroll)? Even Brown? For the Lib Dems, has anyone with recent coalition deal-making experience been unexpectedly liberated from his job recently? There are options here... it's not doomed to failure by any means.
In the 1980s 5 and 10 year mortgage fixes were unknown. Today they're commonplace.