What's interesting about that - and this was a massive failure by the Conservatives - is that voters didn't much notice that Labour were planning to crash the public finances. Osborne would never have made that mistake.
I can see several Tory, Remainers and Leavers, who could protest at the actions of the government on Brexit and quit the whip and sit as Independents.
That would not be the end of the world, I'm sure they would vote with the government on all non Brexit issues. Someone like Wollaston defecting to the Lib Dems would be a bigger problem.
Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston could both be defection risks.
Clarke, Soubry, Morgan etc. never would.
I was thinking the same, but also included Soubry. Why do you think she isn't a defection risk to the LDs? She has been very vocal recently, her views on Brexit chime and her seat is at very high risk indeed so hasn't a lot to lose.
But surely defection to the LDs is very likely to mean leaving Parliament at the next election for any of them?
Clarke is leaving anyway, but I agree he simply wouldn't contemplate such a thing. Soubry is of an age where it may or may not be her final term but, if she did want to go again surely she'd have no chance with a party that lost their deposit in her seat.
Wollaston and Allen would have an outside chance of clinging on under a new banner (Wollaston has already squeezed the Lib Dems and a fair amount of her broad support base is yellow leaning in a somewhat boho, environmentalist area, and Allen is in a seat where the Lib Dems are a strong third, and have councillors and a strong network). But it's essentially close to career suicide.
I agree re Ken Clarke - just wouldn't.
I don't think either Wollaston or Allen would be outside chances. I am assuming that the Tories will be getting themselves in a real pickle by the next election and of course events may change that. Wollaston in particular I think would hold easily as a LD. I think Allen would have a good chance.
Soubry would have little chance, but she doesn't seem to show that she cares currently. Quite happy to upset the Tory party and the Tories only have to go down a little or Labour up a little and she is out anyway. What is there to lose?
Soubry reminds me of Bob Marshall-Andrews in a funny way (who oddly enough did defect recently, years after retirement). BMA was also the sort who wanted to win (and actually did) but not to the extent of changing anything about himself. WYSIWYG.
The Nation is going to hell in a handcart and people are worried about poxy foxes?!! Ffs.
I'm telling you now, it definitely cost the Tories votes.
It was her first big campaign misstep and a sign of things to come.
Someone here - I forget who - quipped a few months ago that Cameron had deTOXified the Tories, and May had deTOFFified them. It was clearly a step towards retoffification.
Also, PTP says, "the Nation is going to hell in a handcart and people are worried about poxy foxes". But isn't it possibly the reverse? People's concern about the policy, as well as the weird message it sent about the May Tory brand, was that it looked as if May was worried about making Parliamentary time to revisit an old, niche issue... i.e. a lot of them were asking "why is MAY worried about poxy foxes when the nation faces REAL issues?"
T'was my quip. A huge mis-step. There should have been a pat answer ready when the question was asked. Not going to be government business, if a Private Members Bill then I will vote against - and would expect all ministers to do the same (if they want to keep their job).
I mean, if she could afford to piss off the pensioners and the home-owners, she could afford to piss off the hunters too....
I can see several Tory, Remainers and Leavers, who could protest at the actions of the government on Brexit and quit the whip and sit as Independents.
That would not be the end of the world, I'm sure they would vote with the government on all non Brexit issues. Someone like Wollaston defecting to the Lib Dems would be a bigger problem.
Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston could both be defection risks.
Clarke, Soubry, Morgan etc. never would.
I was thinking the same, but also included Soubry. Why do you think she isn't a defection risk to the LDs? She has been very vocal recently, her views on Brexit chime and her seat is at very high risk indeed so hasn't a lot to lose.
But surely defection to the LDs is very likely to mean leaving Parliament at the next election for any of them?
Clarke is leaving anyway, but I agree he simply wouldn't contemplate such a thing. Soubry is of an age where it may or may not be her final term but, if she did want to go again surely she'd have no chance with a party that lost their deposit in her seat.
Wollaston and Allen would have an outside chance of clinging on under a new banner (Wollaston has already squeezed the Lib Dems and a fair amount of her broad support base is yellow leaning in a somewhat boho, environmentalist area, and Allen is in a seat where the Lib Dems are a strong third, and have councillors and a strong network). But it's essentially close to career suicide.
If the party you're in does something that you fundamentally disagree with, then you may consider defecting. See Douglas Carswell and Dick Taverne for example.
You'd certainly have to be a selfless individual as I'm not sure defectors have prospered within their new party by and large over say the last 50 years.
Had a thought - lots of annual pay changes take place in April and May, at the end of the financial year of many businesses.
If employees received low pay increases in May it would have fed into the 'things are wrong, change is needed' narrative.
I wasn't impressed to get news of my house insurance cover going up due to the Insurance Premium Tax going up on 1st June with the provider's letter arriving just before election day .... not big but unhelpful timing.....
I can see several Tory, Remainers and Leavers, who could protest at the actions of the government on Brexit and quit the whip and sit as Independents.
That would not be the end of the world, I'm sure they would vote with the government on all non Brexit issues. Someone like Wollaston defecting to the Lib Dems would be a bigger problem.
Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston could both be defection risks.
Clarke, Soubry, Morgan etc. never would.
I was thinking the same, but also included Soubry. Why do you think she isn't a defection risk to the LDs? She has been very vocal recently, her views on Brexit chime and her seat is at very high risk indeed so hasn't a lot to lose.
But surely defection to the LDs is very likely to mean leaving Parliament at the next election for any of them?
Clarke is leaving anyway, but I agree he simply wouldn't contemplate such a thing. Soubry is of an age where it may or may not be her final term but, if she did want to go again surely she'd have no chance with a party that lost their deposit in her seat.
Wollaston and Allen would have an outside chance of clinging on under a new banner (Wollaston has already squeezed the Lib Dems and a fair amount of her broad support base is yellow leaning in a somewhat boho, environmentalist area, and Allen is in a seat where the Lib Dems are a strong third, and have councillors and a strong network). But it's essentially close to career suicide.
If the party you're in does something that you fundamentally disagree with, then you may consider defecting. See Douglas Carswell and Dick Taverne for example.
I guess a difference here is that a defector would seriously be in danger of bringing the Government down.
It's not just a stand on principle, with the prospect that your new party might do well against your old one next time, it's signing the death warrant for old friends - almost certainly putting them out of a job in 2018 (say) rather than possibly slightly contributing to their losing in 2022. Taverne defected from a party out of power. Carswell defected from a Coalition that was in no danger of falling as a result.
It does put a different complexion on it. It's hard to wield the axe in such a cold and immediate way, even if you've had a falling out.
I can see several Tory, Remainers and Leavers, who could protest at the actions of the government on Brexit and quit the whip and sit as Independents.
That would not be the end of the world, I'm sure they would vote with the government on all non Brexit issues. Someone like Wollaston defecting to the Lib Dems would be a bigger problem.
Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston could both be defection risks.
Clarke, Soubry, Morgan etc. never would.
I was thinking the same, but also included Soubry. Why do you think she isn't a defection risk to the LDs? She has been very vocal recently, her views on Brexit chime and her seat is at very high risk indeed so hasn't a lot to lose.
But surely defection to the LDs is very likely to mean leaving Parliament at the next election for any of them?
Clarke is leaving anyway, but I agree he simply wouldn't contemplate such a thing. Soubry is of an age where it may or may not be her final term but, if she did want to go again surely she'd have no chance with a party that lost their deposit in her seat.
Wollaston and Allen would have an outside chance of clinging on under a new banner (Wollaston has already squeezed the Lib Dems and a fair amount of her broad support base is yellow leaning in a somewhat boho, environmentalist area, and Allen is in a seat where the Lib Dems are a strong third, and have councillors and a strong network). But it's essentially close to career suicide.
I agree re Ken Clarke - just wouldn't.
I don't think either Wollaston or Allen would be outside chances. I am assuming that the Tories will be getting themselves in a real pickle by the next election and of course events may change that. Wollaston in particular I think would hold easily as a LD. I think Allen would have a good chance.
Soubry would have little chance, but she doesn't seem to show that she cares currently. Quite happy to upset the Tory party and the Tories only have to go down a little or Labour up a little and she is out anyway. What is there to lose?
Soubry reminds me of Bob Marshall-Andrews in a funny way (who oddly enough did defect recently, years after retirement). BMA was also the sort who wanted to win (and actually did) but not to the extent of changing anything about himself. WYSIWYG.
Agree re BMA. Like him a lot and always thought he was in the wrong party. He predicted his demise incorrectly at least once. Of course if he had defected he would have lost a lot sooner.
Shortly after the referendum my daughter copied me on a memo she wrote for the Partners in her law firm on the implications of Brexit. She commented in passing that in the then apparently unlikely event that the UK changed its mind, it simply had to tell the EU so and in every likelihood the Article 50 letter would be shredded, and all would be as before. Nothing I have seen or heard since suggests to me she was wrong in this.
Article 50 is very specific: once invoked, it's a one-way trip. I suppose they could agree to a very long delay though, and then alter the treaties to allow it.
Ultimately it's a political decision rather than a legal one, so if the will is there, it could be revoked.
The Nation is going to hell in a handcart and people are worried about poxy foxes?!! Ffs.
I'm telling you now, it definitely cost the Tories votes.
It was her first big campaign misstep and a sign of things to come.
Someone here - I forget who - quipped a few months ago that Cameron had deTOXified the Tories, and May had deTOFFified them. It was clearly a step towards retoffification.
Also, PTP says, "the Nation is going to hell in a handcart and people are worried about poxy foxes". But isn't it possibly the reverse? People's concern about the policy, as well as the weird message it sent about the May Tory brand, was that it looked as if May was worried about making Parliamentary time to revisit an old, niche issue... i.e. a lot of them were asking "why is MAY worried about poxy foxes when the nation faces REAL issues?"
T'was my quip. A huge mis-step. There should have been a pat answer ready when the question was asked. Not going to be government business, if a Private Members Bill then I will vote against - and would expect all ministers to do the same (if they want to keep their job).
I mean, if she could afford to piss off the pensioners and the home-owners, she could afford to piss off the hunters too....
Kevin Foster looks like he outperformed, even for the Southwest region. His clear positioning on Brexit (Accepting we need to go) plus his anti-Hunt position helped I think. He's what is wanted in the Southwest I think - a liberal Conservative who accepts we're heading out of Europe.
If we're going to undo Brexit, can we please undo a few other things and go back to Cameron and Osborne?
I'd raise a glass to that Richard, but sadly it ain't gonna happen.
Somewhere in Notting Hill David Cameron must be wistfully considering whether he should have stayed in the House of Commons a while longer.
Isn't it amazing? If he had just been able to put ego to one side and be a steady pair of hands over an issue that he had devolved to the general public anyway, we would have been so much better off.
Instead he had a crap in a paper bag on the doorstep of No10, set it alight and shouted "Fire" at Theresa May
The eurosceptics in the Tory Party would never have trusted him to negotiate Brexit and they would have tried to undermine him at every turn as they did with John Major. The long-term Brexiteers in the Tory party are total obsessives on the issue - they were even firing at Mrs May well before last Thursday.
What's interesting about that - and this was a massive failure by the Conservatives - is that voters didn't much notice that Labour were planning to crash the public finances. Osborne would never have made that mistake.
Apparently Phil was itching to get on the airwaves day after day to trash all McDonnell's wheezes. But he was locked away by Nick Timothy, who regarded brand 'Theresa' as far more marketable than brand 'Conservative'.
I can see several Tory, Remainers and Leavers, who could protest at the actions of the government on Brexit and quit the whip and sit as Independents.
That would not be the end of the world, I'm sure they would vote with the government on all non Brexit issues. Someone like Wollaston defecting to the Lib Dems would be a bigger problem.
Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston could both be defection risks.
Clarke, Soubry, Morgan etc. never would.
I was thinking the same, but also included Soubry. Why do you think she isn't a defection risk to the LDs? She has been very vocal recently, her views on Brexit chime and her seat is at very high risk indeed so hasn't a lot to lose.
But surely defection to the LDs is very likely to mean leaving Parliament at the next election for any of them?
Clarke is leaving anyway, but I agree he simply wouldn't contemplate such a thing. Soubry is of an age where it may or may not be her final term but, if she did want to go again surely she'd have no chance with a party that lost their deposit in her seat.
Wollaston and Allen would have an outside chance of clinging on under a new banner (Wollaston has already squeezed the Lib Dems and a fair amount of her broad support base is yellow leaning in a somewhat boho, environmentalist area, and Allen is in a seat where the Lib Dems are a strong third, and have councillors and a strong network). But it's essentially close to career suicide.
If the party you're in does something that you fundamentally disagree with, then you may consider defecting. See Douglas Carswell and Dick Taverne for example.
I guess a difference here is that a defector would seriously be in danger of bringing the Government down.
It's not just a stand on principle, with the prospect that your new party might do well against your old one next time, it's signing the death warrant for old friends - almost certainly putting them out of a job in 2018 (say) rather than possibly slightly contributing to their losing in 2022. Taverne defected from a party out of power. Carswell defected from a Coalition that was in no danger of falling as a result.
It does put a different complexion on it. It's hard to wield the axe in such a cold and immediate way, even if you've had a falling out.
Reg Prentice defected from Labour to the Conservatives in 1977 and is the only example since the Second World War that I have seen of an MP defecting from a governing party at a time when it did not have an overall majority.
Had a thought - lots of annual pay changes take place in April and May, at the end of the financial year of many businesses.
If employees received low pay increases in May it would have fed into the 'things are wrong, change is needed' narrative.
I wasn't impressed to get news of my house insurance cover going up due to the Insurance Premium Tax going up on 1st June with the provider's letter arriving just before election day .... not big but unhelpful timing.....
Plus council tax.
I've just noticed that my bill has an extra 2% for 'adult social care precept'.
How much would that have needed to increase to remove the need for the 'dementia tax' ?
I can see several Tory, Remainers and Leavers, who could protest at the actions of the government on Brexit and quit the whip and sit as Independents.
That would not be the end of the world, I'm sure they would vote with the government on all non Brexit issues. Someone like Wollaston defecting to the Lib Dems would be a bigger problem.
Heidi Allen and Sarah Wollaston could both be defection risks.
Clarke, Soubry, Morgan etc. never would.
I was thinking the same, but also included Soubry. Why do you think she isn't a defection risk to the LDs? She has been very vocal recently, her views on Brexit chime and her seat is at very high risk indeed so hasn't a lot to lose.
But surely defection to the LDs is very likely to mean leaving Parliament at the next election for any of them?
Clarke is leaving anyway, but I agree he simply wouldn't contemplate such a thing. Soubry is of an age where it may or may not be her final term but, if she did want to go again surely she'd have no chance with a party that lost their deposit in her seat.
Wollaston and Allen would have an outside chance of clinging on under a new banner (Wollaston has already squeezed the Lib Dems and a fair amount of her broad support base is yellow leaning in a somewhat boho, environmentalist area, and Allen is in a seat where the Lib Dems are a strong third, and have councillors and a strong network). But it's essentially close to career suicide.
I agree re Ken Clarke - just wouldn't.
I don't think either Wollaston or Allen would be outside chances. I am assuming that the Tories will be getting themselves in a real pickle by the next election and of course events may change that. Wollaston in particular I think would hold easily as a LD. I think Allen would have a good chance.
Soubry would have little chance, but she doesn't seem to show that she cares currently. Quite happy to upset the Tory party and the Tories only have to go down a little or Labour up a little and she is out anyway. What is there to lose?
Wollaston could lose to Labour, who came up markedly this time around from 14.1% to 26.8% and could come through a split LibDems/Tory vote.
You'd certainly have to be a selfless individual as I'm not sure defectors have prospered within their new party by and large over say the last 50 years.
I'm not so sure.
Woodward is not exactly a loved figure of the socialist movement, but he probably had a better career out of it than he would had he stayed put.
Emma Nicholson (who recently went back to the Tories!) was an MEP and got a peerage from the Lib Dems, whereas she'd almost certainly have lost her marginal seat to the Lib Dems in 1997 and slid into obscurity.
The SDP project obviously failed, but it's not clear that the key protagonists would've been at the heart of the New Labour project 15 years later anyway, and they've had interesting enough careers since. Then there are defectors like Vince Cable - maybe he'd have prospered in Labour in the 1980s, maybe not.
Okay, so recent defectors haven't risen to PM or whatever. But was Shaun Woodward ever likely to do that anyway?
Shortly after the referendum my daughter copied me on a memo she wrote for the Partners in her law firm on the implications of Brexit. She commented in passing that in the then apparently unlikely event that the UK changed its mind, it simply had to tell the EU so and in every likelihood the Article 50 letter would be shredded, and all would be as before. Nothing I have seen or heard since suggests to me she was wrong in this.
Article 50 is very specific: once invoked, it's a one-way trip. I suppose they could agree to a very long delay though, and then alter the treaties to allow it.
Ultimately it's a political decision rather than a legal one, so if the will is there, it could be revoked.
That's not my understanding, Andrew, and if you like I will revisit my Daughter's paper. The gist of it was that the Eu wished to encourage membership and keep Nations in the club. It was therefore consistent to encourage dissidents to reconsider if they wished.
The Nation is going to hell in a handcart and people are worried about poxy foxes?!! Ffs.
It's a very emotive issue in some constituencies, and not necessarily for the reasons you might think.
Fox-hunters themselves will vote Conservative by default, so there is no or little electoral upside from re-legalising the hunt.
But in "semi-rural" areas - rural towns and large villages with a high proportion of incomers - it is absolutely toxic. It's seen as siding with a privileged and out-of-touch elite at the expense of the real problems the countryside has. Hearing that the Conservatives will re-legalise hunting when your rural bus subsidies have been withdrawn is a very strong signal that the Conservatives' priorities are different from your own.
I am sure it will have lost our Conservative MP votes, though he was never in danger of not being re-elected.
(Footnote: I grew up in the heart of fox-hunting country and went to a public school there. All the pupils in our year, save one, were vehemently against hunting. And that's at a public school for goodness' sake!)
The Nation is going to hell in a handcart and people are worried about poxy foxes?!! Ffs.
I'm telling you now, it definitely cost the Tories votes.
It was her first big campaign misstep and a sign of things to come.
Someone here - I forget who - quipped a few months ago that Cameron had deTOXified the Tories, and May had deTOFFified them. It was clearly a step towards retoffification.
Also, PTP says, "the Nation is going to hell in a handcart and people are worried about poxy foxes". But isn't it possibly the reverse? People's concern about the policy, as well as the weird message it sent about the May Tory brand, was that it looked as if May was worried about making Parliamentary time to revisit an old, niche issue... i.e. a lot of them were asking "why is MAY worried about poxy foxes when the nation faces REAL issues?"
T'was my quip. A huge mis-step. There should have been a pat answer ready when the question was asked. Not going to be government business, if a Private Members Bill then I will vote against - and would expect all ministers to do the same (if they want to keep their job).
I mean, if she could afford to piss off the pensioners and the home-owners, she could afford to piss off the hunters too....
Kevin Foster looks like he outperformed, even for the Southwest region. His clear positioning on Brexit (Accepting we need to go) plus his anti-Hunt position helped I think. He's what is wanted in the Southwest I think - a liberal Conservative who accepts we're heading out of Europe.
Kevin had a great election - one of the best three in the SW and a long way into middle England too.
He also works his constituency very hard, much as a LibDem might. A few more Tory candidates would be in the House if they had followed his lead. He had also worked the seat very hard for the two years before he was elected in 2015. It will be novelty for Torbay not to be a targeted marginal next time around (whenever that is...).
If we're talking defections, then we should remember that there could be defections from Labour, by MPs from the sane wing of the party who will now see that Corbyn is cemented in. I don't think this is particularly likely - defections of any kind are rare - but it's not obvious that it's less likely than defections from the Tories.
If we're talking defections, then we should remember that there could be defections from Labour, by MPs from the sane wing of the party who will now see that Corbyn is cemented in. I don't think this is particularly likely - defections of any kind are rare - but it's not obvious that it's less likely than defections from the Tories.
Kate Hoey would be scenes. She clearly doesn't give a fuck and will probably not stand again.
Shortly after the referendum my daughter copied me on a memo she wrote for the Partners in her law firm on the implications of Brexit. She commented in passing that in the then apparently unlikely event that the UK changed its mind, it simply had to tell the EU so and in every likelihood the Article 50 letter would be shredded, and all would be as before. Nothing I have seen or heard since suggests to me she was wrong in this.
Article 50 is very specific: once invoked, it's a one-way trip. I suppose they could agree to a very long delay though, and then alter the treaties to allow it.
Ultimately it's a political decision rather than a legal one, so if the will is there, it could be revoked.
Hi Andrew. Ignore my previous post. I found her email of 7th July 2016, in which she wrote:
"Article 50 is not a one-way street. There is nothing specific in Article 50 to prevent a Member State from reversing its decision to withdraw in the course of the withdrawal negotiations. That said, there is nothing in Article 50 to specifically allow for it either. But Professor Wyatt said that it is in accordance with the general aim of the EU Treaties that people stay in rather than "rush out of the exit door". The legal analysis of the text of Article 50 suggests that you are entitled to 'change your mind'". Almost needless to say, the political consequences of doing so would be more complicated."
Please don't replicate these words elsewhere. She's a Lawyer, and will charge me if you do.
Shortly after the referendum my daughter copied me on a memo she wrote for the Partners in her law firm on the implications of Brexit. She commented in passing that in the then apparently unlikely event that the UK changed its mind, it simply had to tell the EU so and in every likelihood the Article 50 letter would be shredded, and all would be as before. Nothing I have seen or heard since suggests to me she was wrong in this.
Article 50 is very specific: once invoked, it's a one-way trip. I suppose they could agree to a very long delay though, and then alter the treaties to allow it.
Ultimately it's a political decision rather than a legal one, so if the will is there, it could be revoked.
A50 states that the withdrawal can be delayed if both sides agree, so Brexit could be prevented simply by the UK and the EU mutually agreeing to extend the A50 period to the year 3000
Shortly after the referendum my daughter copied me on a memo she wrote for the Partners in her law firm on the implications of Brexit. She commented in passing that in the then apparently unlikely event that the UK changed its mind, it simply had to tell the EU so and in every likelihood the Article 50 letter would be shredded, and all would be as before. Nothing I have seen or heard since suggests to me she was wrong in this.
Article 50 is very specific: once invoked, it's a one-way trip. I suppose they could agree to a very long delay though, and then alter the treaties to allow it.
Ultimately it's a political decision rather than a legal one, so if the will is there, it could be revoked.
That's not my understanding, Andrew, and if you like I will revisit my Daughter's paper. The gist of it was that the Eu wished to encourage membership and keep Nations in the club. It was therefore consistent to encourage dissidents to reconsider if they wished.
We're agreed about the political angle though.
According to the EU "Once triggered, can Article 50 be revoked?
It is up to the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Notification is a point of no return. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of notification."
So, it may be up to the other EU countries. This may explain the UK's current policy of irritating the EU to ensure there is no way back and that Brexit really does mean Brexit
Wollaston could lose to Labour, who came up markedly this time around from 14.1% to 26.8% and could come through a split LibDems/Tory vote.
There is very, very little chance of Labour winning in the South Hams. 27% was a fab result for them in Totnes... but it was barely half Woolaston's vote in a Remain (narrowly) constituency. It's largely a wealthy area, lots of retirees, few students.
I just don't see how they get from here to there. They've had superficially similar looking seats in the SW in recent times in Cambourne and South Dorset... but only superficially similar because those areas had really big areas of deprivation in a way Woolaston's seat doesn't... the Totnes Labour vote has a lot of well-heeled hippy types.
If we're talking defections, then we should remember that there could be defections from Labour, by MPs from the sane wing of the party who will now see that Corbyn is cemented in. I don't think this is particularly likely - defections of any kind are rare - but it's not obvious that it's less likely than defections from the Tories.
Kate Hoey would be scenes. She clearly doesn't give a fuck and will probably not stand again.
Kate Hoey is an idiosyncratic politician. Anti EU pro fox hunting but nearer to the Corbynistas on economics. She's a tough old bird and unless Labour backtrack on the EU I'm sure she'll stay put.
Had a thought - lots of annual pay changes take place in April and May, at the end of the financial year of many businesses.
If employees received low pay increases in May it would have fed into the 'things are wrong, change is needed' narrative.
I wasn't impressed to get news of my house insurance cover going up due to the Insurance Premium Tax going up on 1st June with the provider's letter arriving just before election day .... not big but unhelpful timing.....
Plus council tax.
I've just noticed that my bill has an extra 2% for 'adult social care precept'.
How much would that have needed to increase to remove the need for the 'dementia tax' ?
In Buckinghamshire Social Care (Adult and Children) takes over 60% of the County Council Budget. Under current arrangements this is due to increase to 80% in a few years time.
Current arrangements mean that people in residentail or nursing care pay for the bulk of the £1000 a week fee (apart from a small NHS contribution). Once you have less than £23,000 of welath left the council starts paying the care fees. Many councils allow you to defer payment until you di, using your home as security.
The Nation is going to hell in a handcart and people are worried about poxy foxes?!! Ffs.
I'm telling you now, it definitely cost the Tories votes.
It was her first big campaign misstep and a sign of things to come.
Someone here - I forget who - quipped a few months ago that Cameron had deTOXified the Tories, and May had deTOFFified them. It was clearly a step towards retoffification.
Also, PTP says, "the Nation is going to hell in a handcart and people are worried about poxy foxes". But isn't it possibly the reverse? People's concern about the policy, as well as the weird message it sent about the May Tory brand, was that it looked as if May was worried about making Parliamentary time to revisit an old, niche issue... i.e. a lot of them were asking "why is MAY worried about poxy foxes when the nation faces REAL issues?"
T'was my quip. A huge mis-step. There should have been a pat answer ready when the question was asked. Not going to be government business, if a Private Members Bill then I will vote against - and would expect all ministers to do the same (if they want to keep their job).
I mean, if she could afford to piss off the pensioners and the home-owners, she could afford to piss off the hunters too....
Kevin Foster looks like he outperformed, even for the Southwest region. His clear positioning on Brexit (Accepting we need to go) plus his anti-Hunt position helped I think. He's what is wanted in the Southwest I think - a liberal Conservative who accepts we're heading out of Europe.
Kevin had a great election - one of the best three in the SW and a long way into middle England too.
He also works his constituency very hard, much as a LibDem might. A few more Tory candidates would be in the House if they had followed his lead. He had also worked the seat very hard for the two years before he was elected in 2015. It will be novelty for Torbay not to be a targeted marginal next time around (whenever that is...).
I was at university with Kevin when he was on Coventry council and delivered leaflets with him and can confirm he was an excellent campaigner
Shortly after the referendum my daughter copied me on a memo she wrote for the Partners in her law firm on the implications of Brexit. She commented in passing that in the then apparently unlikely event that the UK changed its mind, it simply had to tell the EU so and in every likelihood the Article 50 letter would be shredded, and all would be as before. Nothing I have seen or heard since suggests to me she was wrong in this.
Article 50 is very specific: once invoked, it's a one-way trip. I suppose they could agree to a very long delay though, and then alter the treaties to allow it.
Ultimately it's a political decision rather than a legal one, so if the will is there, it could be revoked.
Hi Andrew. Ignore my previous post. I found her email of 7th July 2016, in which she wrote:
"Article 50 is not a one-way street. There is nothing specific in Article 50 to prevent a Member State from reversing its decision to withdraw in the course of the withdrawal negotiations. That said, there is nothing in Article 50 to specifically allow for it either. But Professor Wyatt said that it is in accordance with the general aim of the EU Treaties that people stay in rather than "rush out of the exit door". The legal analysis of the text of Article 50 suggests that you are entitled to 'change your mind'". Almost needless to say, the political consequences of doing so would be more complicated."
Please don't replicate these words elsewhere. She's a Lawyer, and will charge me if you do.
It's rather arguable.
If I were to criticise your daughter's reasoning it's that it doesn't give enough emphasise to the difference between common law on this side of the Channel and civil law drawing on the Roman traditions on the other.
Basically, UK courts are MUCH more likely than our neighbours to fill in the gaps in the absence of explicit statutory provision. So the absence of explicit provision for withdrawal of an Article 50 notice wouldn't trouble British judges terribly, but it would in most other European jurisdictions, who'd be more likely to say that the fact there's no explicit provision for withdrawal of notice means you can't withdraw it.
In practice, though, I think the politics would predominate and withdrawal of notice would be fudged through.
If we're going to undo Brexit, can we please undo a few other things and go back to Cameron and Osborne?
I'd raise a glass to that Richard, but sadly it ain't gonna happen.
Somewhere in Notting Hill David Cameron must be wistfully considering whether he should have stayed in the House of Commons a while longer.
Isn't it amazing? If he had just been able to put ego to one side and be a steady pair of hands over an issue that he had devolved to the general public anyway, we would have been so much better off.
Instead he had a crap in a paper bag on the doorstep of No10, set it alight and shouted "Fire" at Theresa May
The eurosceptics in the Tory Party would never have trusted him to negotiate Brexit and they would have tried to undermine him at every turn as they did with John Major. The long-term Brexiteers in the Tory party are total obsessives on the issue - they were even firing at Mrs May well before last Thursday.
The Nation is going to hell in a handcart and people are worried about poxy foxes?!! Ffs.
I'm telling you now, it definitely cost the Tories votes.
It was her first big campaign misstep and a sign of things to come.
Someone here - I forget who - quipped a few months ago that Cameron had deTOXified the Tories, and May had deTOFFified them. It was clearly a step towards retoffification.
Also, PTP says, "the Nation is going to hell in a handcart and people are worried about poxy foxes". But isn't it possibly the reverse? People's concern about the policy, as well as the weird message it sent about the May Tory brand, was that it looked as if May was worried about making Parliamentary time to revisit an old, niche issue... i.e. a lot of them were asking "why is MAY worried about poxy foxes when the nation faces REAL issues?"
T'was my quip. A huge mis-step. There should have been a pat answer ready when the question was asked. Not going to be government business, if a Private Members Bill then I will vote against - and would expect all ministers to do the same (if they want to keep their job).
I mean, if she could afford to piss off the pensioners and the home-owners, she could afford to piss off the hunters too....
Kevin Foster looks like he outperformed, even for the Southwest region. His clear positioning on Brexit (Accepting we need to go) plus his anti-Hunt position helped I think. He's what is wanted in the Southwest I think - a liberal Conservative who accepts we're heading out of Europe.
Kevin had a great election - one of the best three in the SW and a long way into middle England too.
He also works his constituency very hard, much as a LibDem might. A few more Tory candidates would be in the House if they had followed his lead. He had also worked the seat very hard for the two years before he was elected in 2015. It will be novelty for Torbay not to be a targeted marginal next time around (whenever that is...).
Just saw the big swing he got towards him. And it doesn't look like it has a huge rural hinterland either which makes the result for him even more amazing. Well done.
It is up to the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Notification is a point of no return. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of notification."
It's possible the above might be just a negotiating position rather than a firm belief. Some are actually worried that the UK might abuse the process, and just before the 2 year timeline revoke then re-invoke Article 50 to get another two years! Perhaps the whole issue might get sent to the ECJ to be settled before then - it's an ugly loose end after all.
If we're talking defections, then we should remember that there could be defections from Labour, by MPs from the sane wing of the party who will now see that Corbyn is cemented in. I don't think this is particularly likely - defections of any kind are rare - but it's not obvious that it's less likely than defections from the Tories.
Kate Hoey would be scenes. She clearly doesn't give a fuck and will probably not stand again.
Kate Hoey is an idiosyncratic politician. Anti EU pro fox hunting but nearer to the Corbynistas on economics. She's a tough old bird and unless Labour backtrack on the EU I'm sure she'll stay put.
If we're talking defections, then we should remember that there could be defections from Labour, by MPs from the sane wing of the party who will now see that Corbyn is cemented in. I don't think this is particularly likely - defections of any kind are rare - but it's not obvious that it's less likely than defections from the Tories.
Kate Hoey would be scenes. She clearly doesn't give a fuck and will probably not stand again.
Kate Hoey is an idiosyncratic politician. Anti EU pro fox hunting but nearer to the Corbynistas on economics. She's a tough old bird and unless Labour backtrack on the EU I'm sure she'll stay put.
Wollaston could lose to Labour, who came up markedly this time around from 14.1% to 26.8% and could come through a split LibDems/Tory vote.
There is very, very little chance of Labour winning in the South Hams. 27% was a fab result for them in Totnes... but it was barely half Woolaston's vote in a Remain (narrowly) constituency. It's largely a wealthy area, lots of retirees, few students.
I just don't see how they get from here to there. They've had superficially similar looking seats in the SW in recent times in Cambourne and South Dorset... but only superficially similar because those areas had really big areas of deprivation in a way Woolaston's seat doesn't... the Totnes Labour vote has a lot of well-heeled hippy types.
I remember people making comments like this about Canterbury....... the truth is if Labour can lose Glasgow then no seats are truly safe anymore.
If we're talking defections, then we should remember that there could be defections from Labour, by MPs from the sane wing of the party who will now see that Corbyn is cemented in. I don't think this is particularly likely - defections of any kind are rare - but it's not obvious that it's less likely than defections from the Tories.
Kate Hoey would be scenes. She clearly doesn't give a fuck and will probably not stand again.
Kate Hoey is an idiosyncratic politician. Anti EU pro fox hunting but nearer to the Corbynistas on economics. She's a tough old bird and unless Labour backtrack on the EU I'm sure she'll stay put.
Also a staunch Ulster unionist.
Indeed. I sometimes think that she and Lady Hermon should form a party of 2...
If we're going to undo Brexit, can we please undo a few other things and go back to Cameron and Osborne?
I'd raise a glass to that Richard, but sadly it ain't gonna happen.
Somewhere in Notting Hill David Cameron must be wistfully considering whether he should have stayed in the House of Commons a while longer.
Isn't it amazing? If he had just been able to put ego to one side and be a steady pair of hands over an issue that he had devolved to the general public anyway, we would have been so much better off.
Instead he had a crap in a paper bag on the doorstep of No10, set it alight and shouted "Fire" at Theresa May
The eurosceptics in the Tory Party would never have trusted him to negotiate Brexit and they would have tried to undermine him at every turn as they did with John Major. The long-term Brexiteers in the Tory party are total obsessives on the issue - they were even firing at Mrs May well before last Thursday.
Meeks is a fairly good prognosticator. The others on that list are invariably wrong but react as though their inaccurate predictions about Corbyn are surprising and newsworthy.
What's interesting about that - and this was a massive failure by the Conservatives - is that voters didn't much notice that Labour were planning to crash the public finances. Osborne would never have made that mistake.
Apparently Phil was itching to get on the airwaves day after day to trash all McDonnell's wheezes. But he was locked away by Nick Timothy, who regarded brand 'Theresa' as far more marketable than brand 'Conservative'.
It's a feeble Chancellor that can't break his way out of a locked wardrobe....
It is up to the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Notification is a point of no return. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of notification."
It's possible the above might be just a negotiating position rather than a firm belief. Some are actually worried that the UK might abuse the process, and just before the 2 year timeline revoke then re-invoke Article 50 to get another two years! Perhaps the whole issue might get sent to the ECJ to be settled before then - it's an ugly loose end after all.
But Beverley just posted a link to the Europa site that backs up what she said a few posts ago. I believe what she is saying is correct in law rather than just being the opinion of some EU commentators.
Shortly after the referendum my daughter copied me on a memo she wrote for the Partners in her law firm on the implications of Brexit. She commented in passing that in the then apparently unlikely event that the UK changed its mind, it simply had to tell the EU so and in every likelihood the Article 50 letter would be shredded, and all would be as before. Nothing I have seen or heard since suggests to me she was wrong in this.
Article 50 is very specific: once invoked, it's a one-way trip. I suppose they could agree to a very long delay though, and then alter the treaties to allow it.
Ultimately it's a political decision rather than a legal one, so if the will is there, it could be revoked.
Hi Andrew. Ignore my previous post. I found her email of 7th July 2016, in which she wrote:
"Article 50 is not a one-way street. There is nothing specific in Article 50 to prevent a Member State from reversing its decision to withdraw in the course of the withdrawal negotiations. That said, there is nothing in Article 50 to specifically allow for it either. But Professor Wyatt said that it is in accordance with the general aim of the EU Treaties that people stay in rather than "rush out of the exit door". The legal analysis of the text of Article 50 suggests that you are entitled to 'change your mind'". Almost needless to say, the political consequences of doing so would be more complicated."
Please don't replicate these words elsewhere. She's a Lawyer, and will charge me if you do.
It's rather arguable.
If I were to criticise your daughter's reasoning it's that it doesn't give enough emphasise to the difference between common law on this side of the Channel and civil law drawing on the Roman traditions on the other.
Basically, UK courts are MUCH more likely than our neighbours to fill in the gaps in the absence of explicit statutory provision. So the absence of explicit provision for withdrawal of an Article 50 notice wouldn't trouble British judges terribly, but it would in most other European jurisdictions, who'd be more likely to say that the fact there's no explicit provision for withdrawal of notice means you can't withdraw it.
In practice, though, I think the politics would predominate and withdrawal of notice would be fudged through.
It's all arguable, Sir N. How else would it be amongst Lawyers?
Anyway, there seems to be a PB consensus developing that if people want it to happen it will happen. So far I've heard Oui from France and Ja from Germany, so I think the chances of a request to withdraw the Article 50 notification succeeding are strong.
Who on the UK side would make such a request is of course a very different matter.
An unhelpful practice has developed of linking the provision of dementia care with its funding. This is simply an artefact of the current self-funding arrangement. We don't do this for other public services, e.g. we don't ask specifically how the fire service is funded, because we accept it is funded by general taxation. Dementia care is also a public service which is currently part-funded by general taxation, so why does every proposal to extend its coverage need to be justified by a specific tax to raise the money?
We are conflating two separate issues.
The first whether dementia care should be universal or means-tested. There is a debate to be had. My view is that one of the most important and effective businesses of government is risk-sharing. For example, it would be extremely expensive for each of us to defend our own homes from the risk of foreign invasion, so we socialise that defence. I view dementia as a similarly catastrophic risk which the public has very recently shown no appetite to assume. Therefore, I would share the risk through general taxation. But I accept this debate remains open.
The second issue is whether the young are paying too much of the total tax take than the old. Again, there is a debate to be had. Given that we tax primarily income, it is a strong proposition, especially when placed in the context of an economy which has seen rapid growth in the values of assets typically held by older, non-working people. If we agree the young should pay less and the old should pay more, the cleanest solution is to amend the general taxation system to tax earned income less and property wealth more.
It would make for a better politics if we delineated the issues more carefully.
Nobody pays tax or not based on their age. I think the elderly don't pay NI but that aside we pay based on what we are earning.
The percentage of tax paid by a graduate repaying a loan on a typical graduate starting salary is less now, including the cost of the loan, than what I paid 30 years ago (23% versus 27%).
They're not paying more tax than their elders either do or did unless they are earning more.
It is up to the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Notification is a point of no return. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of notification."
It's possible the above might be just a negotiating position rather than a firm belief. Some are actually worried that the UK might abuse the process, and just before the 2 year timeline revoke then re-invoke Article 50 to get another two years! Perhaps the whole issue might get sent to the ECJ to be settled before then - it's an ugly loose end after all.
But Beverley just posted a link to the Europa site that backs up what she said a few posts ago. I believe what she is saying is correct in law rather than just being the opinion of some EU commentators.
I would love to believe that A50 could be withdrawn, but sadly, even if it could be withdrawn I suspect that the headbangers make it impossible.
YouGov's figures are interesting that there is no significant class difference between the parties but there is a big educational difference - essentially, the higher your level of education, the more likely you are to vote Labour (49-32 for people with degrees, 33-55 for people with just GCSEs). You might expect that to be linked with class but evidently it's not, presumably because if you're wealthy but made your way without higher education you're more likely to be Tory (think ambitious entrepreneur) while if you're poor but well-educated the reverse (think dedicated schoolteacher).
All kinds of generalised value judgments are tempting and best avoided; mainly it's just interesting and helps understand how politics is moving.
If we're going to undo Brexit, can we please undo a few other things and go back to Cameron and Osborne?
I'd raise a glass to that Richard, but sadly it ain't gonna happen.
Somewhere in Notting Hill David Cameron must be wistfully considering whether he should have stayed in the House of Commons a while longer.
Isn't it amazing? If he had just been able to put ego to one side and be a steady pair of hands over an issue that he had devolved to the general public anyway, we would have been so much better off.
He had a crap in a paper bag on the doorstep of No10, set it alight and shouted "Fire" at Theresa May
He had to go last June. But if he were in Parliament right now he'd be forming the next government.
He shouldn't have nailed his colours to the mast that's for sure, but I don't really see why he 100% had to go. The vote to Leave threw everything into chaos, why create more?
Because Conservative Leavers didn't trust him to deliver Brexit. If he hadn't resigned, he would have been ousted anyway by a peasants' revolt from the backbenches.
Cameron was maniplulative, untrustworthy, slimey but increased the Tory vote in 2010 and in 2015.
An unhelpful practice has developed of linking the provision of dementia care with its funding. This is simply an artefact of the current self-funding arrangement. We don't do this for other public services, e.g. we don't ask specifically how the fire service is funded, because we accept it is funded by general taxation. Dementia care is also a public service which is currently part-funded by general taxation, so why does every proposal to extend its coverage need to be justified by a specific tax to raise the money?
We are conflating two separate issues.
The first whether dementia care should be universal or means-tested. There is a debate to be had. My view is that one of the most important and effective businesses of government is risk-sharing. For example, it would be extremely expensive for each of us to defend our own homes from the risk of foreign invasion, so we socialise that defence. I view dementia as a similarly catastrophic risk which the public has very recently shown no appetite to assume. Therefore, I would share the risk through general taxation. But I accept this debate remains open.
The second issue is whether the young are paying too much of the total tax take than the old. Again, there is a debate to be had. Given that we tax primarily income, it is a strong proposition, especially when placed in the context of an economy which has seen rapid growth in the values of assets typically held by older, non-working people. If we agree the young should pay less and the old should pay more, the cleanest solution is to amend the general taxation system to tax earned income less and property wealth more.
It would make for a better politics if we delineated the issues more carefully.
Nobody pays tax or not based on their age. I think the elderly don't pay NI but that aside we pay based on what we are earning.
The percentage of tax paid by a graduate repaying a loan on a typical graduate starting salary is less now, including the cost of the loan, than what I paid 30 years ago (23% versus 27%).
They're not paying more tax than their elders either do or did unless they are earning more.
Younger people will pay more tax over their lifetime because of the extra accumulated 1.5 trillion pounds of debt since 2010.
Government borrowing is the deferment of paying tax by the current generation to the next generation.
If we're going to undo Brexit, can we please undo a few other things and go back to Cameron and Osborne?
I'd raise a glass to that Richard, but sadly it ain't gonna happen.
Somewhere in Notting Hill David Cameron must be wistfully considering whether he should have stayed in the House of Commons a while longer.
Isn't it amazing? If he had just been able to put ego to one side and be a steady pair of hands over an issue that he had devolved to the general public anyway, we would have been so much better off.
He had a crap in a paper bag on the doorstep of No10, set it alight and shouted "Fire" at Theresa May
He had to go last June. But if he were in Parliament right now he'd be forming the next government.
He shouldn't have nailed his colours to the mast that's for sure, but I don't really see why he 100% had to go. The vote to Leave threw everything into chaos, why create more?
Because Conservative Leavers didn't trust him to deliver Brexit. If he hadn't resigned, he would have been ousted anyway by a peasants' revolt from the backbenches.
Cameron was maniplulative, untrustworthy, slimey but increased the Tory vote in 2010 and in 2015.
It was resign or face a leadership challenge, he decided to step down.
No clue if he misses it or not, he probably doesn't as he has a young family that he can now spend more time with. I think a lot of people in the party do miss him and I strongly suspect that sentiment will increase in the coming years. I think his reputation will be enhanced over time.
Mr. Surbiton, it's the reign of Her Majesty. And during that time we have, uniquely amongst all the nations of the globe, won the world cups of football, rugby and cricket.
An unhelpful practice has developed of linking the provision of dementia care with its funding. This is simply an artefact of the current self-funding arrangement. We don't do this for other public services, e.g. we don't ask specifically how the fire service is funded, because we accept it is funded by general taxation. Dementia care is also a public service which is currently part-funded by general taxation, so why does every proposal to extend its coverage need to be justified by a specific tax to raise the money?
We are conflating two separate issues.
The first whether dementia care should be The second issue is whether the young are paying too much of the total tax take than the old. Again, there is a debate to be had. Given that we tax primarily income, it is a strong proposition, especially when placed in the context of an economy which has seen rapid growth in the values of assets typically held by older, non-working people. If we agree the young should pay less and the old should pay more, the cleanest solution is to amend the general taxation system to tax earned income less and property wealth more.
It would make for a better politics if we delineated the issues more carefully.
Nobody pays tax or not based on their age. I think the elderly don't pay NI but that aside we pay based on what we are earning.
The percentage of tax paid by a graduate repaying a loan on a typical graduate starting salary is less now, including the cost of the loan, than what I paid 30 years ago (23% versus 27%).
They're not paying more tax than their elders either do or did unless they are earning more.
It would make for a better politics if we delineated the issues more carefully.
Nobody pays tax or not based on their age. I think the elderly don't pay NI but that aside we pay based on what we are earning.
The percentage of tax paid by a graduate repaying a loan on a typical graduate starting salary is less now, including the cost of the loan, than what I paid 30 years ago (23% versus 27%).
They're not paying more tax than their elders either do or did unless they are earning more.
Of course they are paying more tax than their elders do (assuming they are earning more than £21k) - namely an extra 9% marginal tax rate.
Getting rid of the NI exemption for pensioners (perhaps with a reduced rate to account for no longer contributing to the state pension) would be a fair way for them to contribute to social care costs.
Mr. Surbiton, it's the reign of Her Majesty. And during that time we have, uniquely amongst all the nations of the globe, won the world cups of football, rugby and cricket.
When did we win the cricket world cup? I thought that was never?
YouGov's figures are interesting that there is no significant class difference between the parties but there is a big educational difference - essentially, the higher your level of education, the more likely you are to vote Labour (49-32 for people with degrees, 33-55 for people with just GCSEs). You might expect that to be linked with class but evidently it's not, presumably because if you're wealthy but made your way without higher education you're more likely to be Tory (think ambitious entrepreneur) while if you're poor but well-educated the reverse (think dedicated schoolteacher).
All kinds of generalised value judgments are tempting and best avoided; mainly it's just interesting and helps understand how politics is moving.
Generational gap as well of course. But Tories should be worried labour now have a massive 20% lead with middle aged Britons. They need to close that, but with incomes falling 3% today it will be hard.
On the topic of sprinkler systems for high rise apartment buildings, I was dubious about whether it would be possible practically to retrofit systems in old buildings. Doing a quick search, at least one company claims to be able to provide 'boosted cold water supply' systems for as little as £400 per apartment - which in the context of this £10m refurbishment might have added around 5% to the cost. Here are case studies on their website: http://www.trianglesprinklersystems.co.uk/case-study
Of course it's way too early to say that an installed system would have made any difference to last night's tragic event (particularly as it's possible the problem lay with the external cladding) I also readily concede that I don't know how easy it might have been to fit such as system in this building, but it does cast further light on the general 'not enough resources' claims. In the context of a major refurbishment, such sums are not unaffordable.
Mr. Surbiton, it's the reign of Her Majesty. And during that time we have, uniquely amongst all the nations of the globe, won the world cups of football, rugby and cricket.
When did we win the cricket world cup? I thought that was never?
Mr. Surbiton, it's the reign of Her Majesty. And during that time we have, uniquely amongst all the nations of the globe, won the world cups of football, rugby and cricket.
When did we win the cricket world cup? I thought that was never?
Rule Britannia! Inventing every sport worth playing, then giving Johnny Foreigner a damned good thrashing [before kindly letting them win for several decades subsequently]!
Nobody pays tax or not based on their age. I think the elderly don't pay NI but that aside we pay based on what we are earning.
NI is massive.
Yes, it's utterly bizarre that oldies who still working don't pay it. (The employer does pay the Employer's Contribution, though).
The original justification related to Unemployment Benefit (now JSA), which pensioners aren't eligible for.
Harmonising tax and NI would be a huge simplification and would bring in a lot of money, even if pensioners were given an age-related discount (or, more fair, return to an extra age-related allowance). But of course no-one likes paying more tax and it would push the basic tax rate over 30%, which looks poor even if it didn't cost people any more.
carried out by the Ipswich Star this week suggests that 34 per cent of people in the East Anglian town intend to vote for Labour compared to just 27 per cent backing the Tories
Rule Britannia! Inventing every sport worth playing, then giving Johnny Foreigner a damned good thrashing [before kindly letting them win for several decades subsequently]!
As an Englishman, winning a cricket world cup isn't as satisfying as winning The Ashes.
Mr. Surbiton, it's the reign of Her Majesty. And during that time we have, uniquely amongst all the nations of the globe, won the world cups of football, rugby and cricket.
When did we win the cricket world cup? I thought that was never?
I still relive the first Ashes test of the 2009 series as Monty Panesar and James Anderson batted to draw the test match, every dot ball was cheered like winning a game.
On the topic of sprinkler systems for high rise apartment buildings, I was dubious about whether it would be possible practically to retrofit systems in old buildings. Doing a quick search, at least one company claims to be able to provide 'boosted cold water supply' systems for as little as £400 per apartment - which in the context of this £10m refurbishment might have added around 5% to the cost. Here are case studies on their website: http://www.trianglesprinklersystems.co.uk/case-study
Of course it's way too early to say that an installed system would have made any difference to last night's tragic event (particularly as it's possible the problem lay with the external cladding) I also readily concede that I don't know how easy it might have been to fit such as system in this building, but it does cast further light on the general 'not enough resources' claims. In the context of a major refurbishment, such sums are not unaffordable.
One of the interesting points I heard this afternoon was that the fire service were delayed reaching the last few floors at the top because of a fractured gas main. Surely if that is correct, it would be better to have only electrical power supplies to blocks of flats rather than gas supplies?
Comments
If employees received low pay increases in May it would have fed into the 'things are wrong, change is needed' narrative.
I mean, if she could afford to piss off the pensioners and the home-owners, she could afford to piss off the hunters too....
TSE any ideas.....
It's not just a stand on principle, with the prospect that your new party might do well against your old one next time, it's signing the death warrant for old friends - almost certainly putting them out of a job in 2018 (say) rather than possibly slightly contributing to their losing in 2022. Taverne defected from a party out of power. Carswell defected from a Coalition that was in no danger of falling as a result.
It does put a different complexion on it. It's hard to wield the axe in such a cold and immediate way, even if you've had a falling out.
Ultimately it's a political decision rather than a legal one, so if the will is there, it could be revoked.
He's what is wanted in the Southwest I think - a liberal Conservative who accepts we're heading out of Europe.
I've just noticed that my bill has an extra 2% for 'adult social care precept'.
How much would that have needed to increase to remove the need for the 'dementia tax' ?
Woodward is not exactly a loved figure of the socialist movement, but he probably had a better career out of it than he would had he stayed put.
Emma Nicholson (who recently went back to the Tories!) was an MEP and got a peerage from the Lib Dems, whereas she'd almost certainly have lost her marginal seat to the Lib Dems in 1997 and slid into obscurity.
The SDP project obviously failed, but it's not clear that the key protagonists would've been at the heart of the New Labour project 15 years later anyway, and they've had interesting enough careers since. Then there are defectors like Vince Cable - maybe he'd have prospered in Labour in the 1980s, maybe not.
Okay, so recent defectors haven't risen to PM or whatever. But was Shaun Woodward ever likely to do that anyway?
We're agreed about the political angle though.
Fox-hunters themselves will vote Conservative by default, so there is no or little electoral upside from re-legalising the hunt.
But in "semi-rural" areas - rural towns and large villages with a high proportion of incomers - it is absolutely toxic. It's seen as siding with a privileged and out-of-touch elite at the expense of the real problems the countryside has. Hearing that the Conservatives will re-legalise hunting when your rural bus subsidies have been withdrawn is a very strong signal that the Conservatives' priorities are different from your own.
I am sure it will have lost our Conservative MP votes, though he was never in danger of not being re-elected.
(Footnote: I grew up in the heart of fox-hunting country and went to a public school there. All the pupils in our year, save one, were vehemently against hunting. And that's at a public school for goodness' sake!)
He also works his constituency very hard, much as a LibDem might. A few more Tory candidates would be in the House if they had followed his lead. He had also worked the seat very hard for the two years before he was elected in 2015. It will be novelty for Torbay not to be a targeted marginal next time around (whenever that is...).
"Article 50 is not a one-way street. There is nothing specific in Article 50 to prevent a Member State from reversing its decision to withdraw in the course of the withdrawal negotiations. That said, there is nothing in Article 50 to specifically allow for it either. But Professor Wyatt said that it is in accordance with the general aim of the EU Treaties that people stay in rather than "rush out of the exit door". The legal analysis of the text of Article 50 suggests that you are entitled to 'change your mind'". Almost needless to say, the political consequences of doing so would be more complicated."
Please don't replicate these words elsewhere. She's a Lawyer, and will charge me if you do.
It is up to the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Notification is a point of no return. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of notification."
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-17-648_en.htm
So, it may be up to the other EU countries. This may explain the UK's current policy of irritating the EU to ensure there is no way back and that Brexit really does mean Brexit
I just don't see how they get from here to there. They've had superficially similar looking seats in the SW in recent times in Cambourne and South Dorset... but only superficially similar because those areas had really big areas of deprivation in a way Woolaston's seat doesn't... the Totnes Labour vote has a lot of well-heeled hippy types.
Did Theresa May coach the England cricket team for this match?
Current arrangements mean that people in residentail or nursing care pay for the bulk of the £1000 a week fee (apart from a small NHS contribution). Once you have less than £23,000 of welath left the council starts paying the care fees. Many councils allow you to defer payment until you di, using your home as security.
You've made this week's Private Eye
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/875016597714468864
If I were to criticise your daughter's reasoning it's that it doesn't give enough emphasise to the difference between common law on this side of the Channel and civil law drawing on the Roman traditions on the other.
Basically, UK courts are MUCH more likely than our neighbours to fill in the gaps in the absence of explicit statutory provision. So the absence of explicit provision for withdrawal of an Article 50 notice wouldn't trouble British judges terribly, but it would in most other European jurisdictions, who'd be more likely to say that the fact there's no explicit provision for withdrawal of notice means you can't withdraw it.
In practice, though, I think the politics would predominate and withdrawal of notice would be fudged through.
Oh, and I've just become the Jack Sparrow of political bettors.
Particularly after that missed stumping.
https://twitter.com/aidankerrtweets/status/874978402675150848
Anyway, there seems to be a PB consensus developing that if people want it to happen it will happen. So far I've heard Oui from France and Ja from Germany, so I think the chances of a request to withdraw the Article 50 notification succeeding are strong.
Who on the UK side would make such a request is of course a very different matter.
The percentage of tax paid by a graduate repaying a loan on a typical graduate starting salary is less now, including the cost of the loan, than what I paid 30 years ago (23% versus 27%).
They're not paying more tax than their elders either do or did unless they are earning more.
Winter Brexit is coming!
All kinds of generalised value judgments are tempting and best avoided; mainly it's just interesting and helps understand how politics is moving.
I know they're crazy, but that would be a tough sell, even for them...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/thousands-healthy-foxhounds---including-6061265
Government borrowing is the deferment of paying tax by the current generation to the next generation.
No clue if he misses it or not, he probably doesn't as he has a young family that he can now spend more time with. I think a lot of people in the party do miss him and I strongly suspect that sentiment will increase in the coming years. I think his reputation will be enhanced over time.
Getting rid of the NI exemption for pensioners (perhaps with a reduced rate to account for no longer contributing to the state pension) would be a fair way for them to contribute to social care costs.
Doing a quick search, at least one company claims to be able to provide 'boosted cold water supply' systems for as little as £400 per apartment - which in the context of this £10m refurbishment might have added around 5% to the cost.
Here are case studies on their website:
http://www.trianglesprinklersystems.co.uk/case-study
Of course it's way too early to say that an installed system would have made any difference to last night's tragic event (particularly as it's possible the problem lay with the external cladding)
I also readily concede that I don't know how easy it might have been to fit such as system in this building, but it does cast further light on the general 'not enough resources' claims. In the context of a major refurbishment, such sums are not unaffordable.
Well, by itself the rugby and football titles are uniquely both won by us.
All under a Labour government ....
Rule Britannia! Inventing every sport worth playing, then giving Johnny Foreigner a damned good thrashing [before kindly letting them win for several decades subsequently]!
Harmonising tax and NI would be a huge simplification and would bring in a lot of money, even if pensioners were given an age-related discount (or, more fair, return to an extra age-related allowance). But of course no-one likes paying more tax and it would push the basic tax rate over 30%, which looks poor even if it didn't cost people any more.
Though the Scots might have managed it in the 70s and 80s.
Being a Scottish football and rugby fan must be a painful experience.
It's the hope that kills you.
That really does give me the horn.
Edited extra bit: that said, even though I don't watch Ashes, seeing glum Australian crickets on the news is delightful.
I still relive the first Ashes test of the 2009 series as Monty Panesar and James Anderson batted to draw the test match, every dot ball was cheered like winning a game.
It was slow, it was agonising, it was unmissable.