I agree with Baron Bird that we need to return to public bathing in the cities through the creation of modern water-efficient public baths in the inner cities with supervised injection facilities nearby.Cleanliness may not be next to godliness but it smells better and reduces the risk of TB and other nasties.
It's good to see that absolute nonsense of the No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal rhetoric being quietly buried today.
As a businessman do you accept a bad deal which loses you money or politely say 'no thanks' ?
As a businessman I would not be in this situation in the first place. But to answer your question, this is not a negotiation about a deal between two parties who can walk away to the status quo.
There was never a status quo - it was either EverCloserUnion or Leave.
And that is where Britain's EU policy went wrong - we pretended that there was a third way when there wasn't.
To the extent that a third way existed, we had it, and Brexiteers will come to regret throwing it away.
I've started to think that the situation we had will be looked back on with increasing fondness over the years. But thrown it away we certainly have.
If Scotland had voted 52/48 for independence, would that result have been accepted, or would political and business leaders be scrabbling to prevent it?
Independence is much easier to deliver than Brexit because at the heart of it is something tangible: a transfer of sovereignty. Brexit does not involve a transfer of sovereignty, merely a diminution of the level of integration between sovereign entities.
If Scotland had voted 52/48 for independence, would that result have been accepted, or would political and business leaders be scrabbling to prevent it?
Independence is much easier to deliver than Brexit because at the heart of it is something tangible: a transfer of sovereignty. Brexit does not involve a transfer of sovereignty, merely a diminution of the level of integration between sovereign entities.
Paging Richard Tyndall - time to make your sovereignty points again. Those with their finger in their ears don't seem to have heard it...
Because those points are complete bullshit is why.
"There have already been two. What's your objection to a third? "
For once, I totally agree. One in 1975, one in 2016 ... so the next in 2057? Will that suit?
Far fairer to proportion the gap between the referendums to the decisiveness of the outcome. By my reckoning the next one would then be due in a few years. The problem with the 2015 ref was that it was narrow and the winning outcome was open to a number of outcomes. The 1975 ref was overwhelming and unambivlent
Fine, I accept this. That is why there will never be a deal. It does not, however, mean that the UK was wrong to vote leave. It is very possible that the economic effects of leaving without a deal will be negligible in the short run and in the long run highly positive. I note that most of those who scream 'we cannot have no deal' are not able to articulate why not - when people claim something is so obvious that it needs no explanation it usually means that they don't know the arguments and don't want to have to be forced to make one.
The evidence is that the establishment of the SM had virtually no impact on European trade and that the countries that have increased their trade the most with the EU since then are split pretty evenly between WTO and SM members.
What is likely to be a problem is the drop in confidence caused by the disappointed remainers proclaiming economic armageddon.
Again, what is their incentive to make life easy for us? The newer members will never countenance some kind of second-class status for their citizens.
It is in the overwhelming existential interest of the EU to make leaving as expensive and painful for the UK as possible, even at the cost of a minor temporary economic hit to the remaining members. Too many of my fellow Brexiteers refuse to believe this, but it is true.
The question, then, is what does the Conservative Party stand for?
Labour quite clearly has an ideology and an agenda. The Lib Dems are a single issue party now. Or possibly a protest party for social liberals if the Tories shack up with the DUP.
If the Conservatives aren't the party of low taxes, fewer regulations, a smaller state - does it revert back to one nation Toryism, which really is just Keynesianism with a bit of social conservatism added on? Who does that appeal to? It's effectively ceding the argument to Labour who offer a bolder and more radical manifesto. Tories reduced to a party that wants to meddle and tinker with the economy, but only a little bit.
Actually most voters want neither Corbyn Old Labour style socialism nor Thatcherite neoliberalism but a government which can manage the economy well, ensure economic growth and a balanced budget but also ensure public services get the investment they need. That is what Blair and to some extent Major and Cameron understood and the Tories need to get back to it
Does anyone NOT know that that is the real London? It's the same in any city in the country, and most large towns. Those Albanian car washers have to live somewhere.
What Inner London lacks, compared to other urban areas, are moderately well off professional people, the lower middle classes, and skilled working classes. The gap between rich and poor is stark and in your face.
Inner London is now like New York City, both inhabited almost entirely by the rich in the expensive private housing and the poor in the public housing, the middle class have all moved to the outer suburbs or the surrounding counties
The question, then, is what does the Conservative Party stand for?
Labour quite clearly has an ideology and an agenda. The Lib Dems are a single issue party now. Or possibly a protest party for social liberals if the Tories shack up with the DUP.
If the Conservatives aren't the party of low taxes, fewer regulations, a smaller state - does it revert back to one nation Toryism, which really is just Keynesianism with a bit of social conservatism added on? Who does that appeal to? It's effectively ceding the argument to Labour who offer a bolder and more radical manifesto. Tories reduced to a party that wants to meddle and tinker with the economy, but only a little bit.
Actually most voters want neither Corbyn Old Labour style socialism nor Thatcherite neoliberalism but a government which can manage the economy well, ensure economic growth and a balanced budget but also ensure public services get the investment they need. That is what Blair and to some extent Major and Cameron understood and the Tories need to get back to it
You're on the money.
Although I wonder to what extent Cameron understood this, given Osborne's chancellorship....
The question, then, is what does the Conservative Party stand for?
Labour quite clearly has an ideology and an agenda. The Lib Dems are a single issue party now. Or possibly a protest party for social liberals if the Tories shack up with the DUP.
If the Conservatives aren't the party of low taxes, fewer regulations, a smaller state - does it revert back to one nation Toryism, which really is just Keynesianism with a bit of social conservatism added on? Who does that appeal to? It's effectively ceding the argument to Labour who offer a bolder and more radical manifesto. Tories reduced to a party that wants to meddle and tinker with the economy, but only a little bit.
Not sure I agree about Labour - the ideology of members is a long way from the mainstream voter - even the other week they were a long way from a majority when the circumstances much favoured them. Too much ideology is not often a recipe for electoral success in the UK.
The question, then, is what does the Conservative Party stand for?
Labour quite clearly has an ideology and an agenda. The Lib Dems are a single issue party now. Or possibly a protest party for social liberals if the Tories shack up with the DUP.
If the Conservatives aren't the party of low taxes, fewer regulations, a smaller state - does it revert back to one nation Toryism, which really is just Keynesianism with a bit of social conservatism added on? Who does that appeal to? It's effectively ceding the argument to Labour who offer a bolder and more radical manifesto. Tories reduced to a party that wants to meddle and tinker with the economy, but only a little bit.
Actually most voters want neither Corbyn Old Labour style socialism nor Thatcherite neoliberalism but a government which can manage the economy well, ensure economic growth and a balanced budget but also ensure public services get the investment they need. That is what Blair and to some extent Major and Cameron understood and the Tories need to get back to it
You're on the money.
Although I wonder to what extent Cameron understood this, given Osborne's chancellorship....
I think Osborne was always more in the Thatcherite neoliberal camp on economics, albeit also a social liberal
Does anyone NOT know that that is the real London? It's the same in any city in the country, and most large towns. Those Albanian car washers have to live somewhere.
What Inner London lacks, compared to other urban areas, are moderately well off professional people, the lower middle classes, and skilled working classes. The gap between rich and poor is stark and in your face.
Inner London is now egg timer shaped - some at the top, some at the bottom, very little in the middle.
Britain, as a whole, is egg shaped with the bigger end at the bottom.
Hi all. On betfair you can back that the next govt is Con minority at 1.1 - so put £100 on to win £10 within say 2 weeks. They will settle when the Queen's speech is passed. Given that any other govt (i.e. a Con led coalition or Corbyn successfully forms some sort of govt instead) seems vanishingly unlikely and that the market rules say it will be voided (i.e. no loss) if all goes pear and there is no govt formed that can pass a QS, thus another GE, is this not (if one has the funds and the nerve) close to simply buying money? Or am I missing the big catch?
Apparently Corbyn and MacDonald are going against labour policy passed in sept last year which says if the deal is not in the best interest of the country remaing should be an option either through parliament or a referendum...source mike gaps
Apparently Corbyn and MacDonald are going against labour policy passed in sept last year which says if the deal is not in the best interest of the country remaing should be an option either through parliament or a referendum...source mike gaps
At some point Labour's raft of remainer voters are going to wake up and realise that their leader is a long-term Brexiteer, and has been his entire political career.
If the LibDems were awake they would have exploited that in the election.
Hi all. On betfair you can back that the next govt is Con minority at 1.1 - so put £100 on to win £10 within say 2 weeks. They will settle when the Queen's speech is passed. Given that any other govt (i.e. a Con led coalition or Corbyn successfully forms some sort of govt instead) seems vanishingly unlikely and that the market rules say it will be voided (i.e. no loss) if all goes pear and there is no govt formed that can pass a QS, thus another GE, is this not (if one has the funds and the nerve) close to simply buying money? Or am I missing the big catch?
Tory majority was supposed to be free money a couple weeks ago.
Imagine a Corbyn government (and I am a Labour voter) following an election in which he tells us that all the unfairnessses and injustices in society can be redressed simply by putting corporation tax up to the level it was on under Gordon Brown, and you can imagine the disappointment that is going to follow at the failures and dashed hopes he will inevitably bring.
More or Less GE special on R4 right now. Youth turnout, new boundaries, majority sizes, crime figures, MP diversity, closeness of results discussed. Worth checking out on I player.
Imagine a Corbyn government (and I am a Labour voter) following an election in which he tells us that all the unfairnessses and injustices in society can be redressed simply by putting corporation tax up to the level it was on under Gordon Brown, and you can imagine the disappointment that is going to follow at the failures and dashed hopes he will inevitably bring.
The gap between Labour promises and Labour reality, according to the IFS, is about £10 billion, right? So that is several hundred pounds per household of disappointment. Oops!
Imagine a Corbyn government (and I am a Labour voter) following an election in which he tells us that all the unfairnessses and injustices in society can be redressed simply by putting corporation tax up to the level it was on under Gordon Brown, and you can imagine the disappointment that is going to follow at the failures and dashed hopes he will inevitably bring.
The Problem is he and his supporters relay believe it, so when it Utopia does not arrive, as in Venezuela, they will conclude it must be because of sabators and traturs, and will start a campane against them, small things at first, controls on the press, a few more nationalizations hear and there, and then it will get worse, whole-sale nationalization in the steal of Zimbabwe farm invasions, and using the courts to cancel elections. I am scared, V scared, and the worst of it is that idiot Teresa May is supposed to be the the woman to stop this.
I agree. The events of the last 10 days have reconnected me to a far more left wing view of the world than I had allowed myself for a long time. There is no point in us going round and round on stuff, but I do believe that it would be wrong to assume that a 40% share of the vote for Labour all of a sudden means that close to 13 million Brits have been won over by the party's agenda. I do not believe, for example, that Remainy Warwick and Leamington turned red because voters here have embraced Brexit and full-blooded socialism. My view is that to keep the votes it has won, Labour has to show that it is a broad church. That will mean Corbyn and others reaching out. To my mind it's a really good test of just how serious they are about winning next time.
I agree with that too. But, although I have a lot of friends on the centre-right of the party, I think the test is more whether both opposition and the preparation of policies for government are conducted sensibly, rather than whether X or Y are brought back to the Shadow Cabinet. I'd have liked to see Yvette back in there, for instance, but I think her current role does give her a lot of scope, and I'm more interested in what Home Affairs policy is than who's fronting it.
We are definitely at the start of a realignment of politics, I fully agree with that.
But far from this being the end of Neo-Liberalism, I think it is its down, or at least rebirth.
The expression 'Neo-Liberalism' has been used as an insult by populists, in an attempt to keep us down, classical Liberals, or Libertarians, as those of us who understand the philosophy prefer to be called, is growing, and growing on a wide front, Macron's expected victory in France today is its best example yet.
I would highly recommend this video from the IEA about the their perception of the realignment.
If Scotland had voted 52/48 for independence, would that result have been accepted, or would political and business leaders be scrabbling to prevent it?
Good question.
I think though that Independence Means Independence as opposed to Brexit which means a different thing depending on who you ask so would be vastly harder to derail.
I could see many of the same arguments being made:-
1. The SNP lied about the benefits and costs of independence, 2. The vote was won on the backs of the poor and uneducated, who are easily manipulated by unscrupulous people, 3. There was no clear idea what independence entailed, 4. The country is divided, given that Edinburgh, Lothian, the Borders, the North East all voted to Remain, 5. 52% is too small a lead to make such a momentous change, 6. People will change their minds once they experience economic hardship,
Rinse and repeat.
3. wouldn't work - the Scottish Government published a hugely detailed white paper or similar well in advance of the referendum.
ROTHFLMAO - I think I still have a copy somewhere, it actually makes May's manifesto look half way intelligent....
He's high on his own supply. We might well be close to peak Corbyn. Sooner or later he will need compliance from the Labour right. Now was the time to be inclusive or at least conciliatory on his terms. He's missing his chance.
I don't think he's really into revenge (is anyone still talking reselections?) but he's very much into sticking by friends. Every appointment of a centrist involves sacking someone who stuck by him when virtually nobody else did. He finds it difficult. I agree that he needs to being himself to do it, a bit.
You don't think that was gratuitously rude to Yvette Cooper?
In Harry Cole's summarised version, yes, it would have been. But my understanding is that he was replying to a wider question - wouldn't he be widening his team to include others, like Yvette? It would have been more precise and more elegant to say "Yvette hasn't been brought in this time although she has significant responsibility in her current role, but we will be extending responsibility to others as we fill all the posts." But I don't think it was intended as a snub to her.
It's not decided which parties will get which Select Committee chairs yet is it? There's no guarantee that Cooper will chair Home Affairs or Benn Brexit.
Comments
"Conservatives have a new nickname for Theresa May: The Caretaker Prime Minister."
I've started to think that the situation we had will be looked back on with increasing fondness over the years. But thrown it away we certainly have.
Far fairer to proportion the gap between the referendums to the decisiveness of the outcome. By my reckoning the next one would then be due in a few years. The problem with the 2015 ref was that it was narrow and the winning outcome was open to a number of outcomes. The 1975 ref was overwhelming and unambivlent
The evidence is that the establishment of the SM had virtually no impact on European trade and that the countries that have increased their trade the most with the EU since then are split pretty evenly between WTO and SM members.
What is likely to be a problem is the drop in confidence caused by the disappointed remainers proclaiming economic armageddon.
I'd actually don't think Germany are neo-liberal.
Neo-liberalism is really the Anglo-American form of capitalism post-Thatcher and Reagan.
@jonny83 Socially liberal yes.
Although I wonder to what extent Cameron understood this, given Osborne's chancellorship....
Britain, as a whole, is egg shaped with the bigger end at the bottom.
The whole thing is Shakespearean.
https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/873344025855746048
Don't spend this time of crisis in permanent hubristic mode. Hubrism was TMay's downfall; Corbyn shouldn't let it be his.
If the LibDems were awake they would have exploited that in the election.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/18/jeremy-corbyn-calls-supporters-occupy-empty-homes-help-victims/amp/
But far from this being the end of Neo-Liberalism, I think it is its down, or at least rebirth.
The expression 'Neo-Liberalism' has been used as an insult by populists, in an attempt to keep us down, classical Liberals, or Libertarians, as those of us who understand the philosophy prefer to be called, is growing, and growing on a wide front, Macron's expected victory in France today is its best example yet.
I would highly recommend this video from the IEA about the their perception of the realignment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5OlkZ968xM
NEW THREAD