When Osborne became Chancellor, in contrast, he inherited the largest deficit of any major economy, an absolutely humoungous over-spend:
....and he then proceeded to spray the rich and big businesses with tax cuts, even while cutting services for normal people.
He then proceeded to increase the tax take from the rich and from business taxes very substantially, amazingly without increasing unemployment. An inconvenient truth for the Left, of course, but a truth nonetheless.
Boris's problem isn't being a wanker. It's that being all things to all people wouldn't work as pm.
Tony Blair pulled it off for around eight years as LOTO and PM...
Blair managed to have a broad appeal. Boris has a relatively narrow appeal which is tailored to match whoever he happens to be speaking to at that moment
I think at this point it's probably safe to assume pretty much any public building with cladding will be combustible...
You also have to wonder what tests are being applied. Unless EVERY authority deliberately fitted sub-standard panels you would expect at least one panel somewhere to meet the required standard and pass the tests.
Of course, the other caveat is that perhaps the panels met the required standards at the time of fitting. Standards do change over time.
I think at this point it's probably safe to assume pretty much any public building with cladding will be combustible...
Not in Scotland for some reason - apparently no council or social housing owned property is clad in the bad stuff of the council's that have reported.
Although it does appear to be in use elsewhere in Scotland. What we don't seem to have any handle on is how much of it is used in private / commercial buildings.
I see Jezza is still pushing the government are murderers because cuts caused Grenfell. I know he is a bit thick, but he knows this is untrue. It is pretty damn disgraceful to be pushing "fake news" like this over such a tragedy.
They are genuine issues here, but he redevelopment of those flats was not done on the cheap, and we know that the panels specs that were on all the plans were not the ones fitted.
When Osborne became Chancellor, in contrast, he inherited the largest deficit of any major economy, an absolutely humoungous over-spend:
....and he then proceeded to spray the rich and big businesses with tax cuts, even while cutting services for normal people.
He then proceeded to increase the tax take from the rich and from business taxes very substantially, amazingly without increasing unemployment. An inconvenient truth for the Left, of course, but a truth nonetheless.
As I keep saying, you PBTories have no right to give out lectures on "fantasy economics" if you seriously think lowering tax rates results in increased tax revenues.
To the average member of the public, that argument would seem just as nonsensical and counter-intuitive as the argument that increasing public spending results in lower budget deficits.
Radical right policies on criminal justice are very popular.
For example, this morning's NatSocCen survey shows very big majorities in favour of random stop and search, and indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects.
Up to a point!
The social attitudes survey also shows social conservatismin long term decline, for example attitudes to abortion and homosexuality are now nearly identical in self identified Christians and the general population.
There is a very good chance that the retired Talibanites of Brexit will be washed away within another generation, by a generation much more happy with the modern world:
Even Patel now takes a relatively tolerant approach to homosexuality and abortion (though on abortion the voters still generally do not want the time limit reduced), where she is tough is on law and order, national security and immigration, which is exactly where the average British voter wants a tougher line too
But is she not also a Thatcherite? The same survey showed the public are tired of austerity and want a bigger state.
The party that can combine social liberalism, high public spending, and being tough on law and order, will be well placed. Most left wing parties are seen as soft on point 3, centre right parties as weak on point 2, and radical right parties weak on point 1.
I'd not seen that before. It surely rules her out of any future leadership hopes.
If being in favour of capital punishment was a bar to being PM the Blessed Margaret would never have been Prime Minister...
As long as any leader maintains the position of Parliament deciding on a free vote (which effectively rules out the possibility of it ever being re-introduced) why should someone's personal view on capital punishment rule them out from ever being PM?
Things have moved on in society since Maggie's day, the electorate is more socially liberal than then. I think that she is less likely to be chosen by the Tories as a leader because of her views on the death penalty. Also you saw how Hislop demolished her in that clip?
I see Jezza is still pushing the government are murderers because cuts caused Grenfell. I know he is a bit thick, but he knows this is untrue.
He obviously doesn't agree with Nick Palmer that negative campaigns don't work, and indeed is not the slightest bit troubled by considerations of even the vaguest connection with truth.
I see Jezza is still pushing the government are murderers because cuts caused Grenfell. I know he is a bit thick, but he knows this is untrue. It is pretty damn disgraceful to be pushing "fake news" like this over such a tragedy.
Were you similarly outraged when the Tories tried to blame Labour for the tragedy in Mid-Staffs hospitals?
May pointed out the cladding program started under Blair
One problem that Tories have is that people see there's a huge difference between new labour and Corbyn, so he doesn't have their baggage. When Milliband attacked the Tories, very often they could respond with "You guys didn't do any better" or "This is just a continuation of your...". When they try it now, it falls completely flat. It possibly even helps Corbyn: new labour are just another part of the "establishment" that his voters rebel against.
When Osborne became Chancellor, in contrast, he inherited the largest deficit of any major economy, an absolutely humoungous over-spend:
....and he then proceeded to spray the rich and big businesses with tax cuts, even while cutting services for normal people.
He then proceeded to increase the tax take from the rich and from business taxes very substantially, amazingly without increasing unemployment. An inconvenient truth for the Left, of course, but a truth nonetheless.
As I keep saying, you PBTories have no right to give out lectures on "fantasy economics" if you seriously think lowering tax rates results in increased tax revenues.
To the average member of the public, that argument would seem just as nonsensical and counter-intuitive as the argument that increasing public spending results in lower budget deficits.
When Osborne became Chancellor, in contrast, he inherited the largest deficit of any major economy, an absolutely humoungous over-spend:
....and he then proceeded to spray the rich and big businesses with tax cuts, even while cutting services for normal people.
He then proceeded to increase the tax take from the rich and from business taxes very substantially, amazingly without increasing unemployment. An inconvenient truth for the Left, of course, but a truth nonetheless.
As I keep saying, you PBTories have no right to give out lectures on "fantasy economics" if you seriously think lowering tax rates results in increased tax revenues.
To the average member of the public, that argument would seem just as nonsensical and counter-intuitive as the argument that increasing public spending results in lower budget deficits.
Clearly you are as ill informed as most of the public on economic matters.
I see Jezza is still pushing the government are murderers because cuts caused Grenfell. I know he is a bit thick, but he knows this is untrue. It is pretty damn disgraceful to be pushing "fake news" like this over such a tragedy.
Were you similarly outraged when the Tories tried to blame Labour for the tragedy in Mid-Staffs hospitals?
Did they say it was cuts that caused it? And a lot of the anger was over the cover up and denials. Despite the best attempts of the conspiracy loons, it doesn't appear that the government here have done anything but gone out of their way to keep the public informed that there is clearly a very wide issue here.
We don't know the exact reasons why in this case, but it seems there is big issue with building regs in regards to these panels, not cuts.
As I keep saying, you PBTories have no right to give out lectures on "fantasy economics" if you seriously think lowering tax rates results in increased tax revenues.
To the average member of the public, that argument would seem just as nonsensical and counter-intuitive as the argument that increasing public spending results in lower budget deficits.
Nonetheless, the fact still remains that the tax take from business and the rich went up, not down, and very substantially so, under Osborne. Therefore, irrespective of your opinion, he was clearly doing something right.
When Osborne became Chancellor, in contrast, he inherited the largest deficit of any major economy, an absolutely humoungous over-spend:
....and he then proceeded to spray the rich and big businesses with tax cuts, even while cutting services for normal people.
He then proceeded to increase the tax take from the rich and from business taxes very substantially, amazingly without increasing unemployment. An inconvenient truth for the Left, of course, but a truth nonetheless.
As I keep saying, you PBTories have no right to give out lectures on "fantasy economics" if you seriously think lowering tax rates results in increased tax revenues.
To the average member of the public, that argument would seem just as nonsensical and counter-intuitive as the argument that increasing public spending results in lower budget deficits.
Erm, you should take a look at the laffer curve.
And corp tax receipts from 2010-now....
Have you looked at how the US's tax revenues increased by more than the UK's over that same timeframe, during a time when the Obama administration increased taxes on high earners and big businesses?
I think at this point it's probably safe to assume pretty much any public building with cladding will be combustible...
You also have to wonder what tests are being applied. Unless EVERY authority deliberately fitted sub-standard panels you would expect at least one panel somewhere to meet the required standard and pass the tests.
The Building Regs state that the exterior of a building should inhibit fire / be fireproof. This doesn't mean that every component of the exterior should be fireproof, merely that as a whole it should be. In theory, you could have multiple parts of the exterior being flammable and as long as there were parts that kept it from spreading, still be compliant.
I see Jezza is still pushing the government are murderers because cuts caused Grenfell. I know he is a bit thick, but he knows this is untrue. It is pretty damn disgraceful to be pushing "fake news" like this over such a tragedy.
Were you similarly outraged when the Tories tried to blame Labour for the tragedy in Mid-Staffs hospitals?
Did they say it was cuts that caused it? And a lot of the anger was over the cover up and denials. Despite the best attempts of the conspiracy loons, it doesn't appear that the government here have done anything but gone out of their way to keep the public informed that there is clearly a very wide issue here.
We don't know the exact reasons why in this case, but it seems there is issue with building regs, not cuts.
Erm, at one time you could hardly move on PB for people blaming Andy "Butcher" Burnham for being personally culpable for the Mid-Staffs deaths.
I agree that there's no evidence at this point to suggest cuts were responsible for Grenfell, and don't like Labour trying to make that argument, but it would be nice if people showed consistency on their "don't make political capital out of tragedies" high horses.
I think at this point it's probably safe to assume pretty much any public building with cladding will be combustible...
You also have to wonder what tests are being applied. Unless EVERY authority deliberately fitted sub-standard panels you would expect at least one panel somewhere to meet the required standard and pass the tests.
The Building Regs state that the exterior of a building should inhibit fire / be fireproof. This doesn't mean that every component of the exterior should be fireproof, merely that as a whole it should be. In theory, you could have multiple parts of the exterior being flammable and as long as there were parts that kept it from spreading, still be compliant.
Radical right policies on criminal justice are very popular.
For example, this morning's NatSocCen survey shows very big majorities in favour of random stop and search, and indefinite detention without trial of terrorist suspects.
Up to a point!
The social attitudes survey also shows social conservatismin long term decline, for example attitudes to abortion and homosexuality are now nearly identical in self identified Christians and the general population.
There is a very good chance that the retired Talibanites of Brexit will be washed away within another generation, by a generation much more happy with the modern world:
Even Patel now takes a relatively tolerant approach to homosexuality and abortion (though on abortion the voters still generally do not want the time limit reduced), where she is tough is on law and order, national security and immigration, which is exactly where the average British voter wants a tougher line too
But is she not also a Thatcherite? The same survey showed the public are tired of austerity and want a bigger state.
The party that can combine social liberalism, high public spending, and being tough on law and order, will be well placed. Most left wing parties are seen as soft on point 3, centre right parties as weak on point 2, and radical right parties weak on point 1.
After 5 years of socialism under Corbyn voters would have solved the austerity problem so could then move onto 5 years of hanging and flogging under Patel
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
When Osborne became Chancellor, in contrast, he inherited the largest deficit of any major economy, an absolutely humoungous over-spend:
....and he then proceeded to spray the rich and big businesses with tax cuts, even while cutting services for normal people.
He then proceeded to increase the tax take from the rich and from business taxes very substantially, amazingly without increasing unemployment. An inconvenient truth for the Left, of course, but a truth nonetheless.
As I keep saying, you PBTories have no right to give out lectures on "fantasy economics" if you seriously think lowering tax rates results in increased tax revenues.
To the average member of the public, that argument would seem just as nonsensical and counter-intuitive as the argument that increasing public spending results in lower budget deficits.
Erm, you should take a look at the laffer curve.
And corp tax receipts from 2010-now....
I think you need to be cautious about linking corporate receipts to rate cuts. Correlation is not causation. Higher company profitability (particularly in financial services), the exhaustion of allowances linked to losses in the crash, the diverted profits tax (aka Google Tax), and (worryingly) low investment have all played a big role.
I do accept that higher tax rates almost inevitably fail to raise as much as hoped, and lower rates tend to cost less than feared. And I agree the Labour plans were crazily optimistic in terms of what they'd raise. But it seems likely that higher corporate tax receipts are despite rather than because of lower rates given the sort of levels we're talking about.
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
There is no getting away from it now. The TV debate is seen by public as major part of the campaign. No leader will dare miss the main debate again after what has happened to May.
She was frit and the public saw her for what she was.
Yes, it was a very poor campaign by the Tories, but sometimes there's a mood around in the country for a change - no matter what.
[snip]
Which there wasn't. The Tories massacred Labour in the local elections five weeks before the General. When there's a mood for change, you get the kind of local elections that we had in 1994-6 or 2008-9.
The NEV based on the local elections implied a Tory lead of 11% and a majority of 45 - 60 - a comfortable win but well short of what the pollsters were then suggesting.
Strong performance from May, she seems to have rebounded a bit recently. Helps that the backbenchers are behind her at the moment, sure they have knives held behind their back but they seem to be behind her right now.
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
There is no getting away from it now. The TV debate is seen by public as major part of the campaign. No leader will dare miss the main debate again after what has happened to May.
She was frit and the public saw her for what she was.
Camero only agreed to a single debate in 2015 and that did him little harm.
Strong performance from May, she seems to have rebounded a bit recently. Helps that the backbenchers are behind her at the moment, sure they have knives held behind their back but they seem to be behind her right now.
She was very confident today and demonstrated that at present there is no viable successor
There is no getting away from it now. The TV debate is seen by public as major part of the campaign. No leader will dare miss the main debate again after what has happened to May.
She was frit and the public saw her for what she was.
The format needs to be different, though. It is simply not acceptable to have half a dozen opposition leaders ganging up to score cheap hits on the government leader: every topic becomes an opportunity to bash the government, without alternatives being scrutinised, and the government side is put completely on the defensive
It would be much fairer to have a debate between just the PM and LOTO, especially now that we seem to be closer to a two-party system. One of Theresa May's big mistakes was not to accept Corbyn's challenge to debate 'any time, anywhere' with her: she could I think have got a one-on-one debate out of that challenge. (Of course, this wouldn't have helped if she'd then screwed it up!)
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
The broadcasters in 2017 are no more bound by events decades ago than Cameron and Brown were in 2010 in agreeing to debate and including Nick Clegg.
If Mrs May decides not to debate then she doesn't get a veto on who may debate.
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
There is no getting away from it now. The TV debate is seen by public as major part of the campaign. No leader will dare miss the main debate again after what has happened to May.
She was frit and the public saw her for what she was.
Camero only agreed to a single debate in 2015 and that did him little harm.
Who knows - perhaps he would have won a greater majority if he had turned up. He was a good debater, better than Ed, so it was always strange that he kept trying to duck them.
I think at this point it's probably safe to assume pretty much any public building with cladding will be combustible...
You also have to wonder what tests are being applied. Unless EVERY authority deliberately fitted sub-standard panels you would expect at least one panel somewhere to meet the required standard and pass the tests.
The Building Regs state that the exterior of a building should inhibit fire / be fireproof. This doesn't mean that every component of the exterior should be fireproof, merely that as a whole it should be. In theory, you could have multiple parts of the exterior being flammable and as long as there were parts that kept it from spreading, still be compliant.
Which Napier are claiming about their student accommodation. Fire retardant panels behind the cladding.
There is no getting away from it now. The TV debate is seen by public as major part of the campaign. No leader will dare miss the main debate again after what has happened to May.
She was frit and the public saw her for what she was.
The format needs to be different, though. It is simply not acceptable to have half a dozen opposition leaders ganging up to score cheap hits on the government leader: every topic becomes an opportunity to bash the government, without alternatives being scrutinised, and the government side is put completely on the defensive
It would be much fairer to have a debate between just the PM and LOTO, especially now that we seem to be closer to a two-party system. One of Theresa May's big mistakes was not to accept Corbyn's challenge to debate 'any time, anywhere' with her: she could I think have got a one-on-one debate out of that challenge. (Of course, this wouldn't have helped if she'd then screwed it up!)
The return of two party politics surely means the end for the seven way debates.
There are almost certainly going to be format wars for debates at the next election. UKIP can't justify their place. Without UKIP, can the Greens? What about the Lib Dems? That then reopens the question of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
My memory of this is that the problem with Ming wasn't that he was too old, it was that he wasn't very good.
The LDs won the Dunfermline by election under Ming and almost won the Bromley and Chislehurst by election and unlike Clegg he would probably not have done a coalition deal with Cameron which cost them over 75% of their seats
Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
Gordon Brown, by doing the debate. Once one PM had done it, that completely changed the situation. Then Cameron agreed to do one too, after which it was an unbreakable constitutional tradition.
There are almost certainly going to be format wars for debates at the next election. UKIP can't justify their place. Without UKIP, can the Greens? What about the Lib Dems? That then reopens the question of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
It's going to be a lot messier next time.
It should be 1 x PM v LOTO - 2 x COE v Shadow - 3 minor parties
There are almost certainly going to be format wars for debates at the next election. UKIP can't justify their place. Without UKIP, can the Greens? What about the Lib Dems? That then reopens the question of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
It's going to be a lot messier next time.
They should nail down some proper, fixed criteria, I think.
Personally, I think you should have cut-offs of people getting either 10% of the vote in the last election, OR averaging 10% in the polls in the run-up to the latest election. On that basis, only the Tories and Labour would qualify for the next debates right now, unless another party has a surge before the next election.
There's also a point of airtime. It's drunken madness to give equal time in a debate to the Greens, SNP and Lib Dems as the two party leader who could credibly become PM.
If debates must be had (and I'm glad, at least, that the worm has gone) they should be either minor or major parties. Mingling the two is stupid.
Of course, the real electoral test is being grilled by Yorkshiremen in a QT special.
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
There is no getting away from it now. The TV debate is seen by public as major part of the campaign. No leader will dare miss the main debate again after what has happened to May.
She was frit and the public saw her for what she was.
Camero only agreed to a single debate in 2015 and that did him little harm.
He also did the audience question and answer thing and was quite impressive. Miliband nearly fell of the stage iirc.
There are almost certainly going to be format wars for debates at the next election. UKIP can't justify their place. Without UKIP, can the Greens? What about the Lib Dems? That then reopens the question of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
It's going to be a lot messier next time.
They should nail down some proper, fixed criteria, I think.
Personally, I think you should have cut-offs of people getting either 10% of the vote in the last election, OR averaging 10% in the polls in the run-up to the latest election. On that basis, only the Tories and Labour would qualify for the next debates right now, unless another party has a surge before the next election.
Who is this "they" you speak of?
This messiness will almost certainly suit at least one interested party at the time of the next general election.
Guardian PMQ summary (yes it's the Guardian, but the blog is often critical of both sides):
That was one of the most sold and impressive PMQs we’ve seen for quite some time. Corbyn hit exactly the right note, and May inadvertently gave him an opening for a very powerful final answer (when he said he could help May as to why building regulations were not being complied with). He had the edge over May quite easily, but she looked more robust than you might have expected in the light of the last three weeks and she made the case that political responsibility for Grenfell Tower was long-term, and complicated, quite effectively. But these weren’t arguments that damaged Corbyn. She was criticising decisions taken by Tony Blair and the last Labour government. Corbyn, of course, is about the last person who can be held responsible for anything that happened under the Blair regime.
When Osborne became Chancellor, in contrast, he inherited the largest deficit of any major economy, an absolutely humoungous over-spend:
....and he then proceeded to spray the rich and big businesses with tax cuts, even while cutting services for normal people.
He then proceeded to increase the tax take from the rich and from business taxes very substantially, amazingly without increasing unemployment. An inconvenient truth for the Left, of course, but a truth nonetheless.
Not only inconvenient, but far too nuanced for them.
There are almost certainly going to be format wars for debates at the next election. UKIP can't justify their place. Without UKIP, can the Greens? What about the Lib Dems? That then reopens the question of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
It's going to be a lot messier next time.
I think so too. UKIP and Green will find it hard to justify a representative, which should benefit the LDs, who can justify a place.
That said, in both 2015 and 2017 it was the single leader vs audiennce format that was the most fruitfal.
I think at this point it's probably safe to assume pretty much any public building with cladding will be combustible...
You also have to wonder what tests are being applied. Unless EVERY authority deliberately fitted sub-standard panels you would expect at least one panel somewhere to meet the required standard and pass the tests.
The Building Regs state that the exterior of a building should inhibit fire / be fireproof. This doesn't mean that every component of the exterior should be fireproof, merely that as a whole it should be. In theory, you could have multiple parts of the exterior being flammable and as long as there were parts that kept it from spreading, still be compliant.
Which Napier are claiming about their student accommodation. Fire retardant panels behind the cladding.
Yes, and I imagine most of the blocks that have failed cladding in England would have claimed that their building exteriors were fire resistant. Given the variations in building styles, this may well be the case but as Grenfell showed, determining in advance whether your building is fire resistant is not an easy task.
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
There is no getting away from it now. The TV debate is seen by public as major part of the campaign. No leader will dare miss the main debate again after what has happened to May.
She was frit and the public saw her for what she was.
Camero only agreed to a single debate in 2015 and that did him little harm.
Who knows - perhaps he would have won a greater majority if he had turned up. He was a good debater, better than Ed, so it was always strange that he kept trying to duck them.
I've read somewhere that they weren't trying to duck them all, per se, it was more about getting the right debates for that they wanted i.e. him vs Miliband alone.
There are almost certainly going to be format wars for debates at the next election. UKIP can't justify their place. Without UKIP, can the Greens? What about the Lib Dems? That then reopens the question of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
It's going to be a lot messier next time.
I think so too. UKIP and Green will find it hard to justify a representative, which should benefit the LDs, who can justify a place.
That said, in both 2015 and 2017 it was the single leader vs audiennce format that was the most fruitfal.
I think it works exactly the other way round for the Lib Dems. They've kept their involvement in debates because in a multiparty format they're unexcludable. When those numbers are winnowed down, why would you include the Lib Dems and not the DUP?
I think at this point it's probably safe to assume pretty much any public building with cladding will be combustible...
You also have to wonder what tests are being applied. Unless EVERY authority deliberately fitted sub-standard panels you would expect at least one panel somewhere to meet the required standard and pass the tests.
The Building Regs state that the exterior of a building should inhibit fire / be fireproof. This doesn't mean that every component of the exterior should be fireproof, merely that as a whole it should be. In theory, you could have multiple parts of the exterior being flammable and as long as there were parts that kept it from spreading, still be compliant.
Bloke on the radio last night said that the outside of a building does not form part of the fire inspection. Might have misheard.
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
There is no getting away from it now. The TV debate is seen by public as major part of the campaign. No leader will dare miss the main debate again after what has happened to May.
She was frit and the public saw her for what she was.
Camero only agreed to a single debate in 2015 and that did him little harm.
He also did the audience question and answer thing and was quite impressive. Miliband nearly fell of the stage iirc.
I think they did two of those, the seven way and also the 'losers' one - where I think the Tories came out as looking vaguely sane simply by giving it a swerve.
My memory of this is that the problem with Ming wasn't that he was too old, it was that he wasn't very good.
The LDs won the Dunfermline by election under Ming and almost won the Bromley and Chislehurst by election and unlike Clegg he would probably not have done a coalition deal with Cameron which cost them over 75% of their seats
Not quite true I recall - the Dunfermline by-election was during the leadership contest, there was a really awkward photo shoot the day after with the new MP (Willie Rennie) and all the leadership candidates having to look like happy best mates as they couldn't do the traditional leader visit.
I'd agree that Ming wouldn't have initiated the coalition had he been leader in 2010 but I think he'd have lost a lot of seats. He had no leadership spark in my view, much easier to talk about it in terms of age but I think he'd have made a poor leader whenever. Superb elder statesman and Foreign expert but just not cut out as a front man.
I think at this point it's probably safe to assume pretty much any public building with cladding will be combustible...
You also have to wonder what tests are being applied. Unless EVERY authority deliberately fitted sub-standard panels you would expect at least one panel somewhere to meet the required standard and pass the tests.
The Building Regs state that the exterior of a building should inhibit fire / be fireproof. This doesn't mean that every component of the exterior should be fireproof, merely that as a whole it should be. In theory, you could have multiple parts of the exterior being flammable and as long as there were parts that kept it from spreading, still be compliant.
Bloke on the radio last night said that the outside of a building does not form part of the fire inspection. Might have misheard.
A fire inspection won't be the same as Building Regs compliance. A look around the building won't give someone any idea about the fire performance of a building exterior.
What should be attracting more attention but isn't is the lack of fire doors in that Camden block that had to be evacuated. That is an easy issue to spot and should have been prior to Grenfell.
There are almost certainly going to be format wars for debates at the next election. UKIP can't justify their place. Without UKIP, can the Greens? What about the Lib Dems? That then reopens the question of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
It's going to be a lot messier next time.
It's messy every time. It was messy in 2015, when Cameron insisted on having the Greens in, in the hope of them drawing support from Miliband. There was no particularly good reason for a party with 1 MP, which consistently lost deposits across the country and which didn't stand in a sizable number of constituencies to be there but they got their place. As soon as they did, it became inevitable that UKIP and the SNP would have to be there, either on the basis of the number of MPs likely to be returned or the amount of support in the country - and once the SNP was there, Plaid was almost certain to be in.
If it were down to me, I'd have three GB leaders debates, based on 5/10/20 criteria i.e. you get in if (1) you are likely to return at least n% of the MPs in the new parliament, or (2) take at least n% of the vote, where n is successively 5, 10 and 20. Assessments of what is 'likely' to be based on recent polling for vote share, and on expert analysis applying that recent polling to seat calculation models for number of MPs. Details can be argued but the principle is simple enough.
If broadcasters want to run secondary debates, either regional or for portfolio holders, the same principles could be adapted and applied.
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
There is no getting away from it now. The TV debate is seen by public as major part of the campaign. No leader will dare miss the main debate again after what has happened to May.
She was frit and the public saw her for what she was.
Camero only agreed to a single debate in 2015 and that did him little harm.
He also did the audience question and answer thing and was quite impressive. Miliband nearly fell of the stage iirc.
I think they did two of those, the seven way and also the 'losers' one - where I think the Tories came out as looking vaguely sane simply by giving it a swerve.
Yes. I remember thinking Clegg was head and shoulders the best performer in the seven leader debate and being astonished when he got about 3 percent in the poll afterwards. Shows how entrenched peoples views are before they watch I suppose..or that I'm a crap judge.
My memory of this is that the problem with Ming wasn't that he was too old, it was that he wasn't very good.
The LDs won the Dunfermline by election under Ming and almost won the Bromley and Chislehurst by election and unlike Clegg he would probably not have done a coalition deal with Cameron which cost them over 75% of their seats
Not quite true I recall - the Dunfermline by-election was during the leadership contest, there was a really awkward photo shoot the day after with the new MP (Willie Rennie) and all the leadership candidates having to look like happy best mates as they couldn't do the traditional leader visit.
I'd agree that Ming wouldn't have initiated the coalition had he been leader in 2010 but I think he'd have lost a lot of seats. He had no leadership spark in my view, much easier to talk about it in terms of age but I think he'd have made a poor leader whenever. Superb elder statesman and Foreign expert but just not cut out as a front man.
The problem with Ming wasn't that he was old per se but that he came across as being much much older than he actually was.
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
The broadcasters in 2017 are no more bound by events decades ago than Cameron and Brown were in 2010 in agreeing to debate and including Nick Clegg.
If Mrs May decides not to debate then she doesn't get a veto on who may debate.
But it still raises the question as to why the Broadcasters failed to stage a debate for the willing participants in earlier elections.
There are almost certainly going to be format wars for debates at the next election. UKIP can't justify their place. Without UKIP, can the Greens? What about the Lib Dems? That then reopens the question of the SNP and Plaid Cymru.
It's going to be a lot messier next time.
I think so too. UKIP and Green will find it hard to justify a representative, which should benefit the LDs, who can justify a place.
That said, in both 2015 and 2017 it was the single leader vs audiennce format that was the most fruitfal.
I think it works exactly the other way round for the Lib Dems. They've kept their involvement in debates because in a multiparty format they're unexcludable. When those numbers are winnowed down, why would you include the Lib Dems and not the DUP?
Because the DUP aren't running in 90% of the audience's seats, and are included in NI election shows.
Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
Gordon Brown, by doing the debate. Once one PM had done it, that completely changed the situation. Then Cameron agreed to do one too, after which it was an unbreakable constitutional tradition.
Well it has now been broken - even if not to Theresa May's advantage! She has provided a useful precedent for any future party leader to rely on should they wish to avoid them.
I can understand if Ming feels a bit put out by the fact that a 74 year old is taking over as LD leader. Personally, I've always felt that the attacks on Ming Campbell's age only gained currency because he hedged practically every statement he made while leader, which made him sound doddery. Vince Cable is a lot punchier as a communicator which should hopefully help him shrug off the age issue in the same way Corbyn has managed.
Maybe the Tories should replace May with Ken Clarke... At 76 he seems the perfect age to be a party leader in the current environment. Theresa May seems a bit young and inexperienced compared to her opposite numbers.
May needs to act fast now that she is open to the charge of abandoning austerity.
More money for the NHS and education also, and a proper fiscal stimulus programme together with an acknowledgement that our decision to leave the EU means we need to fund growth centrally to get us over the hump, while our monetary sovereignty, issuing debt in our own currency, will, at historic low interest rates, protect us from the worst of the problems that have affected other free-spending and borrowing nations.
(Note: of course we always were monetarily sovereign...but you all knew that.)
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
The broadcasters in 2017 are no more bound by events decades ago than Cameron and Brown were in 2010 in agreeing to debate and including Nick Clegg.
If Mrs May decides not to debate then she doesn't get a veto on who may debate.
But it still raises the question as to why the Broadcasters failed to stage a debate for the willing participants in earlier elections.
The answer is the greater deference that broadcasters used to have toward the larger parties and Prime Ministers and their unwillingness to poke the bear and provide a platform to chip away at the two party system. Over the decades that forelock tugging diminished significantly, the more so with 24 news channels and the boom in social media.
It's not the fact of being taunted about some attribute that's the problem. It's failing to deal with it properly.
For example, both Shirley Williams and Tim Farron got stick for having fairly strong religious beliefs which could be deemed inconsistent with liberal principles. Williams was adept at handling it in interviews, whereas Farron wasn't.
Likewise, on age, Campbell was rather pompous and dealt with it poorly. Ronald Reagan, to take one good example, swatted it away (the classic debate line was something like "Age shouldn't be an issue in this election... so I promise not to use my opponent's youth and inexperience against him".
A few days ago I found myself in the unusual position of defending Theresa May's decision not to participate in the election debates . I took the view that she had as much right to decline as did Alec Douglas - Home - Harold Wilson - Margaret Thatcher - John Major - and Tony Blair. I was particularly critical of the Broadcasters' response to her refusal. When Thatcher said 'No ' to a debate with Callaghan in 1979 the BBC and ITV did not respond by arranging a debate featuring Jim Callaghan - David Steel - and the leaders of the SNP & Plaid Cymru.Nor did they seek to do so in 1983 , 1987 , 1992 and 1997. They could reasonably be accused of being inconsistent on this. Who decreed that a major party leader no longer has a veto on this?
The broadcasters in 2017 are no more bound by events decades ago than Cameron and Brown were in 2010 in agreeing to debate and including Nick Clegg.
If Mrs May decides not to debate then she doesn't get a veto on who may debate.
But it still raises the question as to why the Broadcasters failed to stage a debate for the willing participants in earlier elections.
The answer is the greater deference that broadcasters used to have toward the larger parties and Prime Ministers and their unwillingness to poke the bear and provide a platform to chip away at the two party system. Over the decades that forelock tugging diminished significantly, the more so with 24 news channels and the boom in social media.
But that deference had surely gone by the 92 and 97 campaigns - indeed the Alliance challenge had pretty well undermined it by 1983.
Just had a look at the in work tax system for 85+ % of PAYE employees in the UK.
"Highlights" include the 45.8% marginal rate for 11,500+ earners, and the 65.8% band for people between 100 and 123k. The basic/higher rate cutoff is actually only a 10% (45.8 -> 55.8) rather than a 20% (20 -> 40) hike in reality.
My memory of this is that the problem with Ming wasn't that he was too old, it was that he wasn't very good.
The LDs won the Dunfermline by election under Ming and almost won the Bromley and Chislehurst by election and unlike Clegg he would probably not have done a coalition deal with Cameron which cost them over 75% of their seats
Not quite true I recall - the Dunfermline by-election was during the leadership contest, there was a really awkward photo shoot the day after with the new MP (Willie Rennie) and all the leadership candidates having to look like happy best mates as they couldn't do the traditional leader visit.
Ming was technically the acting leader at the time of the Dunfermline byelection.
If you do credit that one to Ming, then Clegg is the only LibDem leader not to have made a byelection gain since the 1950s.
My memory of this is that the problem with Ming wasn't that he was too old, it was that he wasn't very good.
Both arguments may be used against Cable....
Dunno, rightly or wrongly the voters seem to react well to him, at least for a LibDem. He also has better timing: There's a niche for seriousness and experience now in a way that there wasn't back them, when the PM was serious, experienced and charismatic, and the opposition was looking fresh and moderate.
My memory of this is that the problem with Ming wasn't that he was too old, it was that he wasn't very good.
The LDs won the Dunfermline by election under Ming and almost won the Bromley and Chislehurst by election and unlike Clegg he would probably not have done a coalition deal with Cameron which cost them over 75% of their seats
Not quite true I recall - the Dunfermline by-election was during the leadership contest, there was a really awkward photo shoot the day after with the new MP (Willie Rennie) and all the leadership candidates having to look like happy best mates as they couldn't do the traditional leader visit.
I'd agree that Ming wouldn't have initiated the coalition had he been leader in 2010 but I think he'd have lost a lot of seats. He had no leadership spark in my view, much easier to talk about it in terms of age but I think he'd have made a poor leader whenever. Superb elder statesman and Foreign expert but just not cut out as a front man.
The problem with Ming wasn't that he was old per se but that he came across as being much much older than he actually was.
I was about to say the same thing. He looked/sounded like an old man.
May needs to act fast now that she is open to the charge of abandoning austerity.
More money for the NHS and education also, and a proper fiscal stimulus programme together with an acknowledgement that our decision to leave the EU means we need to fund growth centrally to get us over the hump, while our monetary sovereignty, issuing debt in our own currency, will, at historic low interest rates, protect us from the worst of the problems that have affected other free-spending and borrowing nations.
(Note: of course we always were monetarily sovereign...but you all knew that.)
There is a case for Hammond nicking the LibDems poicy of a penny on Income Tax for the NHS.
- the Tories already went through the pain of refusing to pledge not to raise Income Tax in the election camapign. They may as well use that to polular effect.
- adopting a LibDem policy might make it easier to get the LibDems onside with not voting down legislation this Parliament if the DUP get too greedy.
- knowing the LibDems might step in to replace them might stop the DUP getting too greedy.
- Labour can hardly object - although it makes their own manifesto pledge not to raise tax for the many more difficult to justify if the move proved popular.
Comments
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-40406057
Of course, the other caveat is that perhaps the panels met the required standards at the time of fitting. Standards do change over time.
May pointed out the cladding program started under Blair
http://www.scottishhousingnews.com/16084/edinburgh-student-halls-clad-in-grenfell-tower-material/
They are genuine issues here, but he redevelopment of those flats was not done on the cheap, and we know that the panels specs that were on all the plans were not the ones fitted.
To the average member of the public, that argument would seem just as nonsensical and counter-intuitive as the argument that increasing public spending results in lower budget deficits.
The party that can combine social liberalism, high public spending, and being tough on law and order, will be well placed. Most left wing parties are seen as soft on point 3, centre right parties as weak on point 2, and radical right parties weak on point 1.
Corbyn supports it in public, and not in private. He says one thing to the many, and another thing to the few...
I think that she is less likely to be chosen by the Tories as a leader because of her views on the death penalty. Also you saw how Hislop demolished her in that clip?
And corp tax receipts from 2010-now....
We don't know the exact reasons why in this case, but it seems there is big issue with building regs in regards to these panels, not cuts.
I agree that there's no evidence at this point to suggest cuts were responsible for Grenfell, and don't like Labour trying to make that argument, but it would be nice if people showed consistency on their "don't make political capital out of tragedies" high horses.
I do accept that higher tax rates almost inevitably fail to raise as much as hoped, and lower rates tend to cost less than feared. And I agree the Labour plans were crazily optimistic in terms of what they'd raise. But it seems likely that higher corporate tax receipts are despite rather than because of lower rates given the sort of levels we're talking about.
She was frit and the public saw her for what she was.
It would be much fairer to have a debate between just the PM and LOTO, especially now that we seem to be closer to a two-party system. One of Theresa May's big mistakes was not to accept Corbyn's challenge to debate 'any time, anywhere' with her: she could I think have got a one-on-one debate out of that challenge. (Of course, this wouldn't have helped if she'd then screwed it up!)
If Mrs May decides not to debate then she doesn't get a veto on who may debate.
It's going to be a lot messier next time.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/gallery/2007/oct/16/1#img-3
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/gallery/2007/oct/16/1#img-5
Personally, I think you should have cut-offs of people getting either 10% of the vote in the last election, OR averaging 10% in the polls in the run-up to the latest election. On that basis, only the Tories and Labour would qualify for the next debates right now, unless another party has a surge before the next election.
There's also a point of airtime. It's drunken madness to give equal time in a debate to the Greens, SNP and Lib Dems as the two party leader who could credibly become PM.
If debates must be had (and I'm glad, at least, that the worm has gone) they should be either minor or major parties. Mingling the two is stupid.
Of course, the real electoral test is being grilled by Yorkshiremen in a QT special.
Anyway, must be off.
This messiness will almost certainly suit at least one interested party at the time of the next general election.
That was one of the most sold and impressive PMQs we’ve seen for quite some time. Corbyn hit exactly the right note, and May inadvertently gave him an opening for a very powerful final answer (when he said he could help May as to why building regulations were not being complied with). He had the edge over May quite easily, but she looked more robust than you might have expected in the light of the last three weeks and she made the case that political responsibility for Grenfell Tower was long-term, and complicated, quite effectively. But these weren’t arguments that damaged Corbyn. She was criticising decisions taken by Tony Blair and the last Labour government. Corbyn, of course, is about the last person who can be held responsible for anything that happened under the Blair regime.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jun/28/pmqs-may-corbyn-queens-speech-oliver-letwin-tory-and-cameron-policy-guru-says-taxes-should-go-up-to-fund-better-public-services-politics-live
That said, in both 2015 and 2017 it was the single leader vs audiennce format that was the most fruitfal.
I'll try to remember the book/article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40432946
I'd agree that Ming wouldn't have initiated the coalition had he been leader in 2010 but I think he'd have lost a lot of seats. He had no leadership spark in my view, much easier to talk about it in terms of age but I think he'd have made a poor leader whenever. Superb elder statesman and Foreign expert but just not cut out as a front man.
A fire inspection won't be the same as Building Regs compliance. A look around the building won't give someone any idea about the fire performance of a building exterior.
What should be attracting more attention but isn't is the lack of fire doors in that Camden block that had to be evacuated. That is an easy issue to spot and should have been prior to Grenfell.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40418266
Austerity 2010-2017. No flowers, by request.
If it were down to me, I'd have three GB leaders debates, based on 5/10/20 criteria i.e. you get in if (1) you are likely to return at least n% of the MPs in the new parliament, or (2) take at least n% of the vote, where n is successively 5, 10 and 20. Assessments of what is 'likely' to be based on recent polling for vote share, and on expert analysis applying that recent polling to seat calculation models for number of MPs. Details can be argued but the principle is simple enough.
If broadcasters want to run secondary debates, either regional or for portfolio holders, the same principles could be adapted and applied.
Shows how entrenched peoples views are before they watch I suppose..or that I'm a crap judge.
https://twitter.com/bbckamal/status/879640492664926208
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/grenfell-tower-tory-austerity-class-war-outsourcing-inequality-kensington-corbyn-may-mausoleum-a7805666.html
Maybe the Tories should replace May with Ken Clarke... At 76 he seems the perfect age to be a party leader in the current environment. Theresa May seems a bit young and inexperienced compared to her opposite numbers.
More money for the NHS and education also, and a proper fiscal stimulus programme together with an acknowledgement that our decision to leave the EU means we need to fund growth centrally to get us over the hump, while our monetary sovereignty, issuing debt in our own currency, will, at historic low interest rates, protect us from the worst of the problems that have affected other free-spending and borrowing nations.
(Note: of course we always were monetarily sovereign...but you all knew that.)
For example, both Shirley Williams and Tim Farron got stick for having fairly strong religious beliefs which could be deemed inconsistent with liberal principles. Williams was adept at handling it in interviews, whereas Farron wasn't.
Likewise, on age, Campbell was rather pompous and dealt with it poorly. Ronald Reagan, to take one good example, swatted it away (the classic debate line was something like "Age shouldn't be an issue in this election... so I promise not to use my opponent's youth and inexperience against him".
"Highlights" include the 45.8% marginal rate for 11,500+ earners, and the 65.8% band for people between 100 and 123k.
The basic/higher rate cutoff is actually only a 10% (45.8 -> 55.8) rather than a 20% (20 -> 40) hike in reality.
If you do credit that one to Ming, then Clegg is the only LibDem leader not to have made a byelection gain since the 1950s.
Also Corbyn in 4/5 years time might be the same.
- the Tories already went through the pain of refusing to pledge not to raise Income Tax in the election camapign. They may as well use that to polular effect.
- adopting a LibDem policy might make it easier to get the LibDems onside with not voting down legislation this Parliament if the DUP get too greedy.
- knowing the LibDems might step in to replace them might stop the DUP getting too greedy.
- Labour can hardly object - although it makes their own manifesto pledge not to raise tax for the many more difficult to justify if the move proved popular.
- May can say the NHS is safe in Tory hands.